REM@IMSSS (Robert Elton Maas, this host known locally only) (02/03/86)
First, erratum in my earlier message: R> I would think that since they already know how to build one (learned R> 1975-81) and how to test them (learned 1979-1985), they could just R> hire a lot of additional manpower and put work on a 2-hour shift and R> do all the tasks in parallel from specs already worked out, ... "2-hour" should read "24-hour" (per day). Sorry for typo. Now an update. In "Washington Week in Review" on January 30 they estimated $2.5E9 (instead of $2.0E9) and 3 years (instead of 5 years) to build one replacement STS orbiter. That means 2.5 weeks instead of 3 weeks of California Lottery proceedings, a trivial increase, and 2 years sooner, a big improvement. Maybe if we throw some more money at it we can get it down to 2 years instead of 3 or 5?
jao@valid.UUCP (John Oswalt) (02/04/86)
> to build one replacement STS orbiter. That means 2.5 weeks instead of > 3 weeks of California Lottery proceedings, a trivial increase, and 2 Please stop exhibiting your numerical illiteracy on the net. Wherever did you get the idea that the California lottery took in $1 billion/week? Just pause to think about that: $4 per man, woman, child and illegal alien in California every week? -- doesn't make sence. -- John Oswalt (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!jao)
jao@valid.UUCP (John Oswalt) (02/04/86)
Sorry about typo in previous posting. That should be $40 per person
per week -- an even more absurd figure.
--
John Oswalt (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!jao)