Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!nosc!crash!pro-canaveral.cts.com!gandalf
From: gandalf@pro-canaveral.cts.com (Ken Hollis)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Manned Vs. Unmanned
Message-ID: <4687@crash.cts.com>
Date: 28 Sep 90 03:36:16 GMT
Sender: root@crash.cts.com
Lines: 49

Greetings and Salutations:
 
I have heard the argument over & over about what would happen if NASA (or any
other agency / contractor) actually built a $300 / Lb launcher.  The argument
for NASA usually goes, if there wasn't a manned space program, then they could
work on projects like this.
 
Please consider this.  I will agree that there is currently a backlog of
launch items, but after those are placed in orbit, what is left?  The
economics of the situation sez that to make it truly cheap, alot of launches
must take place, or else you have to up the price.  Who wants to put tons of
stuff in orbit?  If they do have it to launch, where do they want to put it?
 
Once again with Space Station Freedom, Congress is trying to cut the budget
and get NASA to promise more for less money.  Would you like to sit in an
inflatable module, knowing that there are pieces of meteors flying around
outside that have chipped & scarred the heavy windows on the shuttle?  I am
sure that the studies have been done on these modules as to safety factor,
etc, but I guess that I am just old-fashioned.
 
Now for flames from the audience : 
>From: roberts@cmr.local (John Roberts)
>Subject: Re: RTGs
>>From: agate!agate!jym@apple.com  (Jym Dyer)
>>Subject: Re: anti-Ulysses=anti-enviroment
>>|F|un fact:  The next shuttle after the Challenger was slated to
>>`-' carry plutonium into space.  For some reason, this did not
>>    happen.  Presumably they thought it was "safe enough" to do
>>    so before the explosion, but not afterwards.  How do we know
>>    they're right this time?
>>    <_Jym_>

>You're starting from a false premise - that an RTG on Challenger would have 
>been unacceptably unsafe. RTGs would not be approved for shuttle launch if
>it was thought that a shuttle explosion (which was known to 
>be a possibility...<Rest Deleted>...

SURPRISE ! ! ! Galileo & Ulysses were the next TWO launches after Challenger
to be launched.  Last I Checked (See Mr. Ron Baalke Notes) Gallileo is cruzing
somewhere around 1.25 AU from Earth, and doing very nicely launched from the
shuttle.  The next mission is OV-103, Discovery, with Ulysses in the bay. 
They both use RTG's as a power source (Nuclear protesters extra...).  There
has never been any hesitation from NASA as to whether or not sending RTG's up
on the shuttle was safe or not.  In fact some of the anti-nuke groups have
already (for the second time) petitioned federal court to stop the launch. 
They have a whole two inches of reasoning for this.  Knowing NASA, that would
just be the index to thier reference material.
 
Ken Hollis