COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\input buslet[1,ra]
C00005 ENDMK
C⊗;
\input buslet[1,ra]
\jmclet
\vskip 30pt
\address 

Dr. Ronald Larsen
Office of the Vice-President for General Administration
University of Maryland
Adelphi, Maryland 20783

\body
Dear Ron:

	I have reviewed the draft report, and I think it is a good
job and reflects the consensus of the meeting so far as I can remember.
I have the following comments.

The last sentence of 2.4.1 should be expressed positively, e.g. ``The
TTAC encourages JPL carefully investigate commercial alternatives
to developing a customized controller and to use one if it is adequate.''

In 3.4 I would replace ``alternative'' by ``supplement''.
I would add a sentence to either 3.4 or 3.4.1 saying, ``The costs of
improving the communication system fast enough so that turn-around time
is limited only by the velocity of light should be explicitly investigated.''

The material to be provided by Del Tessar should be explicitly connected
with his name.  What he said sounds plausible to me, but it should
not be identified as the opinion of TTAC without the proponents
of the ONRL arm having a chance to argue.  As I understand it, we
would be telling NASA that their main plan for a space arm is wrong,
and this shouldn't be done casually.  I don't think it's our role to
investigate the matter, but we could recommend that there be some
kind of formal discussion of the arm, since Tessar has raised
quite plausible doubts.  I don't think it makes sense for JPL to
quietly go off in some other direction without discussing the issues.

\closing
Sincerely,       

John McCarthy    
\annotations
\vskip 1in
JMC/ra 
\endletter
\end