From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 04:35:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.030602.21051@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>engaging in activities which would get you or I put in jail.

>I hammer on this because of your constant claims that
>NASA is doing something illegal or unethical. They are not. 

Oh, not illegal. One advantage of being the government is that you get to
make the rules. But government contractors who worked their books the
way NASA does have been barred from doing government work and some
executives have been jailed.

There is also the issue of dumping launch services. We enact all sorts of
sanctions against others who dump.

There are also a number of sections of various commercial space laws
which is at best pushing it and at worst violating the law.

>They are operating exactly as they are chartered to operate. 

NASA is chartered as a research organization, not an operational agency.
Shuttle is operations, not research.

>If cost and performance estimates for DC hold up, it may indeed capture
>80% of the MLV market, but not right away. I think most potential customers
>will want to see a track record of successful launches first. 

Or provide insurance. Of course, if we add say 3% to the development cost
we can fly three times as many flights as Shuttle needed to be declared
operational.

>The competition, especially Arienne and Long
>March, may be expected to cut prices sharply in response. 

That is a problem. Shuttle has shown that a government can dump launch
services quite a bit. But I assume since US launch dumping doesn't bother
you that this wouldn't either.

>to long legal battles over dumping. DC's backers may need deep pockets to
>keep going until they win that 80% market share.

The US market, if fairly awarded, is big enough.

>Pegasus as a current example of the effect of optimistic development
>scheduling. That causes financial problems for a commercial venture
>that government agencies can shrug off.

However, DCX is on budget and has slipped very little (30 days in a three
year contract). It looks like these guys know more than you about how
do schedule launcher development.

>>[6] SSTO launch costs are again, double the estimated costs to add a margin.

>Here's where I have the most problem with your numbers. I accept that
>NASA spends $550 million per launch in total Shuttle program costs.
>I further accept that that's very high. But I would point out that 
>it's a government launcher, run under government rules, with government
>overhead. 

I'll accept that. It appears that the system, which you have spent so much
effort defending, simply doesn't work very well.

>Estimates of actual variable costs for a Shuttle launch range 
>from $37 to $150 million per launch. That makes it look much better in 
>comparison to DC numbers. 

Amazing how low costs are possible for Shuttle but not for DC. It would
seem to me that this paragraph argues very well for a very low cost DC.

>Is this relevant? Yes if we want to compare 
>*vehicles*, no if we want to compare *programs*. It's important to realize 
>that DC is projected to operate under a completely different set of rules
>than Shuttle is forced to use. 

Which is indeed half the battle. But since you back Shuttle no matter what
it costs, I don't see your point.

>large, however. Shuttle was a cheap $300 a pound launcher when it
>was a paper airplane too. 

Yes but *WHY* did Shuttle fail? Mostly it failed because of the system
under which it was built. If that doesn't change, then space will NEVER
be cheap. DC works under a different system.

    Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------113 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+