From: christopher.m.jones@gmail.com   
      
   Cray74@gmail.com wrote:   
   > Paul F. Dietz wrote:   
   >   
   >>I repeat: if shortage of refining capacity for titanium in the US had   
   >>been the showstopper for an otherwise greatly superior material, that   
   >>capacity would have been added.  The laws of physics and chemistry   
   >> don't suddenly change at the US border.   
   >   
   > Your point is only applicable to an extreme situation and trivializes   
   > the effort involved. It's kind of like saying, "If the US needed to put   
   > 10,000 tons in orbit in a couple of years, the challenges are not   
   > insurmountable." Well, the engineering and physics do not present   
   > insurmountable problems, but there's more to launching a lot of payload   
   > suddenly (or refining titanium) than just physics.   
      
   I think Paul is reacting mainly to the notion that   
   Titanium production could have been characterized as   
   anything like a "shortage".  He has not made this   
   point particularly clearly, but he has made it, and   
   most everyone has been quilty of a lack of clarity   
   on occasion.  Titanium production and refining   
   capacity is highly fungible, even without adding new   
   refining capital equipment.  Rarely are production   
   facilities operated at 100% capacity in peace-time,   
   rarely are they operated above even 80%.  Keep in   
   mind that 100% capacity represents working all shifts   
   around the clock, working to the limit of the   
   equipment's duty cycles, and working to the limits of   
   the equipment's individual capacities.  This level of   
   production represents a substantial increase over   
   average production levels.  More so, new refining   
   capacity can be added if the market demands it.  Not   
   to mention importation, use of government or industry   
   titanium stocks (which are substantial), and recycling.   
   Titanium production has dipped and spiked substantially   
   over the years, it is an elastic market like any other.   
      
   Moreover, the subject under discussion is the use of   
   Titanium in the Shuttle.  Even at a tremendous   
   production rate of one Titanium Shuttle per year,   
   Shuttle production would use much less than 1% of   
   the Titanium production in the US, even during the   
   1970s.  The notion that a Titanium "shortage" is   
   seriously responsible for any element of Shuttle design   
   is just flat out ludicrous.  No one was considering   
   Shuttle production rates high enough to cause anything   
   more than a slight perturbation in Titanium production   
   or usage.  Indeed, the US government could have used   
   just a fraction of its large Titanium stocks to build   
   a fleet of a dozen Titanium Shuttles without much   
   concern.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)