🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec16.202219.2063@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.092029.27518@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>Furthermore, you assumed that the KH-11 is the benchmark (also known as
>the Szabo yardstick) without the resultant drop in costs which would occur if
>you could rapidly deliver sats to orbit. 
>
>You don't have to add lots of fuel, thrusters, and other sensors, treat the
>camera and sat as a throw-away item.
>



Doug,  actually the problem with both the KH-11 and 12 is that they were
done as totally black world projects.  costs over-run like crazy
because there are no competitors,  little oversight and security
over head costs galore.

I think if you built light recon sats as just ordinary classified
projects, you could do it for a heck of a lot less.  part of the problem
with these birds is that they are built with multi-year lifetime and
super rad hardening.  you are right on when you say they should
be throwaways.

look at the russians.  they launch one-two a week and used to
burn them up manuevering them because they had plenty to go.

we should look to develope cheap sats to go with DC-1.