From: strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:57:01 GMT

In article <14AUG199223295140@judy.uh.edu> seds%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov 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:
>> 
>
>You may be right here Allan, The Soyuz is usually pretty much automated.
>
	So is the shuttle.  But we still use two flight-qualified 
astronauts.

>>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.
>
>What is your source for this statement Allan. The maximum flight rate for the
>Shuttle is about one per month.  This comes from over three years of reading
>the daily reports of shuttle launch turn around operations.  Even before the
>addition of Endeavour there were times when all Three Shuttles were stacked
>with two on the pad and one in the VAB.  The constraint on the launch rate 
>today is the payload processing from what I have seen.  Any comment from the
>Shuttle ops people out there?  Notice another thing Allan the overall yearly
>costs involved in Shuttle ops do not change much no matter how many or few
>that have been launched in the past few years.  By far most of the cost is 
>associated in maintaining the standing armies at the centers that support the
>Shuttle.  A ten  launch per year rate is certainly possible now.  Also I have
>not heard any comments from you regarding the greaat increase in Shuttle 
>reliability and schedule.  It is funny that around here there is grumbling
>about that fact in that researchers cannot count on a delay anymore when
>their schedules slip.
>> 
>>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.
>> 
>I wonder where all of these facilities are at. They certainly aren't at KSC.
>Both MacDac pads (17A and 17B) are in constant use with almost a one shot
>per month average off of the pads. Also both Atlas pads (36A and 36B) are now
>operational.  One of the two Atlas pads have been recently brought back on line
>after over twenty years of non-use. The old Titan pads from the Gemini days
>are gone. The old Atlas pads from the Mercury days are gone, so to Get the
>HL Delta or Atlas going will require new pads and probably new fire control
>centers.  Also, new clean rooms and payload integration facilities at these new
>pads will have to be built.  It ain't all there Allan.
>
	This more clearly illustrates my point Allen.  You have to include
the use of clean rooms and pif's etc.  They are not always available.        
(I am not talking building costs, those are one shot and are amortized over
the years, becomimg I would assume a small part of the cost).  BUt
for more flights you have to increase the number of "standing armies" of
technicians, the number of facilities (so that at least one is always
available at the pad you want to use.

>
>> 
>>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.
>>
Up to a point.  This is like saying that the more cars that use a toll-bridge
the better, since it makes money faster.  Until you reach the carrying load
of the bridge and it now takes twice as long for each person to pay and get
across.  Then your profit drops in half.
 
>see the above
>
>
>
>Does this mean I can bid my Saturn Derived Vehicle (SDV) ?
>
	If you can build it (and fly it) tehy will come! (with contracts
in hand!)

>Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
>


-- 
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Greg d. Moore                  |  Strider@acm.rpi.edu
Green Mountain Software        |  "All that is gold does not glitter."  
Carpe Diem                     |