XPost: sci.space.shuttle, sci.space.history, rec.aviation.military   
   From: jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com   
      
   "dan"  wrote in message   
   news:1141528364.922390.322080@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...   
   >>>In other words, the high cost of fuel isn't what makes spaceflight   
   >>>expensive   
   > when launch costs fare more than the cost of fuel for the launch.   
   >   
   > Exactly. Almost all the cost for the Shuttle is the maintenance needed   
   > between flights. Some parts, like the SRBs, are completely   
   > disassembled, stripped to bare metal (even the nuts and bolts),   
   > inspected for cracks, and remanufactured. The Orbiter requires months   
   > of inspections and maintenance.  But these aren't the inevitable result   
   > of the vehicle being reusable; they're with us because the Shuttle was   
   > designed before we had any actual flight experience with many of the   
   > critical systems, particularly the TPS and SRBs.   
      
   Actually, the problem really was with the SRB's themselves.  As with many   
   orbiter systems, they were chosen because of their low development costs,   
   not because NASA thought they would have low per flight costs.  Also, the   
   TPS on the orbiter isn't the only labor intensive system.  There are also   
   the SSME's (their high chamber pressure drove them to a design that's   
   bleeding edge), the APU's (toxic propellants), the RCS/OMS systems (which   
   use toxic propellants), and etc.   
      
   Jeff   
   --   
   Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)