home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!BrianT
- From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
- Message-ID: <72667@cup.portal.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:38:17 PST
- Organization: The Portal System (TM)
- References: <72527@cup.portal.com> <1992Dec29.191524.2413@iti.org>
- <72597@cup.portal.com> <1992Dec30.205940.28699@iti.org>
- <30DEC199217112254@author.gsfc.nasa.gov>
- Lines: 25
-
- >>Doing that would cost more then they are worth. It would be cheaper to
- >>build new ones and launch them commercially.
- >>
- >Can you show that was also true for SMM? Part of the MMS on UARS is from SMM,
- >having been brought back after a successfull mission, after earlier being
- >repaired in orbit. SMM isn't planning to reuse itself, and neither UARS nor
- >GRO may be either, but there has already been cost savings on UARS due to the
- >return of SMM. Only the shuttle (product of politics more than NASA's
- >technical or mangement expertise IMHO) could repair SMM, and only the shuttle
- >could bring it back.
- >
- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- >Bob Koehler
-
- Did I miss something here? SMM is the Solar Maximum Mission, correct?
- It was not returned to earth, only repaired in orbit. It burned up
- in 1990, I think.
-
- -Brian
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss,
- BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven."
- -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-