ajs@hpfcla.UUCP (12/11/85)
Irony indeed: > In the long run, wouldn't we be better off if NASA had spent [shuttle > launch] money on R&D? ... a drawback of reusable spacecraft: once > you build one, you're stuck with it. Can I deduce from this that, the more and sooner shuttles crash, the better off we'll be in the long run? Less launch costs, and some freedom to go work on the next generation. Well, only if Uncle doesn't cut the budget as "attrition" cuts the fleet. Maybe it would be better if the shuttles didn't crash, but were shot down by terrorists. Which just goes to show, there are many ways of looking at any complex subject. Perhaps this particular rationale will make us feel just a little better if one ever does auger in (for whatever reason). Alan "ad astra anyway" Silverstein