Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site astrovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!astrovax!elt
From: elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident
Message-ID: <726@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-Jan-86 12:39:49 EST
Article-I.D.: astrovax.726
Posted: Thu Jan 30 12:39:49 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Feb-86 01:47:07 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 41

Although terribly tragic, it doesn't seem to me that the loss of life in the
Challenger accident should have any long term significance.  As many have and
will point out, much greater risks and losses have been accepted for the
initial exploration of all historic frontiers and, for that matter, even
recreational activities (e.g., hang gliding).  Of course, there is always the
(real and unpleasant) possibility of an irrational public opinion reaction
on this matter.

Nevertheless, it does seem to me that the accident provides a clear motivation
for at least reconsidering some of the criticisms which have been leveled
against the Shuttle program.  For example, one might reasonably conclude
that

1)  it is unwise to invest nearly all of our launch capability in a very 
    small number of extremely complex and expensive vehicles,

2)  reasonably short cycle time and inexpensive reusability is fundamentally
    incompatible with high reliability with current technology,

3)  for many routine space missions, the cost in complexity and required
    reliability of manned missions is not worth the much touted gain in
    flexibility and on site intelligence, and thus

4)  the Shuttle Program (like the Apollo Program before it), despite
    its breath-taking level of technical prowess, will turn out to be a
    dead end and not the true starting point for elaborate future space
    activities (manned and unmanned).

All of these points are obviously debatable, and the relevance of the
Challenger accident will depend on what the actual cause of the accident
is determined to have been.  Obviously, no. 2 is is not implied if the
problem was in the non-reusable external tank.  Nevertheless, I think that
even "friends of the space program" need to consider these issues in view
of the loss of a shuttle in what should have been one of the more routine
aspects of its operation (All risk analyses I know of have assigned far
greater danger of catastrophic failure to the landing process than the
launch).  One must also weigh the relatively modest mission success rate of
previous flights and the several earlier "close calls".

Ed Turner
astrovax!elt