From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: 30 Dec 1992 20:05 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec30.205940.28699@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <72597@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
> 

>>    GRO and UARS are both candidates for return to earth. 
> 
>Doing that would cost more then they are worth. It would be cheaper to
>build new ones and launch them commercially.
>

I would dearly love to see your cost analysis on this Allen. Since the 
marginal cost for a Shuttle mission is only 37 million dollars, this is
what it would cost for a reflight. By the way your Titan IV cannot lift
a payload like HST due to its adverse dynamic envelope. For a reference NASA
publishes a guide to the environments of all major vehicles. Titan is about
1.5 times more harsh from a dynamics standpoint than the Shuttle. Many
Shuttle payloads are dynamically designed for the realtively benign 
environment of the Shuttle. (+/- 10 g in the thrust direction, +/- 6 g for
the other two axes) This is worst case dynamic load. The 3 g max acceleration
helps to keep the true values much below this on an average basis.  This 
helps the designer of a large sat flying on the shuttle to build a lighter
satellite or this can be used to build a structure (such as HST) that would 
have a hard time on Titan. Don't drag our your tired tale of the Spy sats
either. You have no idea what actually goes into them other than their mass.

>>    LDEF and
> 
>LDEF would have been better flown as a series of smaller platforms.
>Under those conditions it would be simple to build a vehicle which
>returns them to Earth. That way each experimenter would get custom
>time on orbit and the taxpayers would save billions.
> 

That is your opinion Allen not an engineering judgment. There was much 
value in flying the LDEF like it was. One thing is that this gave a level
environment for all of the experiments. If they were flown seperately, and
at different times and orbits, there would be no conclusive comparative data
to allow the careful analysis of the properties of the materials flown.


>>    The Hubble repair could still prove too much for orbiting
>>    astronauts and thus require return to Earth for mirror replacement,
> 
>No for two reasons: 1) it would be cheaper to build another and fly it
>and 2) in testimony before the House the program manager said Hubble
>wouldn't survive the return trip.

For 1) see the above. For 2) from what I have heard from the HST program
manager at Marshall, they could bring it back down. That is a contingency if
the solar array replacement goes awry.

> 
>To date there are no payloads which can be returned by Shuttle in a
>cost effective manner.
> 

Again this is your opinion that simply is not based upon the facts.


>>    All I'm saying is that Shuttle
>>    did not meet its objectives, so don't be so sure about DC.
> 

I hope very much that DC meets all of its objectives. I support the DC 
program. 

>Same old arguement. I guess Boeing better cancel plans for the 777.
>After all, Shuttle failed so 777 will as well.
> 

No what this poster is saying Allen is that the claims that you are making
for the DC are exactly the claims made for the Shuttle. You through all of
your postings have made it clear that the DC can do everything the shuttle can
and more, which is untrue.


>>    A few weeks ago I mentioned one way that we could have kept some of
>>    that market in the U.S. until NLS, DC or whatever was ready. You
>>    said that it (maintaining Shuttle launches of commercial payloads)
>>    was too costly. Maybe so (definitely so) but those subsidies would
>>    have at least kept customers in the U.S. 
> 
>And at the same time killed any chance of a sustainable independent
>commercial effort. If your going to do that it would be cheaper to
>simple end all space activity.
>

Fact is no one wanted the capablility. The great leap in the market for 
communications satellites did not come until the 80's. The market for 
small LEO sats did not exist until the late 80's and now. Fact is that the
Shuttle proved the viability of the large lift capability that is now
embodied by its competitor the Titan IV. This market did not exist and I 
submit that it would not now if the Shuttle had not been there for designers
to design big payloads for.


>>    Why wasn't DC-X built in 1983
> 
>You mean when the government was spending billions killing competition
>with Shuttle subsidies? You can't be serious; who would be that stupid?
> 

You left out the most important reason in your ad hominim attack. The materials
technology to support the possibility of the DC series SSTO did not exist
prior to 1987. It was those pesky government supported programs like the 
B2 bomber and the NASP that provided the new generation of materials that 
allows the DC to do its job. This is straight off of the MacDac and SDIO fact
sheet Allan.

>>    your argument that the next generation of boosters be a commerical
>>    endeavor? What is it they say about building a better mousetrap?
> 
>It is hard to convince investors when they see that the largest customer
>doesn't care about cheaper costs.
> 

By the way that largest customer is that same pesky government that is keeping
all of your space dreams from coming true. The largest customer has a great
case of CYA. That customer cares more about the safest way to get a payload to
space, not the cheapest. That is why uncle sugar spent three quarters of a 
billion on new boosters and over a half a billion on pad modifications. 

By the way you never answered my qestion of whether you would be willing to
include the 1960 dollar cost of the development of the Atlas (5 billion) and
the cost of the development of the Titan (5 billion for Titan I) and add
another 4 billion for II and III. 

Also from what I have read, inflation is about 375% of the 1967 level today. 
That precludes a 400% rise from 74 to 86.

Also to jump to another subject. The 1993 farmers Almanac lists that there are
111 operating nuclear plants in the US generating 21.7 percent of our 
domestic electrical energy needs. There are 8 construction permits that are
in progress.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville


Newsgroups: sci.space