🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec31.015157.14864@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>No, what you did was deride a careful and thoughtful analysis by Bruce
>Dunn by offering a strained analogy between aircraft and spacecraft.
>I merely pointed out your analogy was flawed.

Oh?  Well, let me try again.  The main cost component for reuseable 
launch vehicles is not fuel, or even fabrication costs, but maintenance.  
This is even more true for space launchers than for aircraft.  Bruce
offered a careful and thoughtful analysis that would reduce fabrication 
and fuel costs (*if* you accept his handwaving assertion that the lower
stage would cost less per pound to manufacture) while enormously increasing
the already-greater maintenance costs.

Now, please point out to me where my analogy is flawed.