NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/space/shuttle/2814

Text File | 1992-11-21 | 1.8 KB | 37 lines

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!utzoo!henry
From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Bashing
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:49:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <mjohnson-211192082742@129.197.97.65>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 26

In article <mjohnson-211192082742@129.197.97.65> [e-mail] (Mark E. Johnson) writes:
>... Isn't the shuttle the primary reason Space
>Station Freedom is being built and deployed in a relatively low orbit?

No, the primary reason that Fred is slated for a fairly low orbit is simply
to maximize payload to that orbit (both for construction and for resupply).
Launches, be they shuttle or expendable, are still inordinately expensive
and in limited supply, so cutting the payload in half for the sake of a
higher orbit does not look like a good deal.  Especially if you're not the
one who has to solve the problems of the low-orbit environment.

>What would it have taken (too late now) to build Freedom in a higher orbit?

Much cheaper space launches available much more routinely, or a major
culture change at NASA (which would probably require the same in Congress).
Preferably both.  NASA is too used to micro-optimizing projects regardless
of cost (which drives up the cost, in a vicious circle).

>What ever happened to Shuttle/C? When I worked for Rockwell five years ago,
>that sounded like a viable alternative.

Griffin's how-to-launch-Fred "red team" has revived it once again, last I
heard.  The previous incarnation died of an overdose of politics.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry