Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihlpa!animal
From: animal@ihlpa.UUCP (D. Starr)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: questions
Message-ID: <1086@ihlpa.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Feb-86 17:50:20 EST
Article-I.D.: ihlpa.1086
Posted: Tue Feb  4 17:50:20 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 05:27:01 EST
References: <8601291312.AA09715@mitre-bedford.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 29

> Two questions for discussion...
> 
> 1. How long should we wait before launching another shuttle,
>    if we CANNOT find the cause for the explosion?

Doesn't look like this will be a problem; there seems to be a new defect
uncovered in the shuttle design with each morning's paper.  A more serious
problem is:
	1(a).  What do we do if it turns out that the shuttle design
		is fatally flawed--that we cannot, for any reasonable
		expenditure, get the chance of catastrophic failure 
		below ~1-2%?
> 
> 2. Should we build another shuttle, or the next generation spacecraft?

From a crass political standpoint, the best thing to do would be to rise
up in national righteousness and immediately build a replacement while there
is still lots of public enthusiasm for carrying on.  From the more practical
point of view, the three remaining shuttles are sufficient to carry out the
real purpose of the program--finding out (the hard way) how one goes about
building a good space shuttle.  I think we ought to take the latter course,
sell shuttle space (for satellites, etc.) for rock bottom with the understanding
that there will be delays and risks, and learn all we can with the goal
(and commitment) of deploying a real "commercial airliner" quality space
shuttle by 1993.

Dan Starr

**INSERT YOUR STANDARD DISCLAIMER HERE **