Flight Rates

NASAs avowed purpose is research and exploration,
something they've done pretty darn well.

To do the things we(SSI proponents) want requires
research and development, with the accent on
development.

That seems best done by a commercial interest in
space, which is the major way we have of deciding if
something is worth doing at all, ie, is this
investment worth my effort?

Return on investment is how we keep score. The
POTENTIAL returns on space development are so
enourmous as to boggle the mind of Midas, but
convincing people to invest their hard earned cash is
really hard,,,but, it can be done,,,

Gary 7

>
> A good reason not to trust any new launch
> responsibilities to NASA,
> don't you think?
>
> http://mm1.lettermark.net/calfee/card/PKDL_8.map>
>
> This electronic mail transmission may contain
> confidential and legally
> privileged information from the law firm of Calfee,
> Halter & Griswold
> LLP intended only for the use of the individual(s)
> identified as
> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient,
> you are hereby
> notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
> or the taking of any
> action in reliance on the contents of this
> electronic mail transmission
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> transmission in error,
> please notify me by telephone immediately. Nothing
> contained herein or
> in any attachment hereto is intended to be used, or
> can be used, to
> avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue
> Code.
>
> [mailto:ssi_list@... On
> Behalf Of Combs, Mike
>
> > NASA's early arguments that the Shuttle would
> reduce launch costs were
> predicated on a much greater launch rate than was
> ever achieved in
> reality.
>
> A bit more on that: I think all of us here think
> highly of the High
> Frontier studies done by O'Neill and others back in
> the 70's. But one
> cringe-inducing aspect of it is today reading the
> calculation that High
> Frontier could be supported by one Shuttle launch a
> month, which was a
> good thing because that meant only one Shuttle
> orbiter out of the fleet
> would need to be dedicated to the task, leaving the
> other orbiters free
> for other purposes. Obviously the assumption
> underlying that assertion
> was a Shuttle thundering up out of Kennedy every
> week.
>
> Lest we castigate O'Neill for such a grandiose
> notion, he was simply
> taking NASA at its word. That might seem naive in
> hindsight, but we
> should remember that at that time NASA was known
> chiefly for one thing:
> saying they would land a man on the moon before the
> 60's were out, and
> then making good on the promise.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
>

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate