From: strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:12:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.143945.3204@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <14AUG199223295140@judy.uh.edu> seds%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>
>>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.
>
>The biggest payload identified is about 15K pounds. The only larger payload
>(LDEF) can be easilly broken up in LEO and individual experiments sent back
>with new ones added (saving launch costs).
>
>A simple return craft can be built to return these payloads in a suitable
>environment. Estimate the cost of this anyway you want.
>
	Hmm, sorry, I don't have my figures for EVA handy.  I know
it is more than non-EVA time.  Besides, NASA has been doing everything
that it can to REDUCE EVA time.  Hmm, will you throw in the cost of 
the hard suit too?  Pretty please? :-)

	[stuff deleted]
>
>>A ten  launch per year rate is certainly possible now.  
>
>That is a bit less than the one per month you quote above and also
>unrealistic. Ten flights has only been acheived one time and it ended
>with Chalenger.
>
>>Also I have
>>not heard any comments from you regarding the greaat increase in Shuttle 
>>reliability and schedule.
>
>Since it achieves less reliability than commercial systems costing a fraction
>as much I don't think it is anything to boast about. Let's see it go on
>for a few years.
>
	How? If you kill it?  Compare the reliability of the first 50 flights
of the shuttle with the first 50 of any booster.  When we get more 
shuttle flights under our belt, we use that as a better data set.
	(BTW, I am in agreement with at least one thing: "Man-rating" is
probably a myth that only adds to cost.)

>>I wonder where all of these facilities are at. They certainly aren't at KSC.
>
>HL Delta would use Complex 37. As for Atlas, the report I mention does
>say that the additional six flights can be acheived.
>
	Ok, so, let's see... under YOUR plan, you need at least 2 Soyuz
flights to recrew that station, 4 times a year.. gives 8 flights.  Ok,
so where do the extra 2 come from?  Given my numbers of min 3 flights
gives you 12 flights a year, twice the 6 you quote.  Now, where do we
launch the Progress and other resupply flights?

>
>If I'm wrong, give me the cost of a new Atlas facility and I'll add it
>to my estimates.
>
	Ok, giving it MAX capacity (which until I see numbers I think is
pushing things) of 12 flights a year, that eats up your Soyuz and Progress
flights.  And if you can't meet 12 flights a year?  What then?  What happens
when an Atlas is grounded (for whatever reason, I believe that you are
reasonable enough to admit that sometimes ANY booster can be delayed 
somewhat) on the pad you're planning on launching your resupply mission?
Commadeer a commericial launch, or force a commercial launch to wait
while you rebuild the stack to include your resupply materials instead
of their cargo?  Who gets first dibs?  Government (with a crew in orbit)
or industry?  Both have paid for services.  Ultimately both will get them,
BUT one has a crew waiting.

>>Also, new clean rooms and payload integration facilities at these new
>>pads will have to be built.  It ain't all there Allan.
>
>What isn't there is included in the estimated development costs. Like I
>said, the HL Delta designers know what they are doing.
>
	I've neer seen you quote the money to be spend on intergration
facilities, etc.  If the number you have for HL Delta is not just for
the rocket, but for everything else, Pad, integration facilities, etc,
I'd appreciate it if you could brek them out and post them.

>Look, McDonnell Douglas offered the government 20 HLV flights at a fixed
>price. If the government signed, they wouldn't pay a penny until the
>flights happened. If the flights didn't happen or the launcher didn't
>meet specs then the government doesn't pay.
>
	Oh Allen? What do we need 20 flights for?  Not to launch
Fred, that can be done in 4 or 5.  What else?  Not to launch or 
return large payloads according to you.
	So, can MacDac do it for only 4 or 5 launches?

>This is EXACTLY the way Boeing operates.
>
>>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.  
>
>And yet they made the offer. Perhaps the executives at McDac know more
>than you about finance and what the stockholders will go for.
>
>>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.
>
>I'm sure that is true. The operative word is 'insurance'. Launch companies
>offer a wide range of services from 'we'll do our best but your on your own'
>to 'we're your one-stop shopping center for launches'.
>
>>Does this mean I can bid my Saturn Derived Vehicle (SDV) ?
>
>I would encourage you to. Although I doubt very much you can beat
>Zenith Star launcher prices.
>
>   Allen
>-- 
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
>|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
>+----------------------251 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+


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