From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:08:20 GMT

In article <72526@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>   Now I'm totally confused, Allen. Wasn't this discussion about the
>   Shuttle's launch rate? I thought that you previously belittled a
>   25% increase in launch rate, to which I took exception. 

Sorry for the misunderstanding. No, I suspect 10 flights a year is possible.
I doubt 12 can be done without MAJOR changes. 

But given the very poor record of Shuttle performance to schedule, I assert
the burden of proof is on you to show 12 can be done. I'll accept any two
consecutive calendar years with 24 launches.

>   I'm still waiting for your explanation as to
>   why 25% is a good increase for one, but not another.

A DC is simple and reliable enough that 50 flights a year is reasonable
with the specified ground crew. At 10 flights a year a DC ground crew
has lots of idle time so not only are more launches possible, they
will also work to lower costs. Increasing utilization by 25% should
be no problem (if DC works).

With Shuttle, 10 flights a year utilized everything pretty much 100%.
Adding more flights under these conditions means that costs must go up.

>   it is very difficult to compare
>   Shuttle with the expendables

Nobody puts people into space just for the hell of it. They are there to
perform tasks. Given that, one can ask what those tasks are and wonder
if there are cheaper ways to do those tasks. We can also decide if the
tasks are worth doing at the price we must pay.

I assert that there are no payloads which must fly on Shuttle and are
worth flying. If you are going to disagree, please do so with a cost
analysis or your arguement will be meaningless.

Don't you see the damage you are doing to manned space here? Manned space
is seen as a boondogle and nothing more than a jobs program for aerospace.
Your astatements that Shuttle must fly regardless of cost only reenforces
that view. You are making it easier for our opponents to harm us.

>   ratings show Shuttle to be the most powerful launch system in the
>   free world. Depending upon whom you ask, it's either alot more capable
>   than Titan, or just a little.

There isn't a payload in existance today which can't go up on either.

As to being more powerful, only if you are spending somebody else's
money.

>   Only the DC is presently envisioned to have more or less the same
>   attributes as Shuttle, and we both know there is no way Shuttle can
>   ever compare favorably to a paper launch system. 

This is bogus. By this arguement nothing new should ever be built. If 
you have specific complaints about DC, state them. The arguement 'well
all projects have problems therefore DC will have problems and therefore
it won't work' is bullshit.

>   Pegasus was new and
>   revolutionary too, and it has spent the past eighteen months sitting
>   in an assembly plant. 

More of the same; I'll bet you $50 that it starts flying regularly. Well?

     Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------116 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space