From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:33:22 GMT

First off, I'd like to congratulate Allen on this effort and 
express my support for this direction.  I do have some questions
and comments on the specifics, though.

> There is an old saying in Mexico: What cannot be remedied
> must be endured. With the July House appropriations vote and
> with the retirement of Rep. Traxler (D-MI) it looks like Space
> Station Freedom is out of remedy mode and into endure mode.
> With all its flaws and costs it looks like Freedom WILL be
> built (in some form anyway).

Fred is still being funded one year at a time.  This year it
took some significant hits. The probability of Fred being 
completed, while rising, is still only around 50%, so the
market needs to be adjusted by that factor (to start with).
The probability of SSF being a significant milestone in space
development remains very low; it adds practically no functionality
of importance to future endeavors, while consuming a large sum
in opportunity costs (cf. my post, "The Opportunity Costs of
SSF").  The Shuttle also consumes large amounts of funding,
so I applaud this effort to find a superior alternative to the Shuttle.

> On the plus side, station supply will mean placing a lot of
> mass into LEO, and this could make the market for launch
> services a LOT bigger, 
> ...but non-Shuttle
> based resupply could mean that the entire Shuttle program
> can be phased out, freeing up roughly three BILLION every year.

Shuttle should be phased out with launchers shared by the military 
and commerce, and eventually by SSTO.  Developing a unique capability 
for one program doesn't make sense, especially a program as inconsquential 
as SSF.

> So what do we need to do? We need to: 1)Fly about 160,000
> pounds of supplies and experiments up and about 50,000
> pounds back down (returned cargo will need low-G return);
> 2)Fly four crew to and from Freedom four times a year; and
> 3)An Orbital Transfer Vehicle needed to transport payloads
> to Freedom (this is needed since we are eliminating
> Shuttle).

I don't understand the 160,000 pounds.  Shuttle only carries
50,000 pounds. What in blazes does #3 mean?  We only need to circularize 
at 300 nm, normal launchers can do that.

> A heavy lift vehicle would be one way to meet requirement one.
> such an HLV would lift 100,000 pounds to Freedom orbit and would
> carry a reusable logistics module. The logistics module would
> have an aerodynamic shape (perhaps like DC-Y or an Apollo
> capsule) and be capable of returning 20,000 pounds to Earth.

I thought you said we need 160,000 pounds?  In any case, why
can't we use Titan IV?  At 40,000 pounds, it can carry nearly
as much as the Shuttle.

> Such an HLV should be a commercial procurement where the
> government buys launch services only (as required by current
> federal law). 

I agree with the commercial aquisition approach, but a launcher
custom-made for a single NASA program is a very poor candidate for
commercial aquisition. This service has a politically risky future, 
both in terms of funding SSF and non-use of the Shuttle.  A 50% chance 
of funding with a 25% chance of NASA actually using the service instead 
of Shuttle gives a 87% chance that the company will lose its shirt trying 
to develop the beast.

> Two candidates are Heavy Lift Delta (see One
> Small Step... Vol. 2 No 2) and Titan V (see One Small 
> Step... Vol. 2 No 3). Both manufacturers have already offered
> to sell launch services for either vehicle for less than $200
> million per launch (including development costs).

MM already charges $280 million for Titan IV; how are they
going to launch more than twice the payload with the same
tech for less than $200 million?   

It makes more sense to use the Shuttle phase-out to fund
new technology, like AMROC and SSTO, along with sharing
the existing fleet with military and commerce, instead of
stretching out the ancient missiles to even more bizzarre
lengths.  Titan IV, Atlas 2AS, Ariane 44L, and similarly
sized launchers with newer technology should be sufficient for 
serving a rationally designed space station operation.

Again, while we quibble on the specifics, I applaud the
direction being taken here for sharing resources between
NASA and other space programs, instead of keeping NASA fixed
on, and then stuck with, its own limited in-house capabilities.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)