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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ucbvax!space
From: broehl%watdcsu%waterloo.CSNET@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA (Bernie Roehl)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Message-ID: <8512021345.AA00926@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Dec-85 08:45:28 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.8512021345.AA00926
Posted: Mon Dec  2 08:45:28 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Dec-85 04:20:44 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 46

>>>What NASA should do is learn from the shuttle experience and design an
>>>improved shuttle with better economics.
>>Why?

>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.

Only if the savings (i.e. the difference in operating expenses) is
greater than the development cost, which is unlikely.

>shuttles of the current design, but real exploitation of space needs
>cheaper launchers.

Agreed, in the long term cheaper launchers are important.

>...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.

Again, I agree.  *However*, this is not likely to happen for some time
(unfortunatly) simply because funding for a new series of shuttles is
unlikely.  We've barely started using the ones we have, coming up with
a new fleet that may have slightly better economics would not go over
well it this point.  In any case, you won't get a factor of 10 reduction
with an improved shuttle design; we're talking a totally different kind
of vehicle.  Probably single stage to orbit, quite possibly vertical launch/
vertical landing, low maintenance, 48 hour turnaround.


>But why should one want to integrate manned and unmanned space travel?

For the same reason we don't have unmanned cargo planes (or trains, or ships).
It makes good sense to have people there in case something goes wrong (which
is, if anything, *more* likely in a complex activity like spaceflight than
in rail transport).

>...then NASA's failure to develop
>a better follow-on is even more damning.

Spending billions of dollars to develop that follow-on after just a few
years of using the first-generation shuttle would be a silly waste of
hard-to-get funding.