From: strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:47:01 GMT

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                     |