From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:09:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.145836.3837@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>With the support NASA, the
>contractors, and Congress is giving it IS going to get built.
>The Senate vote last Tuesday just confirms it.

Next year Congress will likely have 150 new members, elected to cut the
budget (that's what all the pols out here are running on). We will have 
a new President, and Al Gore in charge of the Space Council.  They will be
looking for something visible, and symbolic of the Reagan/Bush years,
to cut. Do you seriously think Al Gore is going to promote Reagan's SSF at
the expense of EOS and his fiber optic network?

Note that even this year, SSF's budget request of $2.3 billion was cut
to $1.9 billion.

>>The probability of SSF being a significant milestone in space
>>development remains very low; 
>
>Sure. But that's not the point. We are now past trying to kill it and
>must now find ways to live with it.

How about just ignoring it?

>We aren't talking about a unique capability. What we are talking about
>is a market driven solution to reduce costs. 

For the Nth time, NASA is not a commercial market!  It is a government
agency, funded from year to year, that dictates design details to its 
contractees, and funds the projects via the process of political
lobbying.  If you could come up with a viable scenario where the main 
customers are, say, direct broadcast satellites, and NASA funds the
first couple launches of an HLV for those customers while keeping
hands off the design, I would believe the rhetoric about market-driven.
However, if Ariane 5 meets its cost targets it will be a great HLV
for launching the larger DBS's.   I don't see any NASA-driven launcher
being competitive with Ariane 5, now that they've dumped Hermes and
are getting serious about cutting costs (their target is to reduce
the cost of the 4, already the lowest-cost launcher in the world, in
half).

>>[160,000 lbs.]

>That is the estimates I have for the amount of material which will
>be lifted to Freedom every year.

That's somebody's wet dream, is what it is.  NASA doesn't have that
kind of money for SSF, nor should it be handed a justification for it.
Furthermore, as Mike Kent noted it makes more sense to launch it in 
20,000 lb. chunks, which can easily be handled by current commercial 
launchers.

>>This service has a politically risky future, 
>>both in terms of funding SSF and non-use of the Shuttle. 
>
>We can wait for Freedom (should the market require that andlthough since
>we are talking about doubling the market it's worth a lot of risk). But
>you are correct in that it will require NASA to say up front that they
>will be open minded about it.

No, it requires a _commitment_ with money up front.  NASA is
funded year to year and ya can't sue the government -- look at what
happened to Spacehab and SSI.  Nobody does business with Uncle Sam 
based on a promise of being "open minded" on the issue of payment.

>>MM already charges $280 million for Titan IV; how are they
>>going to launch more than twice the payload with the same
>>tech for less than $200 million?   
>
>First of all, they charge less than that for Titan IV (the figure I
>have seen is $225 million. In addition, the Titan V doesn't use the
>Centaur upper stage (which is included in the $225 million).

The most recent figure I've seen, on an article about the Pluto probes,
is $400 million for one Titan IV/Centaur launch.  That's government
accountants for ya.  (That's also what happens when the Uncle Sam,
in this case the USAF, promises a big set of orders and then reneges on
it).

>>It makes more sense to use the Shuttle phase-out to fund
>>new technology, like AMROC and SSTO, 
>
>I myself would rather just have the government buy services and
>let the market fund vehicle development.

I sympathize with this, but there is room for NASA R&D as long at it is
done in service of the space industry, instead of for its own narrow
purposes.  (Imagine that, me more socialist than Allen :-)  NASA's
aeronautics side would be a good model to follow; they develop basic,
widely applicable tech instead of building 700-person mega-SSTs that 
nobody but themselves would use.

>I have shown that for the cost of Shuttle they can easially fund
>the vehicles I speak of with private money. If Martin selects Titan V
>or Titan IV for their bid is up to them. I only use the Titan V because
>it is cheaper.

I have no major quarrel with this, as long as Titan V is also cheaper
for commerce and military.  Ariane 5 will likely be fine, but their's
nothing like competition to keep them on their toes.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space