Re: DS/SG Landings

> > Sorry, I have trouble seeing disposable drop pods as being more cost
> > or space affective than a reusable drop ship.

Their not, but the you can risk a low cost drop pod on missions you
would
not want to risk a dropship.  Also, if drop pods are "canned" (need no
maintence before use), they could have a real logistics advantage for
mass
landings.

> We don't (yet) have completely re-usable ground-orbit, because it's
> more cost effctive to throw some of the thing away each time.

This is very debatable.  Most U.S. launchers, other then the Shuttle,
are
ex-ICBM's.  Non of the intial R&D costs are included in their cost. 
Only
the R&D costs of converting them to satelite launch vehicles.  It could
be
cost effective to build a re-useable launch vehicle, but the problem is
the
return time on investment.  Billions now that won't be recouped for 20
years, or more.  Some of the most interesting ideas for re-usable launch
vehicles are for two stage, where both stages are fully recoverable and
with
low down time between flights.

> And: if you're not going to reuse the heat shield it can be ablative
> rather than dissipative..

But if you want real economic efficiency, you can have reusable drop
capsules.  They are much cheaper then interface shuttles, can be used in
more risky insertions, and can be reclaimed after use.	They'll probably
need to be refurbished between use.