From: mike@socrates.umd.edu (Mike Santangelo)
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 04:46:39 GMT

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <1992Aug17.154937.24078@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>Indeed. If we follow the plan of using Soyuz and HL Deltas, the Shuttle
>>fleet is *gone*. 

>OK, I have posted extensive numbers on the alternatives. Let's see some
>numbers from you. What will the Shuttle do that will not only justify the huge
>expense of keeping it but also pay for the opportunity cost of the cheaper
>infrastructure?

>I await your reply.

>>With this plan 3/4 of the 
>>Shuttle fleet is available for other work than servicing Fred.

>Shuttle flies about eight times a year (at least it has for the last
>2 years and looks like it will do so this year). Since using Shuttle
>as the ACRV will about half the number of flights there will be NO
>non station shuttle flights.

>Thus we will be spending $5 billion each and every year to resuply the
>station. That's an interesting number since you could build the
>Porche of ACRV's for that and could do ALL your tasks for 20% of that
>figure.

>>As to the $65 million firm price for Soyuz, I've posted about this
>>several times. 

>1. That is about three times the price I have seen for a Soyuz. I am
>assuming $100M per Atlas/Soyuz launch even though the actual cost will
>likely be much closer to $75 million.

>2. We are stuck with Soyuz anyway since we won't get an ACRV.

Probably true, but I will remain skeptical about its inclusion
into Fred's support infrastructure until I see it go up, and
probably remain that way until someone/some people come down in
one (one would hope as a dry run and not due to a real emergency).

>3. Lots can be done to mitigate this. We can sign long term contracts,
>build in the US under licence, or a number of other alternatives.

What do you think the tooling cost is going to be to make them?
Russian fabrication <> american, I would think this would be
non-trivial in terms of start-up time.  Once american workers are
put to the task with big aerospace contractors to manage them you
can probably bet that the Soyuz manufacture is going to get pretty
uncomptetive pretty quickly, especially if you factor in start-up
and tooling costs.  I would also assume this would take quite a few years
before the first american produced Soyuz rolls off the line.

No, I think we should let the Russians keep making them, labor
costs are bound to stay low at least in the near term, also
give them something to do and some hard currency.

Geez I hope they (the Russians) spend ALOT of time making all
the instrumentation readable (clearly, well translated) in English.
Including all the needed documentation.

How would these systems be certified in the US?

Has anyone given thought to training logistics with regard to
piloting the things?  Would they take place in Russia or the US?
I take it this is factored into the overall cost?

I've been reading this thread for sometime and really hadn't
seen any of the last several topics discussed.  Just seems kinda
'assumed'.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Michael F. Santangelo                 + Internet: mike@socrates.umd.edu
Computer & Network Systems Admin      +           mike@cbl.umd.edu
CBL / CEES (Solomons Island)          +           mike@kavishar.umd.edu