🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov20.143407.21964@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
...
>Most of the savings are because we are approaching the problem in a different
>way. The old way costs did need to be high because designs where complex
>and always pushed the technology. Keeping it simple (the first rule of good
>engineering), using existing well tested technology, and not pushing
>envelopes reduces costs.
>
>>Hmm, didn't you just say that Congress should just fund the DC-X,Y?
>
>A mis-statement on my part. I ment if Congress properly funds DC-Y. I
>do expect that DC-1 would be built by the private sector.
>
	If you are using well tested current technology, why should
the gov't. pay for any of the craft?  I'll agree that NASA has fumbled
several balls in the arena of routine space tranportation.  One of
its original missions, and the one I hope it returns to is to indeed
"push the envelope".  Do the R&D for NASP; do the R&D (and even
initial construction) for space habitat/labs (I'll leave the question
of Freedom's suitability open); do the lunar/planetary explorations.
But if your claim to fame is that you can do all the transportation
using current technology and are not pushing the envelope, then
convince private concerns that they'll turn a profit, and invest in it
themselves.  If GD, McD, Boeing and the rest really wanted to, they
could put enough heat on NASA to convince NASA to leave the "space
truck" market altogether.
-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.