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: mcgeer%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: scuttle the shuttle?
Message-ID: <8602070404.AA01857@ji.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 6-Feb-86 23:04:45 EST
Article-I.D.: ji.8602070404.AA01857
Posted: Thu Feb  6 23:04:45 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Feb-86 05:48:16 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 18


	Why wouldn't LEO EVA expertise transfer to GEO?  And, while I expect
that while repair activities must be done in GEO, it's not clear to me that
the large majority of space construction activities must be done in GEO, or
even should be.

	Also, while I believe that you are sincere, I have yet to see the
teleoperators of the required complexity.  And, further, if you redesign the
product so that robots and/or teleoperators can build them, you're simply
trading the cost of putting people in orbit for the increased cost of
teleoperators and machine design.  Further, the costs are not only in
the increased costs of each product, but also in the products that you decide
you can't make because they don't come in snap-together pieces.

	Finally, remember Skylab?  I'm damned gald we didn't have a robot
trying to repair *that*; it never would have had any power.

						-- Rick.