🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan2.171539.9059@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
>Subject: Re: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? 
>Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:15:39 GMT
>In article <725984212snz@chrism.demon.co.uk> chris@chrism.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>>What's due to replace the shuttle in 2007 - the DC?  
>
>NASA people have been responsible for two attempts to kill the DC
>program. However, Goldin hasaid that if it works, they will use
>it.
>
>>I *sincerely* hope
>>that the shuttle fleet won't be "run down" in anticipation of a 2007
>>cut-off, regardless of whether or not a replacement is *actually* 
>>available by then!  
>
>That's the rub. Shuttle and NASA procurement process are both so expensive
>that there simply isn't any money available for NASA to develope a
>replacement.
>
>>If NASA's historical record is anything to go by,
>>a replacement due to enter service in 2007 is unlikely to be ready by
>>then....
>
>DC could be available long before then *IF* we can get DoD to fund the
>proof of concept vehicle.
>
>  Allen
>-- 
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
>|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
>+----------------------112 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

My view is that there better be a follow on to the shuttle if NASA does
not want to have egg on its face. I also think there will be pressure to use
as much of the shuttle hardware and operating systems as possible in order
to save money and time.