From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC cost estimates
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 03:06:42 GMT

In article <C06xEo.KFE.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

>I hope you understand what I mean by the economic term "opportunity cost".

Sure I know what opportunity cost is. But I always assumed that the
higher opportunity cost was by using Shuttle. I admit I haven't worked
out the details but I suspect that for a years Shuttle costs we could
could find a way to use Mir for the locker experiments and redesign the
few payloads which MUST fly on Shuttle. That would allow us to switch to
far cheaper expendables if DC fails and still save money.

>Similarly, with the Shuttle as an operational, manned system with a number
>of currently unique abilities, 

The only 'unique capability' which has stood up is the ability to return
large payloads. To date there is no demonstrated requirement for this
ability.

>the fact that it's in use indicates that
>those who pay for it (NASA, the government in general, and the public in
>general) get get some value out of it. 

But what is that value and is it worth the money spent? NASA's highest
priority is to keep its centers funded. To government, Shuttle is a jobs
program.

>There are in fact a considerable
>number of missions scheduled over the next few years. If the Shuttle program
>were cancelled today, those missions would also have to be cancelled, or at
>least deferred. 

Sure, but are those missions being conducted in the most cost effective 
way? To date, nobody has been able to show that they have been.

However, this is all moot. Shuttle cannot be killed; it has too big a
constituency. All we can do is hope it doesn't drag us all down with it.

>I also have reservations about the "market" argument. Considering for 
>example the market for human-tended microgravity science experiments
>(by "market" I include government and university programs), I don't see
>how shutting off US services for several years would help that market to
>grow. 

Who said anything about shutting off services? I didn't. I propose we use
Mir and use the savings to fund even more work and perhaps build our own
dedicated facility. We might be able to fund this without Shuttle, but we
will be very hard pressed to do it WITH shuttle.

>One question I'm not sure has been addressed before: is the DC-1 expected to
>provide for a "shirtsleeve" environment access tube to the cargo bay, like
>the Shuttle? In other words, would a "mini-Spacelab" be a viable option for
>a DC-1 payload?


A mini-spacelab would be viable. In fact, the DC design allows for delta-V,
and duration tradeoffs which make it attractive. there may or may not be
access however, between the flight crew and cargo bay (but there is no
reason there couldn't be).

>[Obviously, the Blancmanges of the planet Skyron are not going to get their
>order filled any time soon.

Damn good thing too. Otherwise we would have all been turned to Scotsmen
long ago and the Blancmanges would have taken Wimbelton.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------111 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space