Hi Nick,

The on-orbit approach may work well for some satellites but I can think of a lot of DOD satellites which will not be shipped in pieces to the ISS for assembly.

The launch stress durability design factor, in my opinion, has also given many satellites that extra measure of robustness to survive past their projected service life.

The runaway costs are simply the result of the lack of anti-trust oversight in the mergers of all the aerospace companies. Now Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Loral, etc. can do to the US government what the gas companies have been doing to the customer for decades - fixing prices and providing very poor manufacturing/quality oversight.

So... when one of the missile defense tests fail - (and they will fail assuredly) if they know the government wants it - they can milk the projects for all sort of cost overruns and depending upon how the contract was arranged - the US will foot the bill or cancel the project and the company walks away with a lot of cash for something they never deliver.

They become experts in knowing the governments threshold for overruns. They also know how to keep lobbying senators and congressmen and packing project 'pork' into their states, so as to keep them funded.

Thats obscene in my book.

It's a case where you almost wish the DOD could enter into more contracts with foreign manufacturers...

...well almost.

Maybe just British and German firms? ;-)

It would be fun to watch these massively inflated costs go down for a change...instead of just the satellites and launch vehicles.

Best wishes,

SDAI-Tech1