🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan4.214819.14834@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.191452.12294@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>Which is indeed half the battle. But since you back Shuttle no matter what
>>>it costs, I don't see your point.
>
>>I back Shuttle because it's flying *now* and nothing else flying *now*
>>has it's capabilities at *any* price. 
>
>I say again, since you back Shuttle no matter what it costs what's your
>point?

My point is that the heavy costs have already been paid. The $34 billion in
development money can't be retrieved, the $1.5 billion per each construction
cost has already been spent, the VAB is built, Pad 39A is operational, etc, 
etc, etc. We better get some use out of those investments until something 
better comes on line, otherwise the entire investment is a write off. And 
nothing better *is* online yet. So Shuttle remains the *cheapest* manned 
western launcher since all the others have infinite costs (*any* non-zero 
cost divided by zero availability is still infinite).

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu