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!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!space
From: REM@IMSSS (Robert Elton Maas, this host known locally only)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: 5 YEARS TO REPLACE ORBITER?
Message-ID: <8601300732.AA03494@s1-b.arpa>
Date: Thu, 30-Jan-86 02:33:04 EST
Article-I.D.: s1-b.8601300732.AA03494
Posted: Thu Jan 30 02:33:04 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Feb-86 03:07:32 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 11

Criminey! Tonight on the news they said it would cost $2E9 and take 5
years to make one (1) new STS orbiter to replace Challanger. I would
think that since they already know how to build one (learned 1975-81)
and how to test them (learned 1979-1985), they could just hire a lot
of additional manpower and put work on a 2-hour shift and do all the
tasks in parallel from specs already worked out, using computerized
PERT charts to find bottlenecks, and get all the parts for another
orbiter built in a year and assembled&tested in another year. Is it
really as bad as they say, 5 years minimum, or are they assuming
everybody drags their feet about funding but it could be done faster
if they really pushed to go into production?