Article View: sci.space.shuttle
Article #3607Re: Shuttle replacement
From: Michael V. Kent
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:40
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:40
45 lines
2612 bytes
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!kentmReferences:
<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