Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: notesfiles Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!rmd From: rmd@hpfcla.UUCP Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <22000003@hpfcla.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-Feb-84 23:40:00 EST Article-I.D.: hpfcla.22000003 Posted: Mon Feb 20 23:40:00 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 4-Mar-84 04:05:50 EST References: <-16500@ames-lm.UUCP> Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Systems Division - Fort Collins, CO Lines: 13 Nf-ID: #R:ames-lm:-16500:hpfcla:22000003:37777777600:613 Nf-From: hpfcla!rmd Feb 28 20:40:00 1984 I think you missed his point somewhat. True, the dominant cost of the space shuttle is engineering and capital costs, but these costs are not justified simply because they exist! We have to ask ourselves if all that engineeering and capital was necessary in the first place. I am not saying that I know of any better design, but I think it is possible and highly probable that there are cheaper ways to get into space than the space shuttle. Any organization, public or private, American or not, would be doing us all a favor if they come up with a cheaper design. Rick Dow hpfcla!rmd