Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekred.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!tekred!joels
From: joels@tekred.UUCP (Joel Swank)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Challenger replacement
Message-ID: <442@tekred.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Feb-86 16:06:54 EST
Article-I.D.: tekred.442
Posted: Fri Feb  7 16:06:54 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Feb-86 04:05:52 EST
References: <236@pilchuckDataio.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 25

> There's been a lot of talk in here about how nice
> it would be to replace Challenger with another orbiter
> at the cost of approximately $2.2 billion.
> 
> Why not use this money on the next generation of orbiters,
> such as the Transatmospheric Vehicle.  The STS system is
> OLD technology, and we might be better served by pushing
> the limits further.

It took $14 billion and 10 years to develop this 'OLD' technology.
Do you think it will take less to develop the next generation?

> The shuttle is a good vehicle.  It is not a great vehicle.
> It is not the final solution for manned space exploration.
> Let's not keep building Model-T's.

The Model-T was in production for 20 years before something
better came along.

We need something to carry out the STS missions as soon as
possible. Even replacing the Challenger is expected to take
until 1989.

Joel Swank
Tektronix, Redmond Oregon