--- Henry Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Also keep in mind: the main cost of the mission, > and > > practically all missions like this, is merely in > > launching the pieces into Earth orbit... > > Alas, not so, at least not directly. Launch cost is > typically only a > modest fraction of the total cost of something like > this; the spacecraft > costs rather more than the launch. > > Mind you, spacecraft cost is indirectly driven up by > the cost and scarcity > of launches.
I was counting the direct and indirect costs resulting from the cost of launch. > However, the spacecraft for a mission > like *this* -- long > mission, harsh conditions, one window of opportunity > and no chance to try > again -- is always going to be a wee tad expensive. The latter two can be taken care of, to some extent, by making lots of launches available. High chance that one craft will malfunction? Send three. That said, you do have a point. There's only so much that reducing launch costs can do, and not all of it will be in direct cost reduction. But if, say, one result is freeing up most or all of the money that NASA currently spends maintaining the shuttle, well, NASA's going to spend its budget on something... _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
