From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:59:25 GMT

In article <_kbyx3j@rpi.edu> strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.152325.29323@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>In article <h-aym4#@rpi.edu> strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>>
>>>	Soyuz is great, Soyuz is God, Soyuz can carry ONE passenger.  The
>>>other two occupants must be qualified as pilots.
>>
>>>	The Shuttle is lousy, the shuttle is the eater of money, the shuttle
>>>can carry 5 passengers (or more).  
>>
>>I would like to see a source for this. The Soviets tended to prefer automated
>>hardware and didn't let their crew do much if they could avoid it. There
>>shouldn't be too much trouble qualifying crews.
>>
>
>	Source? Look at any Soyuz flight.  If it were so easy, I'd think that
>the CIS would be willing to fly TWo paying passengers, rather than one.
>Also, looking at I believe the last 4 or so missions I recall 2 were done
>with manually docking.  Finally, recall Mercury and the Capsule passengers?
>Oh, excuse me, the ASTRONAUTS who fought to have flight control.  Trying
>to convince NASA and/or its astronauts to sit in a capsule while it flies
>without I think would be harder than convincing Congress of your ideas.
>
>>But I point out that if in fact you are correct, this is still a problem
>>for Shuttle. Soyuz WILL be the ACRV. Congress isn't going to fund anything
>>else.
>>
>	This was my fault, the subject is misleading.  As ACRV I do believe
>that Soyuz has its merits.  As a method for exchanging crews, I have serious
>doubts.  And you haven't made an argument yet.  Just some simple handwaving
>about how easy it would be to qualify crews and that it would all be done
>automatically.
>	Heck, the shuttle can fly automatically except for landing gear
>deployment (and that will change soon).  Why bother flying with a 
>Commander AND a pilot.  Heck, dumpt them and you have 7 or more passengers.
>
>>Therefore if this is a problem, both approaches will sove it the same
>>way.
>>
>	Not sure what you are saying here?
>
>>>	With shuttle, you only need one shuttle flight.  AND the shuttle can
>>>supply the station in the same flight.  
>>
>>And if we have enough money that we don't mind wasing most of it, this
>>is just fine.
>>
>	I've just demonstrated that your costs may be higher than you're
>admitting, and all you can do is say how much the shuttle can costs.  You've
>gone from 2 Soyuz flights (3+1 or 2+2) to recrew the station to possibly as
>many as 4, doubling your cost of Soyuz.
>
>>>	If the station EVER (and I doubt this for a LONG time) gets to 
>>>8-person capability you will need 6 Soyuz flights to recrew.  
>>
>>I'm assuming three although even with six we still save money.
>>
>>>	An added cost comes up with these multiple flights.  
>>
>>In ten years of operation Shuttle has not come down in price very much.
>>As to additional flights reducing cost, it won't happen since Shuttle if
>>flying at maximum rate now and CAN'T fly any more.
>>
>	Non-Sequitor.  I never argued that shuttle costs would come down.
>I argued that your non-hardware costs would go UP.  Assuming you want to
>change the crew within a short period of time (i.e. in a week or so) you've
>got to launch 4 Soyuz's in the space of a week.  HOW?
>
>>>Before you argue
>>>that costs would go DOWN as a result of a larger production line, keep in mind
>>>that you will need more launch pads, more ground support, etc.  
>>
>>A government report (I think it was 'Launch Options for the Future') said
>>that there is plenty of facilities available to greatly increase the
>>rate of Atlas launches. HL Delta goes up from an unused launch complex and
>>all the costs you mention are included.
>>
>	As you mention in a later post, there are ADDITIONAL facilities
>around, I would not say PLENTY!
>
>>>You can't 
>>>simply double or triple the flight rate of any rocket without taking into
>>>account the cost of these factors.  Therefore, I don't think your savings in
>>>production quantity would help, it would end up being eaten in launch support
>>>costs.
>>
>>The relevant government reports says larger launch rates can be sustained.
>>This will provide better utilization of ground facilities which will reduce
>>costs even more.
>>
>>>	Finally, as my recent post concering the EOS system asks, why is the
>>>cost so low.  
>>
>>1. It is a commercial procurement. The government isn't buying a launcher
>>but launch services. If the contractor doesn't deliver the payload, he
>>doesn't get paid. The govenrment will not be paying for the development
>>of HL Delta nor will it own the design. The contractor has every incentive
>>to keep costs in line since he looses $$ otherwise.
>>
>	Sorry, my argument was not clear here.  EOS should be handled the
>same way your are arguing for HL Delta etc.  But, clearly the government
>does NOT want to work this way.
>	One poster sent me a message explaing partly why.  It's typical for
>contractors to underbid and ask for more money later.  And I think this would
>happen with McDonnell Douglas.  "Well, gee, we underbid and well, we are
>going to lose so much money that A) we can't build what you want and B)
>we're going to go out of business, taking hundreds of jobs with us."
>
>	And what has the government done in the past?
>
>>2. The vehicles in question use mostly off-the-shelf parts with wide safety
>>margins. This works to reduce costs and increase reliability.
>>
>>>	Your answer taht you've talked to teh engineers, ro that Boeing does
>>>it with aircraft all the time doesn't hold water with me.  First:  the
>>>companies in question have a tradition of giving lower figures, why change
>>>now?  
>>
>>Because the rules are different. Before with cost plus contracts it was
>>to a companys advantage to add costs. With this effort where only services
>>are being purchased, that won't work.
>>
>>>Two: Boeing is operating in the real world with real customers who
>>>WON'T allow them to underbid and get away with it.
>>
>>EXACTLY. Since we are making the government a real customer it will
>>work just like Boeing. Now the govenrment is simply another buyer of
>>launch services just like Intelsat (which McDonnell Douglas and GD
>>already serve).
>>
>>Don't get hung up on HL Delta or Atlas. We aren't paying to develop
>>them. All we are doing is buying launch services from the lowest bidder
>>and it may not be either of those vehicles who get the contract.
>>
>	Me hung up?  Look around. :-)
>
>>   Allen
>>-- 
>>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
>>|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
>>+----------------------252 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
>
>
>-- 
><------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>Greg d. Moore                  |  Strider@acm.rpi.edu
>Green Mountain Software        |  "All that is gold does not glitter."  
>Carpe Diem                     | 


-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------251 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space