🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov18.203236.13184@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>I suspect Shuttle returned a handsome profit for Rockwell. 

Irrelevant. That's like saying that American Arilines is profitable
because Boeing is profitable.

>It has cost
>the US Government billions to develop and maintain Shuttle capabilities,
>but the US Government isn't a profit making institution. 

The principles can still apply (as indeed the original poster intended).
NASA charges people for Shuttle even if it is just moving money from
one account in NASA to another. Shuttle costs FAR exceed prices charged
which means it looses money.

>It considers those costs fully sunk. 

I'm not talking about development costs. NASA doesn't even get enough to
cover OPERATIONAL costs.

>At $350 million per launch *operating* expense,

Nope. Shuttle flights cost half a billion each minimum.

>the Shuttle is giving launch capabilities unmatched by any other system
>at bargain rates per fractional payload.

Sure. Whenever I want to spend half a billion to recover a $150 million
satellite I use Shuttle. Granted I loose a third of a billion $$ for
each satellite but NASA accountants assure me that I will make up for it
in volume. :-)

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------156 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+