Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!chuq
From: chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Columbia Replacement
Message-ID: <3203@sun.uucp>
Date: Thu, 30-Jan-86 15:20:48 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.3203
Posted: Thu Jan 30 15:20:48 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Feb-86 05:06:49 EST
References: <860129202758.780479@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Organization: Third Person, Omniscient
Lines: 54

> Given that the shuttle program will continue, how will the program deal
> with a decline in their orbiter inventory?  I can see three
> possibilities.
>  (1) NASA will not replace the Columbia, and will simply fly fewer
> missions with the remaining shuttles.

I don't think the military (not to mention anyone else) would like this.
With major payload competition from France (among others) and the shuttles
already booked solid, they can't really afford this option unless the 
US is willing to give up space dominance.

>  (2) NASA will have Rockwell build another shuttle.  This will take some
> time (and a lot of money), but would restore the 4th shuttle.  (Some
> have said that there are already a substantial number of spare parts, so
> that everything wouldn't have to be done from scratch.)

the cost figure I've heard is 1.1 billion, and about a year (I think). That
is before any re-engineering needed to prevent whatever caused the loss of
the Challenger.

>  (3) NASA will have Rockwell refit the Enterprise to make it fully
> operational.  Nobody has mentioned this one.  Is it even possible?  I
> don't know how far the Enterprise is from being an operational orbiter,
> instead of a boiler plate shuttle replica.  Anybody have any ideas?

It is not possible. Enterprise, being first, was more a mockup than a real
orbiter and is significantly heavier than the production schedules. They
would have to significantly reduce payloads to orbit it, and I'm not really
sure if it was ever certified as spaceworthy.

There is a couple of possible options that weren't mentioned:

(4) Sell the shuttles to Boeing, since they have been trying to buy them for
about 5 years, and turn space into a commercial venture.  Make all
non-military space operations work in the public sector, perhaps with
government help to some degree. 

(5) Take a closer look at what is being sent in the shuttle as payload, and
redirect stuff that doesn't need human care to unmanned (Titan or
equivalent) rocket launches -- do we really need a crew of seven to ship out
sattelites? One problem I've seen at Nasa is that because of budgetary
problems they've put all of their eggs in the shuttle basket. Perhaps now is
the time to lobbty for a REAL budget and use men where men are neccessary
and robots where robots are acceptable. A lot of payload that could have
been shipped on Titan boosters was sent in the shuttle to justify the
shuttles existence, and it is probably time to rethink that.

-- 
:From catacombs of Castle Tarot:        Chuq Von Rospach 
sun!chuq@decwrl.DEC.COM                 {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid}!sun!chuq
FidoNet: 125/84

My uncle told me all of this. It must be true, because I know my uncle, and he
is as honest as me.