"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...

2000 launches in 10 years is 200/yr, which is only twice the rate that the
Soviets consistently sustained during their busiest launch years. And
much of that traffic was Semyorkas -- fairly complex rockets with a long
checkout/launch cycle. (You wouldn't think anyone would build an ICBM
with a countdown longer than the B-52 flight time from Maine to Plesetsk,
but that's exactly what they did...)

It's not merely remotely feasible, it's clearly and straightforwardly
feasible. Good design in the launcher and the ground-support facilities
will certainly help, but the only part that's *necessary* is ample money.

Henry, will you please take a moment and actually listen to your own
rhetoric?

You just said that a flight rate that has *never* been achieved *anywhere*,
under any political or economic system, and is in fact twice that of the
nearest analog, is "clearly and straightforwardly feasible".

There's *no way* you can make that assertion, amigo. None.

*Possible*, maybe, given all the handwaved requirements you spelled out.

But *clear*, *straightforward* and *feasible*?!?

Look bro, nobody wants a robust space infrastructure more than you and I,
but it's still a pipe dream and will be for decades *at best*, unless we
find a way to dump our chemical rocket dependency. And if that happens, who
knows whether we'll even need SPS anymore, we may find something orders of
magnitude better and cheaper.

--
Terrell Miller


"Very often, a 'free' feestock will still lead to a very expensive system.
One that is quite likely noncompetitive"
- Don Lancaster