From: seds%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 04:29:00 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.

You may be right here Allan, The Soyuz is usually pretty much automated.

>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.
> 
>Therefore if this is a problem, both approaches will sove it the same
>way.
> 
>>	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.

Allan you have still not addressed with numbers the propostion that the
Shuttle will become MORE useful as the return of large payloads grows more
common in the SSF era.

> 
>>	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.

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.


>>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.
> 
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.


>>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.
> 
see the above

>>	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.
> 
>2. The vehicles in question use mostly off-the-shelf parts with wide safety
>margins. This works to reduce costs and increase reliability.

McDonnell Douglas does not have the cash to pull this off. Neither does
General Dynamics commercial launch services or Martin Marietta.  There is no
way these companies would do what you say they will Allan.  One failure of 
a vehicle under your plan would by the farm for any of these launch providers.

>>	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.

No one without a VERY deep pocket would dare operate on a services only basis
NONE of the worlds current launch providers operate on a service delivered or
no payment basis. None could justify this to stockholders. 


>>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).

That ain't the way Boeing does it in Reality Allan.  Boeing before they
even begin development REQUIRES a certain number of firm orders.  That is the
only way that they could justify to the stockholders the expenditure of 
several billion dollars for the development of a new plane such as the 777.
If what you say is true then a very tough very commercial company like 
Boeing would go out and build a rocket after the fashion that your describe.
McDonnel Douglas is trying, but their cash position is not near as safe as
Boeing and I guarantee that the stockholders will not authorize the 
expenditures of large amounts of company cash even if the government decides
to say they will guarantee the number of flights.  

Now to be honest, in your arguments favor is the commitment of General Dynamics
commercial space divison to build a large number of Atlas's without firm
orders. BUT, in this case there is an identifed market with a large 
customer base AND the mass procurement of Atlas vehicles makes sense in this
competitive environment where they can not use the procurement to lower 
prices for launch service.  BUT there ain't no way on God's green earth that
any of these guys would go for a contract that says "no deliver no pay"
without a hefty insurance policy.

>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.

Does this mean I can bid my Saturn Derived Vehicle (SDV) ?

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Newsgroups: sci.space