Shuttle costs

Bill wrote:
>
> For the most part I agree with you, but you forgot one major point -
> economies of scale, and that is what everyone is saying. Do you have
> to pay 1000 engineers 50 times more to launch 50 shuttles per year as
> opposed to 1?
>

Shuttle launch rate is 6-8 (50 was planned). To get some idea of what is
involved:

"For automatic e-mail subscriptions to this Shuttle status report or KSC
originated press releases, send an Internet electronic mail message to
domo@... . In the body of the message (not the subject
line)
type the words "subscribe shuttle-status" or "subscribe
ksc-press-release"
(do not use quotation marks). The system will reply with a confirmation
via
e-mail of each subscription. "

The shuttle probably can't get a significantly higher launch rate as the
design is locked in. I'm betting the next 5-10 years of my career that
turn around time can be significantly reduced by improving materials so
they can more easily withstand the rigours of launch and thus require
less refurbishment.

Beal's idea -- no cryogenics -- had a lot of appeal to me, but he's out
of the game. Kistler may also improve launch rate (I hope
significantly) and, of course, the muli-billion NASA Space Launch
Initiative (of which a good chunk is going to Kistler) is supposed to
help.

--
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.