From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:23:02 GMT

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.

There are risk areas and it would be a good idea to spend a few million
to test those.

>(BTW: I wasn't sure about the engines for DC-1. In scaling up, are
>more engines added or larger engines added? If larger, does that mean
>using SSME type engines or a whole new design?)

DC-Y will use larger engines (about 200K pounds of thrust each). There
are two options available:

1. A new engine called the RL-200 which initially is composed of some
   off the shelf components and some new components.

2. Using Apollo J2 engines. This will significantly cut into payload
   but will support continuous imporvement of the overall system.

>: This [being cheaper than HL-20] BTW is a source of trouble for SSTO.

>A source of trouble? HL20 won't win any arguments claiming to be better
>because it's more expensive. They might win if SSTO is making exagerated
>claims though. 

Another way is to make exagerated claims yourself and throw dirt on the
competition.

>Of course, as Gore said, "trying to fund all [alternatives]
>in the current budget environment is ridiculous", so every project is
>going to have to compete for it's existence.

Exactly.

>Claims of $1M or even $10M launch costs seem too low to be believable.
>Since the claims for the Space Shuttle, nuclear power (too cheap to meter),
>etc. were very wrong in the past figures like this are taken with a
>great deal of skepticism. Does your info kit offer clear and complete
>information that will convince a skeptic?

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.

>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.

>The unknowns in the timetable probably relate to developing new technologies
>to address problems which have not yet been solved. What are the major
>new technologies which need to be developed by DC-X and DC-Y?

Very few. The main ones relate to the turbopumps and some of the structural
materials. Proposals exist to build test articles on all of these which
should answer most if not all open questions for about $25 million.

>On point 4, we haven't had an opportunity on the net to find out how well the
>project is managed. 

Their performance to date has been excellent. They are still on time and
on budget.

>Conceputally, as stated above, the idea of scaling up
>seems like a plus and allows funding to be contingent on success. However,
>I don't understand the GAO (?) report which was critical of the project.
>How about summarizing the objections given in the report with a response.

I assume you mean the review by the Surveys and Investigations staff
at Appropriations or the NASA Assessment. (BTW, every other group
from the NRC to the Aerospace Corporation who has looked at it has
endorsed it; even the NASA assessment says it is possible if they
are allowed to do it).

There is much to call the S&I report into question. First of all, the
committee is keeping the document to itself and will only allow
Congresspersons to see it and even then only with a committee member
present. Even staffers who advise Congresspersons aren't allowed to
see it. Note that the document isn't classified. Anything held this
closely and not subject to open review cannot be taken seriously.

Of what we do know about the report, they only seem to have used
comments from people at NASA Langly especially people 'competing'
with SSTO. SSTO proponents don't seem to have been contacted. Of the
specific comments we know about, all seem to have come from documents
which are several years old and obsolete.

>Are there some ballpark estimates for total costs to develop DC-1?

$2 to $4 billion.

>I fail to understand why
>NASA, etc. isn't enthusiastic about SSTO. I won't buy that the reason
>is bureaucracy, or it is an "outside" project. 

Well I think that IS the main reason. NASA is famous for its Not Invented
Here (NIH) attitude about technology. Look at it this way, your a mid level
NASA manager. You are counting on HL-20 to keep you and your people funded
into the next decade. Yet a working SSTO calls all that into question. What
do you do?

>    7. The chance of success is high

Every agency who has looked at it says that it is or will soon be possible.

>project? The NASP needs to have an engine developed, and this is not a
>simple matter of engineering a design. Are there similar sorts of problems
>with DC-Y?

The project emphasises using existing technology and rapid prototyping.
This reduces risk and provides an excellent platform for both research
and continuous improvement of the concept.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------156 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+