Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!fmeed1!cage From: cage@fmeed1.UUCP (Russ Cage) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap Summary: SSX is still a paper vehicle, and cannot be compared to expendables. Message-ID: <8695@fmeed1.UUCP> Date: 9 Nov 90 15:43:35 GMT References: <6762@hub.ucsb.edu> <9010250032.AA13018@iti.org> <6781@hub.ucsb.edu> <8580@fmeed1.UUCP> Reply-To: russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Russ Cage) Organization: Ford Motor Co., Electronics Div., Dearborn, MI Lines: 23 In article dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) writes: >In article <8580@fmeed1.UUCP> russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Russ Cage) writes: >RC>Show me anything like SSX which has flown even 2 flights, and >RC>come within a factor of 2 of its cost target. >Well, for starters, Max Hunter, SSX's main proponent, says that it is >less complex than a major airliner. 1.) Has it flown? No. 2.) Has it come within 2x its cost targets? Unbuilt, so we don't know. I am still waiting for an example meeting my criteria. SSX is not an example, having not bent metal yet, much less having flown. As such, it cannot be given as an example of a reusable vehicle which is cost-competitive with expendables. IF it meets its design criteria, it MIGHT, but that has yet to be demonstrated. Expendables have much higher certainty in their life-cycle costs (due to the vagaries of refurbishment being eliminated), so it is much easier to give firm numbers. -- Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (CHATTY MAIL NOT ANSWERED HERE) Home: russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (All non-business mail) Member: HASA, "S" division.