[net.space] Cost of a new shuttle

dms@MIT-HERMES.ARPA (David M. Siegel) (02/11/86)

For sake of comparison, the price of a B1 bomber is around 1 billion,
and the plan is to build 100 of them. How about building 90 B1
bombers and 5 more shuttles?

desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (02/12/86)

In article <8602111608.AA14971@hermes> dms@MIT-HERMES.ARPA (David M. Siegel)
writes:
>For sake of comparison, the price of a B1 bomber is around 1 billion,
>and the plan is to build 100 of them. How about building 90 B1
>bombers and 5 more shuttles?

   I am getting really sick of people posting numbers to the net which
are off by orders of magnitude.  The estimated cost of each B-1 is more
like $100 million.  Please, the next person who decides to post a letter
saying "we could build a new shuttle for the cost of ...," get your
numbers right.  Thanks.

   -- David desJardins

weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (02/12/86)

In article <11815@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:
>In article <8602111608.AA14971@hermes> dms@MIT-HERMES.ARPA (David M. Siegel)
>writes:
>>For sake of comparison, the price of a B1 bomber is around 1 billion,
>>and the plan is to build 100 of them. How about building 90 B1
>>bombers and 5 more shuttles?
>
>   I am getting really sick of people posting numbers to the net which
>are off by orders of magnitude.  The estimated cost of each B-1 is more
>like $100 million.

Yes, but what is the *actual* cost?  Much more than $100 million, I'm sure!

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

earle@smeagol.UUCP (Greg Earle) (02/13/86)

In article <8602111608.AA14971@hermes>, dms (David M. Siegel) writes:
> For sake of comparison, the price of a B1 bomber is around 1 billion,
> and the plan is to build 100 of them. How about building 90 B1
> bombers and 5 more shuttles?

How about the reverse? (5 B1's, 46 Shuttles, and use the last $3 billion
to feed the Ethiopians and make Andrew J Fine [Ref: <932@nmtvax.UUCP>]
happy? :@)

#ifdef FLAME
These "shuttle not profitable/economical/practical" arguments are making me
ill.  I don't hear any "DoD not profitable" noises ...
#endif FLAME

Anybody see the article "Shuttle Hopes: Majestic but Also Mistaken", by
Gregg Easterbrook of Atlantic Monthly? (Printed in L.A. Times 2/2/86)
This is the kind of stuff we're up against.

Disclaimer: The views in this article are not to be construed as the official
viewpoint of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, or any employees thereof [Although
I could find plenty that agree with me :@)]

-- 

	Greg Earle
	JPL Spacecraft Data Systems group
	sdcrdcf!smeagol!earle (UUCP)
	ia-sun2!smeagol!earle@csvax.caltech.edu (ARPA)

phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (02/17/86)

In article <11815@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP writes:
>In article <8602111608.AA14971@hermes> dms@MIT-HERMES.ARPA writes:
>>For sake of comparison, the price of a B1 bomber is around 1 billion,
>>and the plan is to build 100 of them. How about building 90 B1
>>bombers and 5 more shuttles?
>
>   I am getting really sick of people posting numbers to the net which
>are off by orders of magnitude.  The estimated cost of each B-1 is more
>like $100 million.

You're both wrong. 34 B-1B bombers were purchased in 1985 for a cost
of $208.8 million each, according to "America's War Machine" by Tom
Gervasi.

Have you been talking to REM or something?



-- 
 Real men don't have answering machines.

 Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com