CNN headline is "Boeing, SpaceX to build NASA's next taxi"

On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 7:17:43 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

Many cases they eschewed the KSC runway and landed at Edwards AFB.

The obvious advantage of KSC is that it didn't involve a slow and

complex trip on top of the 747; the orbiter was already at the

base of the next flight.



Landing at the launch site reduces turn-around costs and time.

Unfortunately, Florida weather isn't conducive to landing a vehicle with

a porous and fragile thermal protection system. :-(

Although almost 2/3 of the flights landed at KSC.

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 7:17:43 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
Landing at the launch site reduces turn-around costs and time.

Unfortunately, Florida weather isn't conducive to landing a vehicle with

a porous and fragile thermal protection system. :-(

Although almost 2/3 of the flights landed at KSC.

True, but the 1/3 that didn't land at KSC cost time and money for the
program.

http://archive.floridatoday.com/cont...9/05/atlantis-
ferry-flight-could-begin.shtml

From above:

All the work to return a shuttle from NASA's Dryden Flight
Research Center at Edwards adds about $1.8 million to the
cost of a shuttle mission, according to the agency.

Here's a basic breakdown:

-- $1.15 million: Processing to drain shuttle systems of
propellants and prepare the vehicle for a ferry flight,
including the cost of travel, lodging and overtime for
dozens of contractors.
-- $354,000: Operation of the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft
and a pathfinder aircraft.
-- $125,000: Travel for civil service employees.
-- $140,000: Support provided by Dryden, including
security.

Another site says that transport from Edwards to KSC takes 6 days (which
includes an estimated one day delay for weather since the shuttle
orbiter can't fly through rain while being transported after a flight.

So, if there were 135 flights, about 45 landed at KSC. So the added
cost was something like $81 million and 270 days of delays over the life
of the program. I'll admit for the shuttle program that was a "drop in
the bucket", but going forward, it would be "nice" to eliminate this
sort of added cost and time from any future reusable vehicles.

Companies like SpaceX look for any way to scrub costs and reduce
schedule delays. For decades "airline like operations" has been seen as
the unattainable holy grail of spaceflight. But, I'd argue we'll never
get there if we don't try.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer