A rich investor AND a long track record of innovative aircraft. --- Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote:
Joe's comments echo the sentiment in the editorial that the shuttle as a whole is too complex for reliable routine operation. Remember that it is a compromise design- Originally there were to be no throw-away components- and the booster was to be a manned, winged vehicle as well, landing back at Kennedy and quickly re-cycled for the next mission. Upgrades aside, it's still a 30-year-old design and all the shuttles have "high mileage" in the extreme.
This is what you get when you try keeping grandad's Willys on the road after the odometer's turned many, many times.
But I also liked the commentary on Rutan's exploits.
That he had done nothing new, comparing his "cute" little airplane and the heavy-lift, orbital shuttle was improper, and all his homework had been done by NASA and the Air Force. Oh, he's a smart engineer, to be sure, but what differentiates him from many others is just a rich investor.
C.
--- Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
They pointed out that the more they get inside various components and change things out at this point, the greater the chance that they will break something -- maybe some critical element whose damage won't show up until it's too late.
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs