Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: HOTOL ?
Message-ID: <6423@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Feb-86 20:07:24 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.6423
Posted: Sat Feb 22 20:07:24 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Feb-86 20:07:24 EST
References: <392@watdragon.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 23

>    I recently read about the plans for a british "spaceplane" called HOTOL.
> Do the U.S. and/or U.S.S.R. have similar plans for a "spaceplane"...

The US is certainly studying the idea, under various names.  The USSR
presumably is too.  By the way, there is no commitment to HOTOL; it is
merely a proposal right now.

> Also, doesn't it make more sense to not build another shuttle, but instead
> design and build a spaceplane which would (seem to) be a lot safer.
					    
Rather than buy the terminal you typed that on, Waterloo obviously should
have waited ten years to buy a bitmapped graphics terminal.  It would have
been so much better to use.  Of course, that does mean that you'd have a
little trouble typing in any news for the intervening ten years.  That is
the sort of tradeoff you are proposing.	 Still think it's a good idea?

By the way, the idea that the spaceplane would be safer is curious.  What
makes you say that?  If anything, it might be less safe -- getting into
orbit without any staging or drop tanks is difficult, and is at the very
limit of practicality.  That means rather small margins.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry