🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1993Jan8.183031.12692@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Ok, let's try it another way. NASA sells Shuttle and it's support facilities
>at cost to Rockwell. NASA then buys a *ticket* when it needs a launch on
>Rockwell Spacelines, about 8 times a year. Rockwell Spacelines sells them
>the tickets at about 1.5 times current Shuttle flight costs, got to recoup
>the investment and turn a profit. The poor taxpayer takes it in the neck.

How about this: NASA seels the Space Shuttle to Rockwell and negotiates
a long-term contract at the same time.  The contract calls for NASA to
purchase 8 flights a year, with penalties for nonperformance, at the same
price NASA pays now.  This would be a no-profit contract if Rockwell
spent as much to launch the Shuttle as NASA does, but Rockwell turns
out to be surprisingly innovative, finds ways to bring costs down, 
and makes a tidy profit.

Since NASA has found it can reduce by contracting out many
other operations to private companies (the workforce at KSC
is mainly contractor these days, not NASA), why should the
Shuttle itself be an exception?