From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 14:39:45 GMT

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.

What you haven't addressed is why it is a good idea to waste billions
now for payloads which aren't even on the horizion?

>>In ten years of operation Shuttle has not come down in price very much.

>What is your source for this statement Allan. The maximum flight rate for the
>Shuttle is about one per month.  T

Total Shuttle spending has been going up but has leveled off recently. 
An arguement can be made that costs have come down if you include early
flights but costs are now as low as they ever will be.

>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.

>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.

If I'm wrong, give me the cost of a new Atlas facility and I'll add it
to my estimates.

>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.

>McDonnell Douglas does not have the cash to pull this off. 

They offered to do it; I assume they know better than you if they have
or can get the cash.

>No one without a VERY deep pocket would dare operate on a services only basis
>NONE of the worlds current launch providers operate on a service delivered or
>no payment basis. None could justify this to stockholders. 

You are sadly mistaken. ALL the commercial launch providers operate
exactly this way for their commercial customers. Intelsat doesn't
buy launchers,they buy services.

>>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).

>That ain't the way Boeing does it in Reality Allan.

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.

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----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space