Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site hpfcla.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs
From: ajs@hpfcla.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle External Tanks and Space Stations
Message-ID: <22000012@hpfcla.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Dec-85 12:07:00 EST
Article-I.D.: hpfcla.22000012
Posted: Mon Dec 16 12:07:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 05:45:02 EST
References: <6205@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: 16 Dec 85 10:07:00 MST
Lines: 16

> ...arrange for all future ETs to be carried up to LEO and then put into
> some higher "parking" orbit...

I agree, and offer this food for thought.  How do you suppose the design
work on the space station might be affected if at this moment we already
had 20+ external tanks waiting for us in some parking orbit?

I've heard rational arguments both for and against additional orbiter
vehicles, even against having a space station (e.g.  see this month's
Scientific American).  Given that we're already in the shuttle launching
business, and the low incremental cost to save those ETs for future use,
maybe the activists among us should focus on that as a safe, NON-
CONTROVERSIAL short-term goal for NASA.

Used to be a space station fanatic but now I'm not so sure...
Alan Silverstein