Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hope.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin
From: corwin@hope.UUCP (John Kempf)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle and expendable boosters
Message-ID: <197@hope.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Mar-86 05:02:07 EST
Article-I.D.: hope.197
Posted: Tue Mar 25 05:02:07 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 31-Mar-86 08:24:52 EST
References: <643@mmm.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California, Riverside
Lines: 27

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

*** EAT HOT ELECTRONS LINE EATER SCUM ***

In his artical, Mr. Allen makes some very good points.  I agree that
we should have kept the old systems operational.  The point that I
strongly disagree with however, is that we should not have done
the reasearch necessary to create the shuttle.  Shure, it would
have been cheaper, and easier, but we would not have advanced
any.  In effect, we would have wasted those interviening years.
Shure, what we had worked fine, but that could be said about
almost any form of technology.  There is always room for
improvement.  Spending money on R&D is not a waste.  In almost
every case, sooner or later, it almost always pays off.
-cory