Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!romp!auschs!awdprime!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif
From: tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Why is Edwards the primary site?
Message-ID: <7543@awdprime.UUCP>
Date: 13 May 91 21:37:29 GMT
References: <3218.282A166A@ofa123.fidonet.org> <32726@usc>
Sender: news@awdprime.UUCP
Reply-To: tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain)
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin
Lines: 17

In article <32726@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes:
>I read that with the shuttle landing at KSC instead of Edwards
>saves about $1million (plus time).

While I wish we could land at KSC all the time, I'm gonna take this
opportunity to gripe about the media.  Why do they say $1,000,000
when, in fact, $1Million is pretty cheap compared to the total cost?
I know why, but ... they're slime!  And "the shuttle destroys tons
of ozone" never-mind that there are zillions of tons destroyed by
other things!!

etc.etc.,   I feel a little better now.

What does a mission cost anyway?  Just give me an order of magnitude.

Paul Chamberlain | I do NOT speak for IBM.          IBM VNET: PAULCC AT AUSTIN
512/838-9748     | ...!cs.utexas.edu!ibmchs!auschs!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif