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: Better estimate for time to replace Challanger (5yr -> 3yr)
Message-ID: <8602030937.AA08032@s1-b.arpa>
Date: Mon, 3-Feb-86 05:03:22 EST
Article-I.D.: s1-b.8602030937.AA08032
Posted: Mon Feb  3 05:03:22 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Feb-86 00:46:11 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 13

First, erratum in my earlier message:
R> I would think that since they already know how to build one (learned
R> 1975-81) and how to test them (learned 1979-1985), they could just
R> hire a lot of additional manpower and put work on a 2-hour shift and
R> do all the tasks in parallel from specs already worked out, ...
"2-hour" should read "24-hour" (per day). Sorry for typo.

Now an update. In "Washington Week in Review" on January 30 they
estimated $2.5E9 (instead of $2.0E9) and 3 years (instead of 5 years)
to build one replacement STS orbiter. That means 2.5 weeks instead of
3 weeks of California Lottery proceedings, a trivial increase, and 2
years sooner, a big improvement. Maybe if we throw some more money at
it we can get it down to 2 years instead of 3 or 5?