home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!nsisrv!author.gsfc.nasa.gov!rkoehler
- From: rkoehler@author.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bob Koehler)
- Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
- Message-ID: <30DEC199217112254@author.gsfc.nasa.gov>
- News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
- Sender: usenet@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Usenet)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: author.gsfc.nasa.gov
- Organization: CSC System Sciences Division
- References: <72527@cup.portal.com> <1992Dec29.191524.2413@iti.org> <72597@cup.portal.com> <1992Dec30.205940.28699@iti.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:11:00 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- 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
-
-