Re: Apollo infrastructure - was it good for STS?

"Neil Gerace" <geracen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:435c40e1$0$8653$5a62ac22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> Was it worth keeping the VAB, crawlers, etc built for Apollo and
> modifying them for STS,? In hindsight, might it have been cheaper or
> more efficient to abandon them and build new devices to assemble
> Shuttle stacks in some other way, e.g. at the pad?

If STS were really capable of the flight rates originally advertised, then
it might have made sense to have more efficient infrastructure. As it is,
STS cannot meet those flight rate targets and the infrastructure really
isn't the long pole in that tent. So using the Apollo infrastructure
minimized development costs without really impacting flight rate.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kudos to Musgrave
    ... >he would most CERTAINLY demand ... >NASA be held accountable for Apollo One. ... one it was about STS 107. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Best shuttle pilot?
    ... he flew Gemini, Apollo and STS. ... Crippen second; he ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)