🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan1.030602.21051@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>If DC flies with anything like the performance and costs that are
>projected, it will be a big commercial success. I think those 
>numbers are still optimistic and that the program risks are still
>large, however. Shuttle was a cheap $300 a pound launcher when it
>was a paper airplane too. Even with a 3X stretchout of development time, 
>and a 3X increase in projected costs, it'll beat government run Shuttle
>costs, but would have trouble against actual Shuttle costs if Shuttle 
>were run under comparable commercial rules. What I'm saying in a nutshell 
>is that the proposed DC is expected to be cheaper than the operating Shuttle 
>because they are required to operate in different manners by law and by 
>government and corporate culture.  Thus your Shuttle bashing rightfully 
>should be government operating methods bashing. I'll happily join you in 
>*that*. Government can't do anything as efficiently as the private sector.
>



Gary,

	The operating methods of any stackable vehicle are going to
	significantly different from a recoverable single stage vehicle.

	You keep arguing that the russians have high costs for their
	stackables, and that ariane has high costs subsidized by the government.

	I know you believe that cheap stackables can be done,  but those
	are the same paper designs you condemn DC for.  

	Shuttle could have lower costs then  NASA currently has,
	but it still needs a tremendous infrastructure.  The OPF,
	the VAB, Tilting bay,  the crawler/transporter.  Launch towers.

	The DC  will not need much more infrastructure, then a 
	airline hangar.  Henry, alan and I all believe that eliminating
	all this structure and cost  will make up for any lower
	vehicle lift capacity.  

	Please demonstrate how Lockheed could eliminate all these costs
	from commercial shuttle operations.

pat