Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoney
According to folks whom I know that worked at NASA and elsewhere, the SRB recovery was a PR stunt to make the "reuseability" concept palitable. The cost of recovery vs cost of just replacing them never worked out. My Brother in Law worked at Hill AFB in Utah and knew folks at Morton Thiokol (they made the SRB's) and said that the amount of refurb needed after use never made sense and they believed the wear and tear was going to bite them one day.
Well it did... |
My next door neighbor I had when I lived out there retired from MT. He told me the same thing...the cost of recovery and reconditioning was higher than building new, but the public liked the idea. He told me that the worst day in his life was the day the SRB failed and the shuttle exploded. To know that something you worked on failed and killed people in the process is a heavy weight to carry...and he was still carrying that weight over 2 years ago.
__________________
1987 560SL
85,000 miles
Meet on the level, leave on the square. Great words to live by
Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread. - Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.