>IMHO, Wes Huntress has it correct in his testimony yesterday before John
>McCain's Senate committee. We made a big mistake in 1970 when we went down
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>capability will be developed first. Then the unmanned cargo capabilty will
>follow.
That's the error made in the development of the Shuttle. Without a
destination, which implies cargo capacity, the manned portion is left
without a mission. So what you propose is prestige over purpose.
You also propose tossing the capabilities of the Shuttle without
replacement, this may or may not be a mistake. Such a course should
be taken with careful thought, not knee-jerk nostalgia.
>We need to concentrate on protecting the astronauts during all
>phases of the flight the way we did in the Apollo era. The shuttle
>philosophy (save the vehicle and you save the crew)
It should be noted that almost every other form of transportation uses
the 'save the vehicle' philosopy with great sucess. Just because the
one implementation of that philosophy in space has flaws does not mean
the philosophy is flawed.
>has to be replaced by
>the design criteria we used for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (first and
>foremost, save the crew regardless of what happens to the vehicle). This
>means escape capsules, parachutes or paragliders, abort and land
>anywhere/anytime capabilty, and ruggidized heat shields (i.e. ablators
>instead of RSI tiles and RCC parts).
Forward into the past.
D.

Signature
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:
Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html
Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html
Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to om@io.com, as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.