[FPSPACE] correction/update

David Portree dsfportree at hotmail.com
Thu Jul 6 20:27:25 EDT 2017


Jim:


When I said that the rapid-fire Shuttle schedule requirement went away, I meant after Challenger.


dsfp


David S. F. Portree

Email:

dsfportree at hotmail.com<mailto:dsfportree at hotmail.com>

Blog:

http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/




________________________________
From: jameseoberg at comcast.net <jameseoberg at comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:21 PM
To: David Portree
Cc: Zeger Nuyens; fpspace
Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] correction/update


Except... except in late 1985 when NASA HQ
was campaigning to kill off all DoD expendables
that offered alternatives to shuttle. As ecplained
to me by Don Kutyna, congressman Nelson was
chosen to fly because his committee would decide
the fate of the DoD budget request for expendables,
and one key DoD objection to shuttle was not
meeting urgent launch schedules. Kutyna told me
that HQ made it clear to to shuttle operators that
on-time launches had become critical to NASA's
push to monopolize US govt transportation to orbit.
________________________________
From: "David Portree" <dsfportree at hotmail.com>
To: "Zeger Nuyens" <dokter.nuyens at telenet.be>, "fpspace" <fpspace at mail.friends-partners.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 4:12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] correction/update


Zeger:


It's all about context. In the early days, when NASA said the Shuttle would fly almost weekly and packed up its manifest with comsats and satellite repair missions, then delays meant that at least one significant, necesssary Shuttle Program objective was at risk, along with the objectives that followed from it. So, delays were failures to a greater or lesser degree, because they threatened that significant objective. Ultimately, NASA was forced to abandon its schedule ambitions and many other Shuttle ambitions, and delays became par for the course. They mattered less at that point because NASA adopted a more realistic schedule (really no minimum number of flights per year at all) that they could meet. Hence, delays ceased to be partial failures in most cases. They ceased to impact a significant and necessary Shuttle Program objective.


dsfp


David S. F. Portree

Email:

dsfportree at hotmail.com<mailto:dsfportree at hotmail.com>

Blog:

http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/




________________________________
From: Zeger Nuyens <dokter.nuyens at telenet.be>
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 2:58 PM
To: fpspace at mail.friends-partners.org; dsfportree at hotmail.com
Subject: correction/update

David,

For a few days I have tried to find out out how many shuttle flights got
delayed for one reason or the other and I must say I lost count. Do you
really regard them as partially successful? For me, if the thing lifts
up, delivers its payload in the right orbit in working order that's a
success no matter the delays.

(not talking here about the Challenger and Columbia disasters)

Zeger


_______________________________________________
FPSPACE mailing list
FPSPACE at mail.friends-partners.org
http://lists.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/attachments/20170707/ad61199f/attachment.html>


More information about the FPSPACE mailing list