Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site eosp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ulysses!princeton!eosp1!lincoln
From: lincoln@eosp1.UUCP (Dick Lincoln)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle Follies
Message-ID: <574@eosp1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Feb-84 15:11:19 EST
Article-I.D.: eosp1.574
Posted: Thu Feb  9 15:11:19 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 05:14:31 EST
References: <16488@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton, NJ
Lines: 11

One of the largest potential problems from the successive failures of
this mission - the last being another failure of the "arm" - is the
encouragement given to the European consortium alternative to satellite
launching: a conventional rocket approach.  Last I heard their
launching price would be no more than ours - possibly less, although it
is hard to know how much subsidy is in either price.  The Euro version
is advertised to move larger payloads into synchronous orbit, as well.

Even so, a lack of satellite launch customers probably won't affect the
Shuttle program much: there's too much US military interest in it for
that.