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!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!amdahl!ems
From: ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Re: Side comment on the disaster
Message-ID: <2803@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Feb-86 17:40:22 EST
Article-I.D.: amdahl.2803
Posted: Tue Feb 18 17:40:22 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Feb-86 00:00:27 EST
References: <1758@druxu.UUCP> <9400003@ada-uts.UUCP>
Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca
Lines: 22
Summary: How you gonna bring a big payload back?

In article <9400003@ada-uts.UUCP>, callen@ada-uts.UUCP writes:
> ...                                     It has seemed to me for a long
> that we could do a better, safer job by isolating the seperate functions
> of the shuttle into two independent but interrelated systems - a PAYLOAD
> launch system and a PEOPLE launch system. Let's face it - we HAD several
> cheap, fairly reliable boosters for mid to large size payloads (Delta,
> which was FAIRLY reliable, and Titan IIIc, which was VERY reliable and
> could put a locomotive-sized payload into low earth orbit). Why not build
> a much SMALLER (and probably less complex) orbiter WITHOUT the huge cargo
> bay that we could boost with something like the IIIc, a proven booster
> that uses relatively easily handled (corrosive, but not very cold)
> hypergolic fuels? Launch the payload and the personnel in seperate launches
> and rendezvous in orbit - we sure have enough practice at THAT little
> maneuver.
> 
How you gonna bring back that locomotive sized payload when you
want to fix it, retire it, analyse it, sell it, etc. if you don't have
a nice big cargo bay to put it in?
-- 
E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.