From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:50:44 GMT
	<1992Nov19.202302.5796@iti.org>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: aws@iti.org's message of 19 Nov 92 20:23:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.202302.5796@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:


   In article <1992Nov19.073340.27278@netcom.com> hage@netcom.com (Carl Hage) writes:

   >Although Gore was flamed here for this speech, it would seem to me that he
   >could be a very strong supporter of SSTO. 

   Let's hope so. 

   >Development of DC-X has been relatively low cost, but can you convince
   >everyone that DC-1 will be cheap? Are the cost predictions realistic?

   No, you can never convince everybody. However, the cost predictions are
   the best available. If nothing else the fact that the design and construction
   of DC-X is on time and on budget gives a good indication that their cost
   estimators know what they are talking about.

 ...

   >Claims of $1M or even $10M launch costs seem too low to be believable.

   Only circumstantial. If the models are correct than DC will fly for
   $1 to $10M per flight. However we need DC-X to verify the models.

   However the circumstantial evidence supports it. After all, the cost and
   part count of a launcher is about the same as a commercial airliner. The
   rest is up to the technology and to date nobody questions that it can
   be done as far as the technology is concerned.

While I'm strongly in favour of the DC-X/Y/1(-2-3!) this causes me
a little concern. I'm willing to believe that the DCs can be developed
and constructed on budget as long as they can avoid some appropriations
nightmare, but the operation costs do seem quite optimistic, in
particular I'd have thought the early years operation would be higher
while ground support learned some maintenance procedures and
operational experience was developed on what needs inspection and
refurbishing between flights? I just don't see any way around that,
are the DCs really that much simpler?

   >For point 3, there seems to be a particular timetable in mind for
   >producing DC-X/Y/1. How does that timetable compare with the alternatives?

   An operational DC-1 should be flying in 97 IF (this is a big if) we can
   get Congress to fund it properly. BTW, since we are only looking at $1B
   per year over about four years this is an achieveable goal provided
   supporters put and keep pressure on Congress.

Hmm, didn't you just say that Congress should just fund the DC-X,Y?
I thought after prototyping McD would pay for construction of the
production models! ;-)

   +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
   +----------------------156 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle