Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!husc6!hao!scdpyr!djr
From: djr@scdpyr.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad
Message-ID: <171@scdpyr.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Sep-87 06:18:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: scdpyr.171
Posted: Thu Sep 17 06:18:55 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Sep-87 10:36:24 EDT
References: <13312@amdahl.amdahl.com>, <7973@think.UUCP> <8561@utzoo.UUCP>, <477@eplrx7.UUCP>
Organization: Natl Ctr Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
Lines: 57
Summary: The lesson we need to learn
Xref: linus sci.space.shuttle:324 sci.space:2872




With the recent discussion about the Shuttle I thought I would throw
in my two cents worth.

I think everyone will agree that the shuttle has its problems.  The
ways in which these problems should be solved seem to vary greatly
with each individual.  Several netters are expounding the virtues of
the Soviet system and its plentiful, cheap rockets.  While ths
Soviet system is effective, scraping the shuttle in prusuit of cheap,
expendable rockets would be an error as grave as the ones that lead
to the death of seven astronauts.  The lesson we need to learn from the
Soviets is not use cheap, expendable rockets but, perfect the technology
we have.  Many of our hard fought after gains were tossed out with the
Apollo program.  Unfortunatley, Congress is not willing to fund the
Space program at the level necessary for this to be accomplished.

NASA made a big mistake when it sold the shuttle to Congress as a
cheap means of placing payloads in orbit.  With a lot of hard work,
time, and money a shuttle could become a relativly inexpensive
method of launching payloads.  However, this would be a second
generation of shuttles, not the current system that at best could be
called experimental.  In order for a shuttle system to be cost effective
it would need more vehicles, more spare parts, more people, and better
management.

One of the biggest problems facing the U.S. space program is lack of
direction.  Here I have to agree with Sally Ride.  A base on the
moon would be a better way to go than jumping for Mars.  Anybody
can figure out that it is easier to get somthing off of the moon than
it is to get somthing off of Earth.  The moon would be an ideal place
to launch a mission to Mars.  The U.S. program needs to proceed at a
steady pace not in the leap frog fashion of the past.  In order to
reach Mars or even to establish a permanent presence in orbit the
space program needs to have a steady income.

President Reagan has issued a directive for the development of
a Space plane.  This is too big a leap.  If the U.S. goes for
another giant leap in technology the shuttle disaster will repeat
itself.  The U.S. should proceed more conservativly in its development
of vehicles.

Probably the best way for the U.S. to proceed is for it to:

	1) Perfect its existing technology.

	2) Assure the Space program with a steady income.

	3) Be more conservative in its development of hardware.

Well, I guess I will get down off of my soap box now.  I hope
to see some more views on these issues posted.
-- 
	"Hey laser lips, your momma was a snow blower!"
					  -- Number 5
	Dave Rowland  at NCAR Boulder, Colorado  djr@scdpyr.UUCP