On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:10:21 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

Except that said [LC39/Shuttle] infrastructure is very, very expensive to run. It's not
at all clear that this "infrastructure and expertise" is really an asset.


Two sides of the same coin -- that which makes Shuttle-C look
attractive, using LC39 and related facilties and personel, is also
something that counts against it, as you point out.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, you have the Advanced Launch
System they were thinking about 14 or so years ago. It was supposed to
be relatively cheap to operate; IIRC, they were talking about getting
firms skilled in doing off shore oil rigs to design the launch pads!
(Brown and Root was looking at that sort of thing at the time.) But
OTOH, it would have been very expensive to develop, and that is what
lead to its downfall. A new booster built for Constellation COULD,
hypothetically, face the same delemma, cheaper to operate but
expensive to develop. Shuttle-C is just the opposite, relatively
cheap to develop but expensive to operate.

Talk about your no win scnenario.

That doesn't mean there's a third option that cuts between both
possibilities. But two of the options seem to leave you in a bind no
matter what you pick.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---