Xref: utzoo sci.space:26603 sci.space.shuttle:6935
Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!emory!emcard!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
From: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: space news from Nov 5 AW&ST
Message-ID: <1685@ke4zv.UUCP>
Date: 19 Dec 90 19:04:29 GMT
References: <1990Dec11.055832.24321@zoo.toronto.edu> <20699@crg5.UUCP> <FGF^?1|@rpi.edu> <20714@crg5.UUCP>
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Lines: 15

In article <20714@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>OSC and Hercules are the only U.S. aerospace companies since the
>Shuttle to development a totally new, successful orbital launcher.  
>They did it for 1/50th (2%) of what it cost to develop the first Shuttle.
>Unlike the major Shuttle contractors, they have carried a loss on the
>project (in other words risked their own money) eying future commercial
>markets.  These are encouraging facts not gripes.   Sorry I sounded like 
>such a sourpuss over such a happy event.  :-)

The fact that a little 400 kilo payload launcher cost 2% of what the
vastly bigger and more complex shuttle cost is, in itself, shocking.
What are the hard numbers on development costs?

Gary