Xref: utzoo sci.space:6718 sci.space.shuttle:1117
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!amdcad!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!dasys1!tneff
From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: space news from July 11 AW&ST
Message-ID: <6137@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 28 Aug 88 18:15:27 GMT
References: <1988Aug16.040406.5434@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: Independent Users Guild
Lines: 35

In article <1988Aug16.040406.5434@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>NASA is studying an internal proposal to launch Columbia unmanned next year
>using old SRBs.  It would carry one of the DoD satellites scheduled for an
>early mission.  Some modifications would probably be needed, notably a
>braking chute to assist landing.  JSC is opposed to the idea because of
>the orbiter modifications; Marshall is in favor.  The problem is that NASA
>has about 13 pre-Challenger SRBs left, containing about 11 million pounds
>of oxidizer that cannot be recovered, and the oxidizer shortage is looking
>worse and worse.  There are several schemes for minor mods to the old SRBs
>to increase reliability.  Unmanned shuttle flights have been considered
>before, and generally rejected due to risks and lack of need.  The proposal
>is just an idea as yet.  An alternative would be to buy more expendables
>and shift payloads to them, since they use less ammonium perchlorate, but
>NASA does not have the money for that.

Excuse me, but are we really supposed to believe that omitting the
flight crew makes using the old SRBs an acceptable risk?  Challenger is
every bit as "dead" as its crew, and we cannot afford to lose another
orbiter under any circumstances, whether or not astronauts are killed
in flight along with it.  (Anyway, rocket accidents can kill people on
the ground too.)

As I recall, one of the options NASA originally studied was modifying the
existing SRB fleet.  This was rejected in favor of the redesign for cost
and peace-of-mind reasons, BEFORE the perchlorate plant exploded.  Why not
just admit that the explosion changes the picture, and that SRB modification
is now attractive?  Toss in every safety mod we can think of and then
use them for manned missions, perhaps only in warm weather.

Trying to fly Columbia unmanned means tinkering dangerously with a vanishing
resource, namely orbiters.  Dammit Jim, that thing NEEDS a pilot!  :-)
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)