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!wls
From: wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Re: Side comment on the disaster
Message-ID: <740@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Feb-86 11:22:53 EST
Article-I.D.: astrovax.740
Posted: Thu Feb 20 11:22:53 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Feb-86 05:35:38 EST
References: <1758@druxu.UUCP> <9400003@ada-uts.UUCP> <2803@amdahl.UUCP>
Reply-To: wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok)
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 21

>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.
>> 
In article <2803@amdahl.UUCP> ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>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?

It seems that we eventually need a small payload launch system and a large
payload launch system (and even further down the road a spectrum of launch
system sizes).  Reusability is (to some extent) a separate issue: it would be
nice if the the small payload lauch system were reuseable.  The small launch
system could either be unmanned or have a single pilot.  One doesn't always
need an 18 wheel truck to carry something that would fit in the trunk of your
small car.
-- 
Bill Sebok			Princeton University, Astrophysics
{allegra,akgua,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,philabs,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls