🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec30.205940.28699@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <72597@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
> 
>>>Considering that there are no heavy payloads to return to Earth, this
>>>cannot be considered an advantage. Especially for the billions it costs
>>>us.
> 
>>    GRO and UARS are both candidates for return to earth. 
> 
>Doing that would cost more then they are worth. It would be cheaper to
>build new ones and launch them commercially.
> 

Can you show that was also true for SMM?  Part of the MMS on UARS is from SMM,
having been brought back after a successfull mission, after earlier being
repaired in orbit.  SMM isn't planning to reuse itself, and neither UARS nor
GRO may be either, but there has already been cost savings on UARS due to the
return of SMM.  Only the shuttle (product of politics more than NASA's
technical or mangement expertise IMHO) could repair SMM, and only the shuttle
could bring it back.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Koehler                     |   Any illusion to these opinions being other
rkoehler@author.gsfc.nasa.gov   |   than just mine alone is just that.

 " Life is life, and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die. "
                         - Blixie