----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: More jolly Space Station news
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, David M Harland wrote:
>
> > There is no viable alternative to the Shuttle for human spaceflight.
> > It is now running about as efficiently as it ever will. It is simply
> > a costly business.
>
> Huh? Does anyone know what the costs are for the Russian missions?
> If they will take $20 M for 1/3 of a mission, then it seems that one
> can argue that their launch costs are less than $60 M/flight.
>
> Taking the high/low range for the shuttle ($1B vs. $400M) vs. $60 M
> and its clear that there *are* both viable and cheaper alternatives
> to the shuttle. I've often seen arguments that the cost of getting
> a human into orbit need not be more than the cost of a cross-country
> airplane flight (in terms of energy expenditure). So we return
> to the issue of whether or not it is a volume business (with
> occasional losses) or an exclusive monopoly for a select few.
Here you're onto something. Freeman Dyson argues convincingly that manned
spaceflight WILL become worthwhile at some point -- AFTER we get the cost
per kilogram way down. But until that highly desirable goal is achieved,
unmanned missions are usually the way to go. And the Station contributes
absolutely nothing to that goal.
==
You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
