[net.columbia] All our eggs in one basket

fisher@star.DEC (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466) (03/18/86)

noscvax!rupp writes:

>It now seems clear (to me anyway), that it was unbelievably foolish to
>rely totally on the shuttles to launch our coming space satellites.  It
>was a gamble, a huge one.  Didn't somebody every ask the question, "If
>a shuttle goes down, for whatever reason, how will we launch satellites?"
>If a 747 crashes, you can ground all the remaining 747's and still have 
>plenty of jet planes left to carry the load.  Not so with a tiny fleet
>of shuttles of a single design.

In fact if the wrong 747 crashes, the shuttle program is in nearly as bad
trouble as if a shuttle is lost. There is only one (1) 747 shuttle transport
aircraft.  Without that, no landings at Edwards (and future KSC landings
are in questions now too, you will recall).

Burns

...decwrl!rhea!star!fisher

rupp@noscvax.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (03/18/86)

In article <1733@decwrl.DEC.COM>, fisher@star.DEC (Burns Fisher ZKO1-1/D42 DTN 381-1466) writes:
> 
> In fact if the wrong 747 crashes, the shuttle program is in nearly as bad
> trouble as if a shuttle is lost. There is only one (1) 747 shuttle transport
> aircraft.  Without that, no landings at Edwards (and future KSC landings
> are in questions now too, you will recall).
> 

A VERY good point!  Still, your qualification "nearly as bad" should be
"NOT nearly as bad", since in that case the other shuttles could fly, although
with restrictions.  And it would be easier to convert an existing 747 while
the remaining shuttles flew, than what we are faced with now.  A good point
nevertheless.  I wonder if NASA has contingency plans.  Maybe the special
parts necessary for converting a 747 have been stockpiled.