On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:08:00 GMT, "James Oberg" wrote:
"Rick C" wrote
I think the idea is not that you'd h ave fewer launches per year, but
fewer total flights.

That's the idea -- that hardware doesn't stack up on the ground and overflow
onto the tarmac at KSC -- where uplift was the bottleneck long before the
neck was corked by the 107 catastrophe.

At the same cost, you launch your components 30% faster, get to 'Assembly
Complete' years sooner, and make all the users happier.

I understand that Assembly Complete could have occurred years earlier, and
that would have a substantial positive impact on total program costs.

But you don't actually "save a billion dollars a year" on Shuttle flights which
could then be diverted to developing hardware the Russians ultimately provided.
That was the statement being challenged.

Gary