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: C449499@UMCVMB.BITNET (Randy Davis)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: RE: What Now?
Message-ID: <8602060933.AA04501@s1-b.arpa>
Date: Thu, 6-Feb-86 03:51:40 EST
Article-I.D.: s1-b.8602060933.AA04501
Posted: Thu Feb  6 03:51:40 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Feb-86 21:46:51 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 48


      nike!topaz!harvard!think!craig@ucbvax.berkeley.edu wrote:

> I think we have a future in space, and the sooner we learn
> the technology needed to conquer space the better.
  I agree. I believe that space represents the "last frontier",
  and that one way to make sure that we don't kill off the entire
  human race in some political/military misunderstanding is to
  learn to live in space and colonize it. In history the pioneers
  have always been the risk takers, but the better prepared they
  were the more often they survived.
>3.  Do we have a choice?  How long can we afford to be
>    without the Shuttle?  The military and civilian space
>    programs are utterly dependent on the Shuttle.
  I seem to recall that the Air Force is reconditioning some of
  titans to lift military payload. However, I don't believe that
  they were close to being ready when the shuttle accident occured.
  I think that NASA is going to have to diversify their launch
  program to use more than just the shuttle.
>First, the value of the Shuttle is as a means of perfecting
>space technology.  The fact that payload fees pay for part
>of its cost is icing on the cake.  I don't care much if it
>loses money in the short run; in the long run what we learn
>by flying the Shuttle is more than worth the cost.
  But being a natural cynic, I can see NASA's budget being cut
  even more if they can't get the shuttle to pay more for itself.
  Congress isn't known for taking a long-range view.
>Third, there is little alternative to the current STS.
>Designing a new one is out of the question at this point;
  But NASA could be planning for the future. I recall that there
  were plans for a 'space tug' that would be able to get into
  medium high orbits where a possible space station could be.
>I think, then, that the following is in order.  First, find
>the specific cause of this failure, and fix it.  Second,
>evaluate the design of the STS, from top to bottom, and try
>to find residual problems before we find one the hard way.
>This might ground us for a year.  Third, build three more
>orbiters.  We'll need them.
  How hard is it to evaluate the design? It may be the long road,
  but in the long run it is the safest bet to make sure that
  make sure that another accident of this sort doesn't happen
  again.
  Will Congress allocate the funds to build three more?
  One can only hope (and write to them). And if they do supply
  the funds, do we go with the design we have now, or do we
  move on to the next phase?

        Randy C. Davis