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: NASA SHUTTLES: cost/pound?!
Message-ID: <8512041517.AA24345@s1-b.arpa>
Date: Wed, 4-Dec-85 08:04:23 EST
Article-I.D.: s1-b.8512041517.AA24345
Posted: Wed Dec  4 08:04:23 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Dec-85 08:45:21 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 43

The shuttle was sold as a way to get mass into orbit cheaply.  Getting
mass into orbit cheaply is the single most important capability needed
for exploiting space.  The shuttle has failed to provide this
capability.  Because we don't have this capability, a lot of worthwhile
space activities (powersats, lunar colonies, etc.) will be delayed.

> fiber optics will destroy the shuttle because there won't be a need
> for sat.;
> come on, if that's true, they will call this the wire planet in the future.
> What about cellular telephones?  Maybe will should have a wire coming out of 
> the top of our cars like in the bumper-cars at an amusement park!? 

Cellular phones do not use satellites -- they use lots of ground based
tranceivers arranged in a tesselation pattern, connected by
cables or microwave links.  Satellite based cellular radio might
make sense in very sparse market areas, but (as far as I know)
no one has built such a system.

I think there's a good chance that fiber optics will take over the
trans-atlantic point-to-point communications market.  Fiber optic
technology is getting cheaper a lot faster than satellites, and is
already competitive.  Satellites will probably remain as broadcast
stations and for mobile communications, and for point-to-point
communication in sparse markets (3rd world countries).

At any rate, the market projections that NASA made to justify the
shuttle are not true, in part because of the replacement of satellites
by fiber optics.

> - All manufacturing that can be done in space can be done on earth.  Do those
> people really belive that the environment is the same on earth as it is in 
> space?  Then how can that argument be made?

I didn't say that.  I said I had yet to see evidence that there was
anything that could be manufactured in large quantities in space more
cheaply than it could be on the ground (and for which there is large
market on the ground, and for which the shuttle & space station are
sufficient).

> -We (speaking internationally now) will find uses for the 'space-plane' as I 
> call it in the future that we haven't thought of yet.  

This is more a statement of faith than a justification for the shuttle.