Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site smeagol.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!earle
From: earle@smeagol.UUCP (Greg Earle)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Cost of a new shuttle
Message-ID: <596@smeagol.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Feb-86 20:37:32 EST
Article-I.D.: smeagol.596
Posted: Wed Feb 12 20:37:32 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Feb-86 07:19:58 EST
References: <8602111608.AA14971@hermes>
Distribution: net
Organization: Spacecraft Data Systems, JPL, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 28

In article <8602111608.AA14971@hermes>, dms (David M. Siegel) writes:
> For sake of comparison, the price of a B1 bomber is around 1 billion,
> and the plan is to build 100 of them. How about building 90 B1
> bombers and 5 more shuttles?

How about the reverse? (5 B1's, 46 Shuttles, and use the last $3 billion
to feed the Ethiopians and make Andrew J Fine [Ref: <932@nmtvax.UUCP>]
happy? :@)

#ifdef FLAME
These "shuttle not profitable/economical/practical" arguments are making me
ill.  I don't hear any "DoD not profitable" noises ...
#endif FLAME

Anybody see the article "Shuttle Hopes: Majestic but Also Mistaken", by
Gregg Easterbrook of Atlantic Monthly? (Printed in L.A. Times 2/2/86)
This is the kind of stuff we're up against.

Disclaimer: The views in this article are not to be construed as the official
viewpoint of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, or any employees thereof [Although
I could find plenty that agree with me :@)]

-- 

	Greg Earle
	JPL Spacecraft Data Systems group
	sdcrdcf!smeagol!earle (UUCP)
	ia-sun2!smeagol!earle@csvax.caltech.edu (ARPA)