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 22:20:03 GMT

In article <_kbyx3j@rpi.edu> strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:

>>I would like to see a source for this. The S[Soyuz must have 2 pilots]

>	Source? Look at any Soyuz flight.

In other words, you don't have a source.

>  If it were so easy, I'd think that
>the CIS would be willing to fly TWo paying passengers, rather than one.

They don't fly two paying passengers because the other two are needed to keep
Mir operating. the passenger stays up a few days and returns with the
other crew.

>to convince NASA and/or its astronauts to sit in a capsule while it flies
>without I think would be harder than convincing Congress of your ideas.

We aren't talking about astornauts. Soyuz doesn't need two pilots.

>	I've just demonstrated that your costs may be higher than you're
>admitting, and all you can do is say how much the shuttle can costs.  You've
>gone from 2 Soyuz flights (3+1 or 2+2) to recrew the station to possibly as
>many as 4, doubling your cost of Soyuz.

We need eight Soyuz flights to provide crew rotation. Two go on HLV
and the rest go on Atlas. The HLV also provides logistics. This adds
up to about $1 billion per year. Doubling the number of Atlas flights
brings the cost to $1.6 billion; still a bargin.

>	Non-Sequitor.  I never argued that shuttle costs would come down.
>I argued that your non-hardware costs would go UP.  

You did assert that but the government estimates of Atlas launch capicity
don't bear those assertions out. It is therefore not a problem.

>Assuming you want to
>change the crew within a short period of time (i.e. in a week or so) you've
>got to launch 4 Soyuz's in the space of a week.  HOW?

We don't. We launch one every siz weeks and rotate crew that way. This 
may even be to our advantage since Freedom will then have somebody who
has been around for a while on board. This experience could be valuable
in repair and other activities.

>	Sorry, my argument was not clear here.  EOS should be handled the
>same way your are arguing for HL Delta etc.  

Indeed it should.

>But, clearly the government does NOT want to work this way.

With the exception of payloads which MUST go on the Shuttle, the
government is REQUIRED to act the way I propose according to public
law 101-106.

Freedom resuply does not need to go on Shuttle.

>	One poster sent me a message explaing partly why.  It's typical for
>contractors to underbid and ask for more money later.

When the government is paying for hardware to be developed this can indeed
happen. This can't happen when the government is only buying services. Like
anything else, if the service is not provided, the contractor isn't paid.

>	And what has the government done in the past?

since you ask, when the government buys launch services instead of launchers
it generally saves 30 to 50%.

   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----------------------+