From: st17a@judy.uh.edu (University Space Society)
Subject: Re: Rocket Clones
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 02:58:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.010159.8943@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes...
> 
>Much of the high price of space launches comes from the complexity
>of integrating the rocket and payload, and the extra effort needed
>to develop many kinds of payload interfaces, fairing sizes, fuel loads,
>and engine performance levels.  Both the cost of the launcher and the
>cost of the satellite are impacted.
> 
>There are currently over a dozen different kinds of payload dimensions 
>and interfaces in common use.  This has several consequences:
> 
>* once a satellite is designed, it is expensive or impossible
>  to switch launchers, for example if it proves unreliable
>  or its schedule is delayed
>* there are few standard, mass-produced parts that can be used
>  across different kinds of launchers and satellites
>* there is no standard for training technicians
>* it is difficult for new launch technology to enter the market,
>  because satellite builders must be convinced to custom-design
>  satellites for the new, more risky technology 

Nick you might want to check out the market a little more carefully.
Hughes 3 series and the 6 series can be launched on a variety of different
vehicles. (Long March, Atlas, Arianne, Titan)  There are standards in place
that allow this type of switching, mixing and matching.  Some of the Hughes
sats that were recovered from orbit by the Shuttle have been re-launched by
other unmanned vehicles.  Also there are several parts such as transponders,
attitude control systems, propellant tanks that can and are being used on
many different satellites.  For example, the stuck antenna on Galaleio (sp) are
copies of the TDRSS antennas (none of them have gotten stuck).

The risk in the new technology is not so much that things would have to be
redesigned but is a psychological reflex to anything that is unknown.  For 
example, the Boeing tandem solar cells are direct replacements to the outside
world for standard silicon cells.  The problem is in the perception of managemnt
that this technology is not "proven", therefore ipso facto it is a risk beyond
which they will accept.

[stuff deleted]

>Space investors should discuss these ideas with their companies, and 
>space advocates should make rocket standards a priority on their 
>agenda. Cargo standards will bring open systems and commodity hardware 
>to the launch business; decreasing costs and increasing the infusion of 

This is a good idea that is in progress now and will accelerate in the years
ahead.  To further cut costs however, a rethinking of the way business is done
is in order.  Many of the procedures and component selection guidelines that
are standard operating procedure in both the military and commercial and NASA
world are no longer valid due to the march of technology in mass production 
testing of commercial electronic components for example.  We can do it faster
cheaper and better.  A reduction by a factor of two to four in the cost of
electronics alone is a conservative estimate for the next ten years in 
satellites.

Interface issues are becoming less and less of an issue. What is needed is
to lower the labor cost in assembling a booster.  It is clear that in countries
that have lower labor costs (Russia, China) the costs of the launchers is
radically lower.  The only way we can reduce labor costs is by cutting the
amount of labor required per unit of launch vehicle.  This is why I push the
baby Saturn and reject the path of the Titan V and HLV Delta and Atlas. Did 
any of you know that the original Saturns were robotically welded for the
very large pieces of the structure? Interesting isn't it.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville.


Newsgroups: sci.space