7/11    If Space Shuttle saves money by reuse, how come each launch still
        cost 4X more than that of a Russian Proton rocket? Is it because of
        the high cost of labor?
        \_ Yes, that's the primary reason by far. Also add the absence of
           various legal barriers, especially those based on environmental
           concerns, and, quite likely, inaccurate reporting of the costs
           themselves. -russian sodan
                \_ NASA = employment to the best and the brightest from the
                   academia that would otherwise be homeless right now.
                   Be thankful that our space shuttle is riddled
                   w/ bugs and inefficiency
                   \_ nasa is a load of cunts.
                   \_ nasa is a load of [dyke] cunts.
        \_ But proton rocket can carry far less weight, right?
                \_ the space shuttle is a scam.  It's used mostly for stuff
                   that unmanned (and much cheaper) missions could handle.
                   \_ It was a *really* expensive way to get rid of one
                      lousy teacher.  I'd think bullets are cheaper.
        \_ Shuttle is much more expensive than other launch systems,
           say US-built unmanned rockets, largely because it's manned.
           By unmanned standards, the Shuttle is highly reliable
           -- one failure in over 100 launches.  Proton is cheaper
           than US rockets not only because of low labor costs,
           but because they're designed very robustly.  With US rockets,
           you build the rocket just slightly better than it needs to be,
           then do a shitload of analysis to prove that it works.  In
           the Soviet Union, you make it on the whole more robust,
           and if it fails, you don't worry as much about it, and build
           another one.  I would consider Soviet aerospace industry
           probably as successful as Western during the Cold War, but
           aerospace is just about the only sector of their economy
           that didn't suck.  Nowadays, even their aerospace industry
           has problems; it is difficult to think positively about
           Russia.
           \_ Yeah, look at their 'contributions' to the international
              space station, and tell me they dont suck...
                \_ That's just a money issue.
           \_ Their materials sciences were and still are well ahead of the
              West.
        \_ Former USSR makes their condoms like their rockets.
           \_ Is *THAT* why there were so many of those damn Russian
              emigres in the EECS department?