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 amdahl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!amdahl!ems From: ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident Message-ID: <2735@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Feb-86 20:54:40 EST Article-I.D.: amdahl.2735 Posted: Mon Feb 3 20:54:40 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 5-Feb-86 01:41:35 EST References: <726@astrovax.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca Lines: 32 Summary: The shuttle already has been the starting point. In article <726@astrovax.UUCP>, elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) writes: > (...) For example, one might reasonably conclude > that (...) > 2) reasonably short cycle time and inexpensive reusability is fundamentally > incompatible with high reliability with current technology, Please prove this. I see it as a non-sequiter. > > 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 > Maybe. But perhaps there are economies of scale to be considered. Putting a few 'routine tasks' in the cargo bay when you are sending up a manned mission anyway is quite justified. I am sure there are others. (Though I do wish I could see a Saturn V go up !!) > 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). > I am sorry, you are 1) wrong. and 2) Too late. The shuttle has already been the 'true starting point'. It has proven the concept. Everything that follows will owe a debt to the shuttle program. Just as the 747 owes a debt to the Wright brothers. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.