guest@mcgill-vision.UUCP (Henry Cox) (11/22/88)
[ From the Montreal Gazette, 22 November, 1988 ] U.S., U.S.S.R. SHUTTLES A COSTLY ERROR: SOVIET New York (AP) - The former head of the Soviet space research agency says both the Soviet and U.S. space shuttle programs are costly mistakes that will yield few scientific benefits until the next century. "It went up. It came down. But it had absolutely no scientific value," was Roald Sagdeev's accessment of the 3 1/2 hour unmanned flight last Tuesday of the Soviet shuttle. Sagdeev said the inaugural launch of the Soviet shuttle - like the 1881 flight of the first U.S. shuttle - was an "outstanding technological achievement." He said, however, that the shuttle "is technology of the 21st century. Why should we pay 20th century money for it?" Like many U.S. scientists, he fears the costly shuttles are drawing money away from basic science and that manned flight is unnecessary for most research. "My personal view is that American experience with the shuttle indicates that from the point of view of cost effeciency, the shuttle is in deep trouble," said Sagdeev, a physicist who has followed closely the U.S decision making process on the shuttle. "It is much simpler and cheaper to fly a payload with any kind of expendable vehicle." In a recent interview, Sagdeev, 55, also confirmed that he has resigned after 15 years as chief of the Soviet Space Research Institute. The agency deals with space exploration, astronomy and platetary missions. He said he left voluntarily because he felt no one person should dominate an institure for such a long time. Sagdeev was in New Yord to sing a major book contract.
mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (11/23/88)
In article <1360@mcgill-vision.UUCP> cox@spock.ee.mcgill.ca (Henry Cox) writes:
<
<[ From the Montreal Gazette, 22 November, 1988 ]
<
<U.S., U.S.S.R. SHUTTLES A COSTLY ERROR: SOVIET
<
[delete. . .]
<Sagdeev said the inaugural launch of the Soviet shuttle - like the
<1881 flight of the first U.S. shuttle - was an "outstanding
^^^^
<technological achievement."
Boy, it must've been! It was a real boost to the post-civil war
economy, and President Arthur hailed the event as "tremendously
significant to all 32 states".
--
*** mike (starship janitor) smithwick ***
"Scientists say 'Saturn is so light, if you put it in a bucket of
water, it would float'. Don't forget, it would also leave a ring".
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) (11/25/88)
In article <1360@mcgill-vision.UUCP> cox@spock.ee.mcgill.ca (Henry Cox) writes: > >[ From the Montreal Gazette, 22 November, 1988 ] > >U.S., U.S.S.R. SHUTTLES A COSTLY ERROR: SOVIET > >New York (AP) - The former head of the Soviet space research agency >says both the Soviet and U.S. space shuttle programs are costly >mistakes that will yield few scientific benefits until the next >century. Interesting. The BBC TV news showed an interview with Sagdeev on this subject just after the BURAN test flight. He was speaking in english, and commented on both the Soviet shuttle systems and gave a completely different impression. >"It went up. It came down. But it had absolutely no scientific >value," was Roald Sagdeev's accessment of the 3 1/2 hour unmanned >flight last Tuesday of the Soviet shuttle. It was just a test flight, no scientific studies were planned. >He said, however, that the shuttle "is technology of the 21st >century. Why should we pay 20th century money for it?" Followed by "we will only use the shuttle when we need it's capabilities". >"It is much simpler and cheaper to fly a payload with any kind of >expendable vehicle." This was one of the main points he was making, that expendable launchers made on an assembly line were much cheaper than complex re-useable systems. In one interview recently one Soviet scientist (I forget who) said that a payload launched on BURAN would cost ten times what it would launched on a disposable. Sagdeev also said that in his opinion the USA had "made a SERIOUS mistake" in relying exclusively on the shuttle and scrapping other launch systems. (his emphasis) Bob.
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (11/30/88)
Subject: Re: US, USSR shuttles a costly error... Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle References: <1360@mcgill-vision.UUCP> In article <1360@mcgill-vision.UUCP>, guest@mcgill-vision.UUCP (Henry Cox) writes: > He said, however, that the shuttle "is technology of the 21st > century. Why should we pay 20th century money for it?" Because it's cheaper than 21st century money?