Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!hela!aws
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: After Endeavour, what then?
Message-ID: <1991May7.173026.5258@iti.org>
Date: 7 May 91 17:30:26 GMT
References: <346.281f448d@mwk.uucp> <1991May6.170018.5455@iti.org> <1991May07.054232.19990@disk.uucp>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Lines: 32

In article <1991May07.054232.19990@disk.uucp> joefish@disk.uucp (joefish) writes:

>>Freedom can be serviced for a tenth the cost using expendables. With
>>no more new shuttles, NASA will need to use them. The taxpayers will
>>save billions if they do.

>There are other things than fred to think about.   I think it would be
>useful to build another shuttle, but without wings, without heat tiles,
>without rudder, and without landing gear, and use it to go to geo orbit
>and remove nonworking satellites, and bring them down to LEO and put
>them in a shuttle that can land them.

This sounds sort of like Shuttle-C although I doubt very much it could
to to GEO.

But you still have the same problem. The Shuttle is amazingly horendously
mind-boggelingly expensive to operate. We would be far better off if we
took this huge amount of money and spent it on infrastructure. We should
build a reasonable OTV for going to GEO to get satellites. We should
have a drydock in orbit for repair. The problem is that none of this will
happen with the market so small and the market will remain small as long
as we insist on spending three to five times what we need to to put
payloads into orbit.

   Allen


-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |        Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with      |
|   aws@iti.org   |             -- Harel Barzilai                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+