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