🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1993Jan5.215441.21415@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>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).

The Shuttle also has zero availability, if your time frame is the
next few days.  Your car has zero availability, if your time frame
is the next 30 seconds.  (I'm assuming you're not a track star.)
Soyuz spacecraft/launchers purchased from the Russians have zero
availability, if your time frame is the next six months.  DC-1
has zero availability, if your time frame is the next four years.

Even using this rather peculiar accounting system, the Shuttle's
cost doesn't seem any better than the alternatives.  All you can
really say is that it's availability sooner than some, perhaps
all, of the alternatives.  But not immediately.  Not tommorow
morning.  The question is, must we reject any alternative that
would result in *any* delay in *any* program.  

Switching from the Shuttle to Vehicle X would certainly delay
some payloads and missions currently planned to fly aboard the
Shuttle.  But remaining with the Shuttle might delay other 
payloads and missions that are not yet planned but could be
flown on Vehicle X.  You can't just look at one side of the
equation; you need to do a complete cost-benefit analysis.

But there's another aspect you need to consider.  The people
running the Shuttle program have engaged in guerilla warfare
against anyone trying to develop an alternative launcher, and
there is every reason to believe they will continue to do so 
as long as the Shuttle keeps flying.  So the very existance
of the Shuttle may prevent us from *ever* developing an alternative
launch vehicle.

(Oh, and just to be picky about it, division by zero does not
produce infinity as a result.  The result is undefined.)