From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:53:49 GMT

In article <72596@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>>Sorry for the misunderstanding. No, I suspect 10 flights a year is possible.
>>I doubt 12 can be done without MAJOR changes.

>>But given the very poor record of Shuttle performance to schedule, I assert
>>the burden of proof is on you to show 12 can be done. I'll accept any two
>>consecutive calendar years with 24 launches.

>     One year doesn't go a long way statistically, but 1992 had a pretty
>     good record.

For eight flights. That doesn't mean an increase of 25 to 50 percent is
easy.

>     Agreed, the proof is in the pudding. Alas, political pressures being
>     what they are, NASA is unlikely to get the chance to prove it. 

What exactly are these pressures you are talking about? As to wether
these pressures exist or not is not relevant. The bottom line is that
Shuttle can't fly (for whatever reason) much more than it is now.

>     Will sixteen launches in two years at least give you some cause 
>     to believe that Shuttle is not yet working at maximum capacity? 

That's why I said ten flights.

>     By the way,
>     if Endeavour flies on January 13, that will be nine launches in a
>     twelve month period.

Means nothing.

>>A DC is simple and reliable enough that 50 flights a year is reasonable

>     Essentially the same thing was said in 1972 regarding Shuttle.

True enough. So what are we to do? In these situations I like to look
at the design of the vehicle, not worry about claims made by dis-similar
vehicles in the past. When one builds a complex vehicle which pushes the
technology everywhere, it comes as no suprise that it doesn't work very
well. But when one looks at a simple vehicle which makes maximum use
of exsiting technology it is a lot easier to expect success.

>     It wasn't true then, but this is the first time I've ever seen
>     you use the phrase "if DC works". 

Then you aren't reading my postings very carefully.

>     Heretofor it has been "there's no reason it won't work.

I also say that. Both are true statements. To date nobody has proposed
any real show stoppers to SSTO. Not you, not gary not NASA. Your matra
of 'shuttle failed so DC will fail' simply isn't a good technical
arguement.

Now it you do want to see a good arguement against SSTO, see John
Roberts recent posting. There he does a good job of identifying
the risk areas and showing the technical problems.

>     As you just said, ten per year is 100% of Shuttle's capacity without
>     raising costs. So why is Shuttle flying only eight times per year?

You need to ask NASA for the final answer. It could well be that I am
wrong and 8 is the max flight rate.

>     That is the argument used to justify cancellation of all manned
>     space activities. Is that what you are suggesting, Allen?

Manned space has a reputation for being horendously expensive. Currently
it is but need not always be expensive. By blindly supporting vehicles
which are so hugely expensive simply because they are manned we:

1. Give ammunition to our enemies who can point to Shuttle and argue that
   manned space is too expensive.
2. Stifle efforts to reduce costs.
3. Lure us into a false sense of complacency by thinking that progress
   is being made when in fact it isn't.

I am a strong supporter of manned space and the current stagnation we
are seeing distresses me. Seeing other supporters working to maintain
that stagnation is even more distressing.

>     Your claims as to DC's performance before the thing ever flies
>     doesn't wow the public, either. 

I disagree. I was recently interviewed for an upcoming article on
DC in a British newspaper. I have received requests from other 
papers as well. I know of other media interested in covering the
DCX tests. Hundered of people have volunteered to meet with their
representatives on this. These are not the actions of disinterested
people.

>     I pointed out four recent high
>     tech space programs that failed to meet their goals.

so what? You cannot conclude from that anything about any future
program. Pick your favorite future effort. Do you think it will
fail just because some past efforts failed?

>     unless we go buy Soyuz from Russia, what options do we have?

I think that's a hell of a good option. It saves money and promotes
commercial space. What more do we want?

>>There isn't a payload in existance today which can't go up on either.

>     Some people say GRO and Hubble are examples, I'm not sure. 

The USAF has a Titan IV faring which is fully Shuttle compatible.

>     into LEO. Then you can dig up Delta facts and figures and justify
>     its construction.

Sure.

>>More of the same; I'll bet you $50 that it starts flying regularly. Well?

>     I'm sure it will too, my point is that it wasn't easy getting there.

No disagreement. It may also be hard for DC. Let's find out.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------115 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky sci.space:18041 talk.politics.space:1575