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!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Losing a shuttle
Message-ID: <12386@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 19:18:55 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12386
Posted: Fri Mar 14 19:18:55 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 21:32:52 EST
References: <259@noscvax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 44

In article <259@noscvax.UUCP> rupp@noscvax.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes:
>What should have been given greater consideration was the fact that the
>consequences of a catastrophic accident would probably ground our whole space
>program for months, even years.  I was frankly astonished to learn that we
>have only a handful of expendable rocket boosters and none in production.

   Well, actually there is a production line tooling up to produce boosters
for the Air Force.

>Those responsible for putting all our space eggs in the shuttle basket made
>an error in judgement which is inexcusable.

   Your opinion.  I strongly disagree.

>I don't count funding as an
>excuse, since any amount of compromise in shuttle development and launch
>schedule would have been better than what we have now.  What we have now
>is the worst of both worlds; seven people killed and the shuttle program on
>indefinite hold on one hand, and no backup rocket boosters to take up the
>slack on the other.

   The hold is indefinite, but certainly no more than 1-2 years.  I don't
agree that "any amount of compromise in shuttle development ... would have
been better than what we have now."  If we had only two orbiters instead
of four we *might* have been able to use this money to maintain an expendable
rocket program (duplicating the ESA effort).  "Might" since these things are
not simple tradeoffs; it is not clear that NASA could have gotten as much
funding from Congress for that type of a program.  But this would leave us
with **one** orbiter, and some expendable rockets.  Do you really think this
would be better?  I think it would be much worse.  Think of all of the things
that only the shuttle can do and imagine trying to do them all with only one
orbiter!!
   As an aside, I don't see why everyone wants to start building lots of
expendable boosters, even now.  Why do we need to compete for commercial
launch operations with the Europeans?  Isn't cooperation more efficient?
And it is certainly less costly, since every commercial launch is subsi-
dized; this is why commercial companies have been unable to compete!
I can only attribute this to American arrogance, that we have to do every-
thing ourself (defense is of course different; this is why the Air Force
has been building expendable boosters!).
   I would *much* rather spend the money on new orbiters, and on research
for the next generation (airbreathing?) launch vehicle.

   -- David desJardins