I really wonder sometimes about our space program . . . .

The Russians launched three Soyuz this month, one from each of their pads in Guiana, Plesetsk and good ole' Baikonur, the last two in what appear to be blinding snowstorms. They tested Angara and looks like they'll get a Proton off in the next couple of days. They launched a Strela (SS-19) with a spy sat before Christmas. That's six launches this month.

I admit I'm a fan of Russian rocketry, but I'd be just as happy to see a Falcon9, a Delta or even an Atlas (although that might be considered Russian rocketry as well). Perhaps it's naïve to consider number of launches as an indicator of a healthy space program but number of launches would seem to indicate at least a thriving space program with some minimal dedication from the Russian leadership (Vlad and his buddies) . So what if the rockets date to the Fifties and Sixties, its like the sticker on my neighbor's truck, "Don't Laugh, it's Paid For."

This isn't the usual "we shoulda kept building Saturn 1b's" post, but we really need to reconsider how we fund aerospace in this country. I think we're getting ripped off.

Just my morning rant. Carry on.

__________________
NAR 79743
NARTrek Silver
I miss being SAM 062

Awaiting First Launch: Too numerous to count
Finishing: Zooch Saturn V; Alway/Nau BioArcas; Estes Expedition; TLP Standard
Repair/Rescue: Cherokee-D (2); Centuri Nike-Smoke; MX-774
On the Bench: 2650;
Dream Stage: 1/39.37 R-7

Quite true... all of it.

It's basically a difference in philosophy. The Russians have always had a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude, sometimes out of necessity sometimes from practicality, but it works.

I remember reading an article back when I was in high school about the then soon-to-be-launched Energia rocket... and commenting that in the year that article was written, the Soviets had launched about 53 rockets of all types and sizes (both cargo and crew rockets) while the US had just managed a handful of shuttle launches a few cargo rockets.

If the Russians had the kind of money our space program has, it'd be AMAZING what they could do... which makes it all the more pitiful that our space program has basically declined to the point it's a jobs program for distributing political pork and peddling political influence more than about achieving actual results...

Oh well... it is what it is...

Later! OL JR

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

We did something similar with our Thor/Delta, Delta, Delta II program. The rocket was gradually improved via uprating, extending, strapping on, replacing, new stages, etc. It was a very reliable platform with over 300 launches and 95% success rate. Delta III sucked, so I'm not counting it's 3 launches.

Remember, the Soyuz is similar, but isn't the exact same rocket as the original R-7 Sputnik booster. They've performed similar gradual improvements as our Delta.

Just think if we kept that Delta / Russian idea going with our two beloved Saturns!

__________________
I love sanding.

I'm a BIG proponent of "If it ain't busted, DON'T fix it" which is rare for an engineer.
It often gets me strange looks at my job when I inevitably ask the question "WHY are we doing this ?" when it comes to new electrical architecture design for automobiles. The answer more often than not is "because we CAN" which I find to be just plain stupid.

If you have something that works, stick with it unless you NEED to upgrade capabilities.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, TURMOIL, FIASCOS, and HAVOC !

I wish you had gotten your way on my new truck. Some of the "features" of the electronics drive me nucking futz.

__________________
I love sanding.

This is one place where we agree wholeheartedly....but spending 35+ years at Boeing, with the majority of them associated with the 737 program in many of its incarnations where this is pretty much the prime directive, has something to do with it.

__________________
Bernard Cawley
NAR 89040 L1 - Life Member
SAM 0061
AMA 42160
KG7AIE

Actually, it's the marketing weenies that always want something "new." Most good engineers will only go with something new when it demonstrates more value than the existing product. In the nuclear power world, we've only gone to digital control systems in the last 10-15 years, while the fossil world has had them for over 20 years. The nuke plants we built in the 70's/80's/early 90's all had analog control systems.

Analog meters and switches are super cool. It's just a bonus that it sounds sooooo good. If anybody has an old Pioneer SX-1980 laying around, I'd be happy to "store" it for you.


http://www.cnet.com/news/how-can-30...-than-new-ones/
http://vintageelectronics.betamaxco...delsx-1980.html

__________________
I love sanding.

In addition, analog is much less affected by EMP, which is why a friend of mine back in the 70's believed that the Soviets still had them in their equipment instead of the commonly held belief that the Soviets where just that much behind us.

__________________
Bernard J. Herman Ohio RLS

Starport Sagitta Rockets
email bherman@sagittarockets.com

NAR # 97971 SR

What's your idea on the best way to change Washington D.C.?
Let us know at the Cantina
Sagitta Cantina

We're looking for a few good Catos, please tell us about any you may have had. Survey of Anecdotal Malfunctioning Engines or S.A.M.E.

Dennis R. Jenkins (the engineer who wrote the excellent Space Shuttle history books) once told me that the X-38 program manager had said that he didn't want to use any old technology in that lifting body "space lifeboat." I suggested that he tell the fellow that in that case, the X-38 couldn't have any screws, bolts, wheels, or even a control stick, since those were all very old technology (ancient, actually, being examples of most of the "simple machines"--the wheel, the lever, the inclined plane, and the pulley [screws and bolts being helical inclined planes]). He agreed mirthfully, but (which I understood) he had to be careful to not make enemies within his agency of employment... But this serves to show how NASA is caught up in "neophilia," using the newest technology wherever they can just because it's shiny and new, whether or not it's actually better than current technology.

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR