"Terrell Miller" wrote:
* first, jetliners are inherently more economical to *operate* than one-shot
boosters. For grins, assume that a Proton-sized booster takes roughly the
same capacity as a 767. But the Proton is used exactly once (actually less
if you count launch and payload failures). The 767 keeps cranking out the
revenue-passenger-miles, year in and year-out.

Agreed, but that does not mean that their are not more economical ways
available. In case you've failed to notice it's 2004 not 1964, and a
lot has been learned in the interim.

*second, how you gonna get the booster from Boeing's factory to the launch
site? It can't fly itself there like a 767 can fly to the customers's
hangar. So now you need a massive ramp-up in transportation infrastructure,

6-8 Super Guppies or their equivalent will do the job right nicely.
It'll take a year or three to get 'em, but no additional
infrastructure will be required.

or you need a massive investment in booster-production facilities closer to
the pad, which would totally engate the fungibility of Boeing's current
factories.

Probably around 250 mill to build the factory, and probably a wise
investment if you are launching that many boosters. Again, a
non-barrier.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.