Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site astrovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!elt
From: elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Long Term Implications of Challenger Accident
Message-ID: <731@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Feb-86 17:52:26 EST
Article-I.D.: astrovax.731
Posted: Fri Feb  7 17:52:26 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Feb-86 06:40:56 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 45

>> 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

I would argue that the Shuttle could indeed be a dead end in either of two
ways:

1) If the current space program is forced to back track and return either
largely or entirely to the use of expendable launchers, it would seem fair
to characterize the Shuttle as a dead end or at least a very time consuming
and costly detour.  This may not be a very likely eventuality, but it is
certainly not impossible.

2) There is a more fundamental way in which not only the Shuttle but
essentially the whole space program to date could be later judged by history
to have been a dead end.  Aside from the obvious possibility that people
never move into space in great numbers, it is also possible that the true
dawn of the dawn of the space age belongs to another people and/or
technology and/or historical period.  I do not find it difficult (unpleasant
but not difficult) to imagine that the current space program could eventually
sputter to a halt due to lack of interest (i.e., funding) or for some other
reason.  This obviously would not preclude it being born again in some other
historical circumstance perhaps using some more advanced (relatively cheaper)
technology.  Historical examples abound.  The European discovery, exploration,
and eventual occupation of the New World began in Columbus's time and owed
nothing the the much earlier, abortive Norse/Viking efforts.  Or to extend
Mr. Smith's analogy, while the 747 may be in the debt of the Wright brothers'
pioneering flights, it owes little if anything to the earlier French hot air
balloonists' activities.  In summary, there is no guarantee (or even much
evidence) that the space exploration of the past three decades will have
lasting historical impact even if it is given that the long range future
of mankind is in space.  A somewhat depressing thought I realize but no
less true for it.

Ed Turner
astrovax!elt