From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:23:25 GMT

In article <h-aym4#@rpi.edu> strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:

>	Soyuz is great, Soyuz is God, Soyuz can carry ONE passenger.  The
>other two occupants must be qualified as pilots.

>	The Shuttle is lousy, the shuttle is the eater of money, the shuttle
>can carry 5 passengers (or more).  

I would like to see a source for this. The Soviets tended to prefer automated
hardware and didn't let their crew do much if they could avoid it. There
shouldn't be too much trouble qualifying crews.

But I point out that if in fact you are correct, this is still a problem
for Shuttle. Soyuz WILL be the ACRV. Congress isn't going to fund anything
else.

Therefore if this is a problem, both approaches will sove it the same
way.

>	With shuttle, you only need one shuttle flight.  AND the shuttle can
>supply the station in the same flight.  

And if we have enough money that we don't mind wasing most of it, this
is just fine.

>	If the station EVER (and I doubt this for a LONG time) gets to 
>8-person capability you will need 6 Soyuz flights to recrew.  

I'm assuming three although even with six we still save money.

>	An added cost comes up with these multiple flights.  

In ten years of operation Shuttle has not come down in price very much.
As to additional flights reducing cost, it won't happen since Shuttle if
flying at maximum rate now and CAN'T fly any more.

>Before you argue
>that costs would go DOWN as a result of a larger production line, keep in mind
>that you will need more launch pads, more ground support, etc.  

A government report (I think it was 'Launch Options for the Future') said
that there is plenty of facilities available to greatly increase the
rate of Atlas launches. HL Delta goes up from an unused launch complex and
all the costs you mention are included.

>You can't 
>simply double or triple the flight rate of any rocket without taking into
>account the cost of these factors.  Therefore, I don't think your savings in
>production quantity would help, it would end up being eaten in launch support
>costs.

The relevant government reports says larger launch rates can be sustained.
This will provide better utilization of ground facilities which will reduce
costs even more.

>	Finally, as my recent post concering the EOS system asks, why is the
>cost so low.  

1. It is a commercial procurement. The government isn't buying a launcher
but launch services. If the contractor doesn't deliver the payload, he
doesn't get paid. The govenrment will not be paying for the development
of HL Delta nor will it own the design. The contractor has every incentive
to keep costs in line since he looses $$ otherwise.

2. The vehicles in question use mostly off-the-shelf parts with wide safety
margins. This works to reduce costs and increase reliability.

>	Your answer taht you've talked to teh engineers, ro that Boeing does
>it with aircraft all the time doesn't hold water with me.  First:  the
>companies in question have a tradition of giving lower figures, why change
>now?  

Because the rules are different. Before with cost plus contracts it was
to a companys advantage to add costs. With this effort where only services
are being purchased, that won't work.

>Two: Boeing is operating in the real world with real customers who
>WON'T allow them to underbid and get away with it.

EXACTLY. Since we are making the government a real customer it will
work just like Boeing. Now the govenrment is simply another buyer of
launch services just like Intelsat (which McDonnell Douglas and GD
already serve).

Don't get hung up on HL Delta or Atlas. We aren't paying to develop
them. All we are doing is buying launch services from the lowest bidder
and it may not be either of those vehicles who get the contract.

   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?"                               |
+----------------------252 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+