Xref: utzoo sci.aeronautics:75 sci.space:14261 sci.space.shuttle:3701 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Station Strangles NASP Message-ID: <1989Sep29.164255.28849@utzoo.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <4983@omepd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 89 16:42:55 GMT Do remember, when making optimistic claims about the superiority of NASP over the shuttle, that: 1. NASP in general and the X-30 in particular are moderately-high-risk experimental programs, not something that one can depend on. The X-30's payload to orbit, if it gets there, will be two pilots and a toothbrush apiece. Operational systems based on this technology *are* a 21st-century notion. 2. Most of the costs for current launch systems are on the ground; the cost of the fuel and expended hardware itself is relatively minor. NASP technology does not inherently give major cost reductions. 3. All the claims about routine airline-like operations being made for NASP technology were also made for shuttle technology. This having been said, I strongly support the X-30; the proposed slips in schedule are dumb ideas. The biggest problem with this program is that there's only one such project. There are several other ideas for cutting launch costs by radical departures from existing systems that deserve serious exploratory-level funding, and aren't getting it. At this level of untried-but-promising technology, putting all your eggs in one basket is stupid. -- "Where is D.D. Harriman now, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology when we really *need* him?" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu