Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!rex!rouge!dlbres10 From: dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap Message-ID: Date: 12 Nov 90 18:49:08 GMT References: <6762@hub.ucsb.edu> <9010250032.AA13018@iti.org> <6781@hub.ucsb.edu> <8580@fmeed1.UUCP> <8695@fmeed1.UUCP> Sender: anon@rouge.usl.edu Organization: Univ. of Southwestern LA, Lafayette Lines: 41 In-reply-to: cage@fmeed1.UUCP's message of 9 Nov 90 15:43:35 GMT The following exchange has taken place: Russ Cage: Russ Cage had written: RC>Show me anything like SSX which has flown even 2 flights, and RC>come within a factor of 2 of its cost target. And I had responded: PF>Well, for starters, Max Hunter, SSX's main proponent, says that it is PF>less complex than a major airliner. To which Russ said: RC>1.) Has it flown? No. RC>2.) Has it come within 2x its cost targets? Unbuilt, so we don't know. And goes on in a similar fashion, best summarized by his summary line: RC>Summary: SSX is still a paper vehicle, and cannot be compared to expendables. You don't get it. I am saying that we should put our trust in people who have had success with launch technology before. Like Hunter, who allegedly built the Delta, which everyone talks about as a raging economic success. SSX basically has the same payload-to-weight ratio as Delta, but is reusable. Twenty years of advances in _structures_ (and computer design, computer control, manufacturing advances, and aerodynamics ought to enable us to use the H-2 or RL-10 in a reusable manner. It's not operational now, but if we start on it now we might have an operational vehicle by the time Freedom goes up. And given probable design changes in Freedom, such as the downsizing of the modules which might be about to take place due to center-of-gravity restraints on the shuttle (even a stripped full-size module allegedly fails this), Freedom could launch on SSX and the Shuttle, and we would have a backup system for the station. Phil