🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov16.193337.9963@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> devenzia@euler.jsc.nasa.gov (John DeVenezia) writes:

>> How can the Shuttle possibly be said to offer ANY (much less the best) return
>> on investment? Shuttle has LOST billions.

>Well, considering that the Shuttle project also provides/provided profits for the
>companies which launch/re-furbish/built it can you tell us what the difference
>is?  

Your saying that since the subcontractors are turning a profit it therefore
follows that NASA is making a profit. If you think about that for a moment
you will see that it makes no sense. It's like saying that Boeing is making
a profit and therefore American Airlines must be profitable as well.

Profit is when you collect more in fees/sales than you spend. If you add
up all the money collected in fees and subtract out the amount spent you
will see that Shuttle has lost billions.

>Consider that the Atlas and Delta carry many goverment payloads.

Sure. But they charge the government more than their costs. They make
a profit and therefore have a return on investment. Shuttle simply
doesn't have either.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------157 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+