(Hallerb) writes:

Putting aside the budget for design and building Its job description would be
to do essentially what todays shuttle does, only at low cost. Lets assume a
cargo ONLY variant for really heavy lifting.

But the basic jobs would be the same. Taking as many as 10 astronauts to
orbit. Payload bay similiar to todays vehicle. Lets add a nifty feature. A
payload bay passenger pod for tourists

Now low cost per poiund is essential. Just how could this be done?

By focusing on low cost per kg to LEO, not on a shuttle replacement.
Just look at the developing OSP fiasco. It certainly isn't going to
reduce the cost to get into LEO.

It also won't come by ignoring the R&D costs, as you propose. Look at
the development of air transports starting with the Wright Brothers
(and Langley). Low cost access to air travel wasn't developed by the
government and it certainly wasn't developed by ignoring R&D costs.

Low cost access to air travel was helped along some by government
research (not development of actual production aircraft), but it was
helped more by the government buying services, like delivering the
mail.

Please keep this friendly and fun. Its not going to happen but might be fun to
discuss

I fail to see why it's fun for you to start the same thread with the
same flawed assumptions over and over, but maybe I'm the only one...

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.