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 Maas 

	NASA 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??