Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls
From: dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine
Message-ID: <1456@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Dec-85 00:56:56 EST
Article-I.D.: mtgzz.1456
Posted: Thu Dec  5 00:56:56 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Dec-85 06:25:22 EST
References: <8512040335.AA22626@s1-b.arpa>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ
Lines: 50

Mr. Dietz seems to be ignoring shuttle history as
he dunns what can only be described as in incrediblely successful
program.

Point 1: the military was a big factor in making the shuttle
	 uneconomical. NASA wanted as *smaller* shuttle with
	 lower thrust engines.

Point 2: NASA was told to design to cost(6 billion I recall), not
	 for any other major consideration except DOD requirements. 
	 Hence, designs with greater reusability and lower cost
	 could not be considered.

Point 3: The program was underfunded at all points, finally resulting
	 in near disaster at the end. Inadequate $ were available
	 for component testing so engines were tested all at once, with
	 predictably bad results.

Point 4: A very considerable cost for the shuttle is the maintenance of
	 permanent equipment(gantries, ground crews, etc.) Having one
	 more shuttle and many more flights would substantially lower costs
	 per flight. The original fleet was planned to have six, not four
	 shuttles.


Given the military role in crippling the shuttle, their current about
face is disgusting. 


The shuttle represents an enormous increase in our space going capability,
and is more flexible than the large Saturn. Ya, Saturn is cheaper per
pound, but we are not launching dirt into orbit. The shuttle has comparable
costs combined with a MUCH more useful craft.

I agree that a follow on shuttle is very important, but I see no reason
to start development for a couple of years. Let's build the station, and
do it "right" about 1995. Meanwhile, the military may have developed a
small orbital plane we can use as a basis for further work.

Seriously - more is happening every two months in space than happened
for years during the 60s. Just look at the tremendous amount and variety
of vital stuff that has gotten packed into the first 22 shuttle missions.
Without the shuttle we would be going NOWHERE FAST, just launching communication
satellites on some "big cheap booster." With the shuttle we are repairing
satellites, building beams in space, running Spacelab(s) all over the 
place, and providing small scale, low cost access to space(getaway specials).


Dale