Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!space
From: dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Message-ID: <8511302156.AA10294@s1-b.arpa>
Date: Sat, 30-Nov-85 10:07:31 EST
Article-I.D.: s1-b.8511302156.AA10294
Posted: Sat Nov 30 10:07:31 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Dec-85 03:44:38 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 62

>>What NASA should do is learn from the shuttle experience and design an
>>improved shuttle with better economics.
>Why?  They've already spent a lot of money developing something that works.
>You're suggesting they spend even more money doing it again?  This makes very
>little sense.  

I said why -- because the shuttle loses money.  In the long run, NASA
can't keep susidizing shuttle launches.  In an economic sense the
shuttle *doesn't* work.  Spending money to do it again -- and do it
*right* -- makes more sense than pouring money down the current rathole.

>>But no, they're going to build
>>a space station.
>... which is precisely what they need.  What's more useful, a station or
>more shuttles? 

NASA is having a hard time saying what the space station will be
used for, and the space station's utility is going to be limited
by how often NASA can send up shuttles (the Europeans are complaining
that NASA will limit it to 14 launches a year; they want 20, but
that would cost NASA too much money).  Agreed, we don't need more
shuttles of the current design, but real exploitation of space needs
cheaper launchers.

According to AWST, the National Advisory Council on Space (or whatever
it is called; the thing Paine & O'Neill are on) is going to say that
the number one priority for opening up space is reducing the cost
of putting payload in orbit by a factor of 10, and by another factor
of ten in the long term -- NOT building a space station.

>Whatever the economics, the shuttle has made space more accessible.  It has
>also allowed the integration of the manned and unmanned aspects of space 
>flight, and made it possible to do things like satellite recovery and on-orbit
>repair.  It's proven that you can build a reusable manned spacecraft.  It's
>allowed non-astronauts to travel into space to do useful work.
>Even if other countries jump on the bandwagon, and even if they manage to
>do it cheaper (by using NASA-developed technology) and better (by improving
>on the basic design) the fact remains that they are depending on the
>innovation of the engineers who built the shuttle.  It's really unfair to
>criticize the shuttle program solely on the basis of cost/pound.

But why should one want to integrate manned and unmanned space travel?
Being forced to lift people into orbit just to launch satellites is silly
and costly.

The shuttle can only do on-orbit repair and recovery of satellites
in low orbit, a pretty small market (and it would be smaller still if
the PAM motors weren't needed, as they aren't if an expendable launcher
is used).   The shuttle is reusable, yes, but not nearly to the extent
needed for economical operation.  Non-astronauts could be launched in
other vehicles (and I don't consider the ability to orbit
congress-critters to be a benefit, unless you leave them there).

The fact that other countries are developing reusable vehicles in
no way redeems NASA's failure; indeed, if the other countries are
using lots of NASA's technology then NASA's failure to develop
a better follow-on is even more damning.

It is eminently fair to criticize the shuttle on the basis of
cost/pound to orbit.  Reducing this cost was the primary justification
of the shuttle program!  Even if a later design works, the current
shuttle is, by this criterion, a failure.