🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.space.shuttle
Article #3607

Re: Shuttle replacement

#3607
From: Michael V. Kent
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:40
45 lines
2612 bytes
In article <69532@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>I think it was a terrible mistake to offload all those payloads
>from the Shuttle in 1986-88. Of our unmanned boosters, only Delta seems to
>be operating reliably. It is my opinion that NASA should have continued
>using Shuttle for as many payloads as possible, while diverting as much
>booster development money as possible into NLS or some other unmanned
>launch system. 

[Description of Titan IV problems deleted]

>Titan IV has flown 6 times since June, '89. STS has flown 22 missions in
>that time frame. Of course, STS is more expensive. But its already paid
>for, and all that money for Titan IV (not including Martin's Titan III
>program) has bought us little.

[more deleted]

>It seems to me
>that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best returns on
>investment in the space community!

I agree wholeheartedly with that last statement, but I still believe that
removing commercial and non-Shuttle-unique payloads from the Shuttle was a
good idea.  As I explained in my previous post, the Shuttle is a very unique
and versatile vehicle.  It has tremendous capabilities no other vehicle can
touch, but it can only fly eight times a year.  In that situation, using it
to do things that can easily be done on other vehicles (e.g. launching spy
or commercial satellites) is a waste of a valuable resource.  The Shuttle
should be used exclusively for missions like the Hubble revisit, the Intelsat
satellite rescue, Tethered Satellite System, International Microgravity Lab,
Wake Shield Facility, etc.  There are no shortage of payloads to fly.  NASA
has no flight opportunities and less than a half dozen payload opportunities
between now and the start of Space Station operations.

According to the mission control status briefings, the astronauts were working
12 to 16 hour days.  Payload volume may not have been the active constraint
for STS-52.

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92                              Apple II Forever !!
Technical Details
Message-ID: <dlv1cgm@rpi.edu>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!rpi!kentm
References: <s#s1_2@rpi.edu> <69532@cup.portal.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!rpi!kentm
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Message-ID: <dlv1cgm@rpi.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: aix.rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
References: <s#s1_2@rpi.edu> <69532@cup.portal.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:40:41 GMT
Lines: 45