Conference 7.286::space

    I wouldn't necessarily use the term "scared".  I think the government
    (whoever THEY are!) has realized they were foolish to use the shuttle
    as the ONLY means of access to space.  Also, you may have heard
    President Reagan's speech Saturday when he said the government was
    getting out of the satellite hauling business.  Hughes probably
    realizes they can make a pile of change launching satellites for
    folks without worrying about subsidized launches from NASA (which
    were still more expensive than Arianespace).
    
    I myself think it is about time the private sector started to
    think about how they can make money from space.  Hughes isn't
    the first to think of the idea (remember Conestoga?), but I
    bet they'll be one of the first commercial satellite launchers.
    

    In the past, the incentive for advances in space technology came
    mainly from the cold war: Either we (the US) wanted to build better
    ICBMs, or we wanted to "show" the Ruskies by getting to the moon
    first.
    
    Now, I have to think that the only incentive to advance the state
    of the US space technology will be profits.  Sounds like a filthy
    capitalistic thing to say (but then again, I'm a filthy capitalist).
    From my reading of the Roger's Commision report, and from the
    "re-print" of Feynman's flame elsewhere in this file, I get the
    distinct impression that any of the original "let's do it!" motivation
    at NASA has nearly evaporated. (Getting heavily into my opinions
    now:)  I can't help but get the impression that people view a job
    at NASA just as a source of income on the government's tab, just
    like any other job (with the notable exception of the lucky few
    who get to ride the thing).
    
    Putting some subset of space exploration/exploitation in the hands
    of commercial industry, whether manned or unmanned, will almost
    certainly introduce some enthusiasm into the process, if for no
    other reason than to maximize profits.
    
    Perhaps this will someday evolve into selling space vacations (about
    2 hours at a shot, I suppose) to anyone with enough money.  Will
    there be any more emphasis placed on safety than by the shuttle
    program?  Who knows.  On the other hand, there's no substitute for
    experience.

    Just a reminder: the Jarvis isn't the MLV, at least not yet.  There
    are three other contractors competing for the program.  Although
    Hughes' proposal is the most interesting and innovative, there is
    no assurance that it will be selected by the Air Force.  In fact,
    it is rather wildly out of line with the *letter* of the RFP.  A
    conservative program manager might select one of the other, more
    conventional proposals, just to avoid having to justify a program
    that doesn't exactly meet the program's requirements before Congress.

    Re .3
    
    Thanks I didn't know that when I entered .0
    Although, I'am willing to bet that, Jarvis is going to be chosen.
    
    Re .1, .2
    
    You seem to equate the MLV porposal with the comercialization of
    statelite lunches. I don't think that is necessarily the case. 
    The shuttle itself could be comercialized, in fact there is at 
    least one such proposal already.
    
    The shuttle is an essentialy sound vehicle, that already has show 
    its ability to sucessufuly lunch materials and people. I am of the
    opinion we should concentrate on fixing it, and forget about the
    expendaple rockets alternatives. (Specialy since, they will not
    be operational until, long after the shuttle is on its feet again.)
    
    
    Gil 

    Some statistics I heard the other day
    
    Most of the "workhorse" ELV's had success rates in the mid 90%
    range.  Elizabeth Dole thought that was pretty good.
    
    After 24(25?) flights STS has the same success rate.
    
    Chilling thought.
    

The reason for not depending on any one launch vehicle,
especially a manned one is the risk of loosing access to space. 
If the shuttle where unmanned and there was less capital tied up
in each one I suspect that we would fly it much sooner than the
shuttle will be flying.  It might only be flown during warm
weather until the boosters were redesigned.  We should never have
tried to go exclusively to the shuttle as a launch vehicle.

		Tony

    It was definitely a mistake to depend solely on the space shuttle
    as the country's only access to space.  Unfortunately, the Nixon
    administration decided on the cheapest of the three programs of
    space exploration proposed for the next decade.  We're still
    paying for that decision today.
    
    Gee, kind of sounds familiar, doesn't it?  You know,
    
    			One company
    			One egg
    			One basket
    
    to paraphrase certain individuals within the company.  Wonder
    when the O-rings in the VAX will finally erode?