You need to be in the position where it is the cost of the fuel that actually matters and not the cost of building the rocket in the first place.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Fuel conservation is a necessity, and I have to be the first person to set the example.
The car is the most regulated thing in the world. It's more complicated to make a car than it is to send a rocket to space.
It doesn't take a degree in economics to know that something is wrong when it takes $30 or $40 to fill up the gas tank.
Fuel conservation is as important as fuel production.
Rocket science is tough, and rockets have a way of failing.
Trying to build a spaceship by making an aeroplane fly faster and higher is like trying to build an aeroplane by making locomotives faster and lighter - with a lot of effort, perhaps you could get something that more or less works, but it really isn't the right way to proceed.
Here are the choices I don't want to make: between paying additional fuel costs and flying and steaming less; between paying additional fuel costs and building fewer ships and planes.
Gain may be temporary and uncertain; but ever while you live, expense is constant and certain: and it is easier to build two chimneys than to keep one in fuel.
Do we really need these big, gigantic, heavy rockets? What if we launch a rocket that's empty, and its sole purpose is to act as a source of fuel on the Moon? Who should build that? Well, I think the U.S. should build that.
When you launch in a rocket, you're not really flying that rocket. You're just sort of hanging on.