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.