Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!caen!ox.com!hela!aws
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: After Endeavour, what then?
Message-ID: <1991May8.154520.22252@iti.org>
Date: 8 May 91 15:45:20 GMT
References: <1991May07.054232.19990@disk.uucp> <1991May7.173026.5258@iti.org> <1991May8.144502.8308@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Lines: 28

In article <1991May8.144502.8308@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> smfedor@solar.lerc.nasa.gov (Gregory Fedor) writes:
>>This sounds sort of like Shuttle-C although I doubt very much it could
>>to to GEO.

>Actually, it sounds more like the OMV (Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle?) that
>MSFC (Marshall Space Flight Center) was working on before it was axed by
>congress in a budget cut.

Actually, it sounds like a combination of Shuttle-C and OMV. 


>Too bad congress nixed it.  It sounded like a good idea that _would_ work.

It was NASA who nixed it. The program was cancled because it was way late
and over budget. However, NASA has resurected it in the form of another
vehicle (can't remember the name). They have stuck about $3 billion to
NLDP to pay for it.

With that kind of money don't expect it to do any better than OMV. There
are things which can be done for a million $$ which can't be done for a
billion $$.

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