ths@lanl.UUCP (03/19/86)
I recall a reference to the "fact" that NASA expected to lose at least one orbiter during the program. Estimates from a hired consultant showed a probability as low as 1 loss in each thirty flights. Each orbiter was initially designed for 100 flights. Total program would at best would have been 400 flights. Current estimates now reveal that we will probably only achieve 50 flights per orbiter. The total program therefore would have been 200 flights (before the Challenger loss) and is now 150 flights, with 24 completed that leaves about 126 flights. At 24 per year (a reasonable launch rate) the program will now run 5 years after we resume flying. Possibly a lower launch rate with only three orbiters. IF a second orbiter is lost during the program, a high statistical probability, the effectiveness of the Shuttle to do our "space business" is reduced to such a low percentage that less than 25% of the payloads needed in space will achieve orbit by 1992. The Shuttle is a marvelous advance in technology and I am thrilled each time I see it fly. We did the best with what we had at the time. We made some decisions that, with hindsight, were shortsighted. Success breeds complacency. It is time to take a more realistic and less emotional look at what we created in terms of what we need done in space. Let's use the "disaster" as a learning AND decision point to reasses the economics and the mission of the Shuttle and other launch vehicles. I don't think that replacing Challenger is the best step at this point. We are simply buying 50 missions. I would support the purchase of expendable Titan II/Titan III class launchers to carry those payloads that do not need a manned launch, AND a Shuttle II follow-on program that will take us into the next century, even at the expense of extending the space station program. We owe the departed astronauts our best efforts by intelligently assessing the current situation and acting in the long-term interests of the space program, not defending decisions and programs that time has passed by, or re-naming this net. Ted Spitzmiller P.S. I refrained from being critical of many specific postings AND cross-postings because I realize that everyone has a right to their opinion. There have been some really great comments and pieces of information. But I have the distinct feeling that there are many people out there who tend to post to the net instead of "writing on the bathroom wall".