Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Reusability
Message-ID: <1988Oct7.210256.24520@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <6981@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <1988Oct2.021158.15076@utzoo.uucp> <5705@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <1988Oct3.172838.8828@utzoo.uucp> <142@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 88 21:02:56 GMT

In article <142@microsoft.UUCP> bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison (uunet!microsoft!bobal)) writes:
>It seems to me that people are constantly over-stating the value of 
>reusable boosters in the American space program.  As I recall, the solid-fuel
>boosters only have a lifetime of three launches and the recovery and 
>overhaul adds up to a significant fraction of the price of the booster.
>... the whole booster issue seems to be a false economy.

It's hard to deny that the big benefit of reusing the shuttle boosters is
political rather than economic.  Shortly after Challenger, at least one
fairly knowledgeable group suggested abandoning booster recovery to permit
strong, permanent seals on the joints.  They didn't cite exact numbers, but
they did state that the extra expense would be small, given the abolition
of recovery/refurbishing expenses and the greater production volume.
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu