Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sri-unix!REM@MIT-MC From: REM%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Details of upcoming Solar Max repair mission Message-ID: <17362@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Mar-84 10:03:00 EST Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.17362 Posted: Tue Mar 6 10:03:00 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Mar-84 00:47:16 EST Lines: 13 From: Robert Elton MaasNASA has long argued it would be cheaper to service satellites in space than to simply abandon them if something goes wrong. Solar Max cost about $80 million to build, but replacing it would cost $200 million or more. I find these figures hard to believe. True inflation would increase the current cost compared to the cost then, but not by a factor of 2.5 since it was built only a few years ago. I'd believe a factor of 1.5. But since the design work wouldn't have to be redone, only the actual fabrication&testing, much of the cost could be saved, probably more than offsetting inflation. So what's the justification for the $200 million figure??