Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mmm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mmm!allen
From: allen@mmm.UUCP (Kurt Allen)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Shuttle and expendable boosters
Message-ID: <643@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Mar-86 14:58:58 EST
Article-I.D.: mmm.643
Posted: Wed Mar 19 14:58:58 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Mar-86 06:40:15 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: 3M Company, St. Paul, Minn.
Lines: 28

Why did'nt NASA create a shuttle that would ride on top of expendable
boosters ala Hermes/Ariane and the Soviet shuttle (both under development).
It seams to me that this probably would have had the following effects

1. Cheaper. NASA could have kept the Saturn production lines open,
and used only proven boosters, eliminating the R&D dollars used to develop
the shuttle boosters. The earlier work done on Dyna-Soar, which was to have
flown on expendable boosters, could have formed the basis of the shuttle.

2. Allowed development of a smaller shuttle, that would not have to
do everything the current shuttle does. Large payloads could have been lofted
by a Saturn IB or Saturn 5. The development of a smaller shuttle would have
been cheaper and safer, utilizing more proven technology.

3. Have speeded up development of the shuttle. That period of time in
which the US of A did'nt have any manned space systems because we were
waiting for the shuttle would'nt have occured. Skylab might be the nucleas
of an permanently manned american space station, rather than a smear across
Australia.

4. Have allowed backup systems to the shuttle so that grounding of the shuttle
would'nt have caused a hold on the whole american space program.

5. Kept in existance an unmanned system to use for lofting very dangerous
payloads. I.E. interplanetary probes carrying large amounts of explosive fuel.

Where would we be now if we had made a less advanced shuttle of the above
type ?