🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan8.165353.17917@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>This idea is based on the assumption that _large_ cost reductions could
>be achieved by the private sector, which I'm not ready to buy.  The
>shuttle is intrinsically expensive, with its maintenance-intensive...

So then maybe it isn't Shuttle. By opening up a market you encourage
competition. Let's say your correct and Shuttle can't be cost reduced.
But with a commercial market we would have a private contractor
collecting $6+ billion for eight flights. Presto chango we suddenly
have a commercial manned space market which is several times the size of
the existing launch market.

This would be more than enough to get several companies working on SSTO
and numerous other alternatives. Soon, Shuttle could no longer survive
the new cheap competition and it would be replaced.

But this can't happen now since NASA will use Shuttle no matter what.

>Note that I'm not denying that savings are possible, but I'm still not
>convinced that they would materialize, were NASA to try.

NASA's budget for luanch services is more than enough to justify
development of lots of cheap alternatives *IF* NASA used the market
instead of fighting it.

>Besides, who would need Delta Clipper if the shuttle could be made
>cheap?

Hey, if Shuttle becomes cheap I won't care about DC. I want to see low
cost reliable access to space. At this time, I think DC is our best
shot. 

My goal is a spacefaring civilization, not a vehicle.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------106 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+