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