"Cardman" wrote in message
...

Because it would be various combinations of being physically
impossible and economically ridiculous. No detailed analysis is
required to know this, if one understands basic physics,

I know basic physics, where nothing I have said charges this.

And if NASA knows basic physics, then why did it not put the ISS into
a much more useful orbit?

Politics. Clinton turned it into a Foreign policy program with the
Russians. They can only effectively launch to that inclination. So we
changed it.


and the basis of space systems costs.

I estimate lower launch costs than with the Shuttle, where no one has
even began to prove that wrong.

People have given you several sources.

At the very least pick up the 3rd edition of Space Shuttle by Dennis Jenkin.

Flip to page 457 and start reading.

Page 459 shows estimated launch costs of $424 million. Not really any
cheaper than the Shuttle.


We do. You clearly don't, by your own admission.

You are also not proving me wrong, where either your ego is too large
or you cannot.

So name one single item on the Shuttle that would soon expire and
could not be replaced in orbit? Go on, I dare you. ;-]

Reactants for the Fuel cells currently can not be replaced on orbit.
Fuel for the OMS and the RCS currently can not be replenished on orbit.




Cardman.