Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!bellcore!epic!karn
From: karn@epic.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Skeptical Shuttle Enquirer
Message-ID: <1991Apr12.223929.6286@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Date: 12 Apr 91 22:39:29 GMT
References: <910@idacrd.UUCP> <25875@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Sender: usenet@bellcore.bellcore.com (Poster of News)
Reply-To: karn@thumper.bellcore.com
Organization: Packet Communications Research Group (Bellcore)
Lines: 30

In article <25875@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
> Perhaps I'm not as cynical [:-)] as you are, but I doubt that this is the 
> case; there's any number of instances in recent history ('flyswat' operation
> on dead satellite, Skylab repairs, Mir hatch problems...) that demonstrate that
> there's no substitute for manned presence in space.  Staging a stunt that 
> runs the risk of damaging a very important observatory, as well as exposing
> astronauts to unnecessary hazards, seems to be a little too much for a 
> NASA stunt.

Relax. Knowing Bob as well as I do, I'm sure his comment was made with
tongue firmly planted in cheek. I'm sure he could not resist an
opportunity to bait all of you gung-ho manned spaceflight advocates.

The missions "rescued" by the presence of men in space must be traded
off against the *substantial* additional cost. If a shuttle-launched
payload costs two or three times as much as the same payload launched
on an expendable (and that's probably a conservative estimate, given
the shuttle's incredible safety regulations) then I could afford to
have half or two thirds of my expendable-launched payloads fail for
the cost of a single shuttle-launched payload. The latter simply
cannot be allowed to fail, because they're usually so expensive you
can only build one.

And don't forget to take into account the costs (direct and indirect)
associated with designing a payload exclusively for the shuttle and
then having it sit on the ground for years because of launch delays,
many of which are prompted by the extremely conservative policies
dictated by flying people on an extremely expensive reusable launcher.

Phil