From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Shuttle has nothing to do with DC (was: Let's be more specific)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:43:00 GMT

In article <keithley-050193083234@kip2-59.apple.com> keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) writes:

>> NASA is chartered as a research organization, not an operational agency.
>> Shuttle is operations, not research.

>And NASA also owns a wide variety of aircraft (ie: T-38, Gulfstreams,
>Lears, etc.) and capital equipment (buildings, computers, wind tunnels,...

The difference is that there is no private competition for these
facilities and in the case of the private jets, they save money. Shuttle
doesn't save a dime and does harm the US commercial space industry by
dumping launch services.

>The Shuttle supporters (for the most part) continue to question whether or
>not the DC-X/Y/1 supporters are suggesting that we cancel Shuttle before
>DC-X/Y/1 is operational.  

As far as *I* am concerned, the two have absolutely nothing to do with
each other. It is *MY* belief that Shuttle has failed and must be replaced
with cheaper alternatives. I believe that Shuttle has failed on its own
merrits and not relative to any hypothetical vehicle.

Long time readers of sci.space will know that I held this position LONG
before there was a DC program and will continue to hold it regardless of
what happens to DC.

Now I have no idea how other people feel, I only speak for myself so
your use of the plural may not be accurate.

>I've requested that the DC-? proponents put up a
>straw man proposal of exactly when the Shuttle would be phased out.  This
>request was ignored.  

I have already answered that from *MY* point of view. Again, I cannot
speak for others so the use of the plural is incorrect above. I will
restate it:

At this time, DC is too risky a venture to gamble the entire US space
program. What is needed is an intermediate system which does those things
we actually do with Shuttle but at lower cost. At the same time, the
alternative must be commercially funded since Shuttle is consuming too much
money to build anything. Finally, it would be nice if didn't destroy all
the elements of this intermediate system.

What we need is:
1. facility with shuttle like amounts of space, power, and life support where
   experiments can be run.
2. Human and automated access to that facility
3. A mechanism to return experiments.

To get all this, we should:
1. Several companies have offered to build facilities like this. The 
   Industrial Space Facility is perhaps the most famous. All they require
   is for government to agree to be an anchor tennent if they can build it.
   Step one would be for NASA to sign just such an agreement.

2. For access, we use a Syouz mated to an Atlas or Titan. This is a cost
   effective alternative which will work for a long time or can be
   dropped shold DC pan out.

3. The Russians also make a wide variety of return capsules which we can
   use for this. In a pinch, we build our own return capsule. This is a
   very simple vehicle like an Appollo or Gemini capsule. We in the past,
   and the Russians today make these without much trouble. Surely we
   aren't so far behind the Russians (and our own capabilites only recently)
   that we can't do this. Like 1 and 2 above, this is something the
   government busy, not developes.

If government will agree to use these facilities, the private sector can
build them. Total development costs should be under one years Shuttle
operations costs and operations would be at most 40% of Shuttle costs.

If DC works, we save a billion or so more. If it fails, we simply settle
for the $3 billion or so this saves. BTW, note that under this scheme
we get access for 365 days instead of the 40 or so we get today.

All it would take to get it is for NASA to agree to use it when it
became available.

>Its my impression that the Shuttle supporters are against shelving the
>United States' manned space program merely to save a few billion a year. 

That is why we haven't gotten anywhere in space for the last 15 years.

Tell me something, shuttle supporters, how much would a Shuttle system
be worth to you? Suppose a flight costs $10 billion; would you still
support it? How about $100 billion?

>But if you continue to believe that the supporters of the Shuttle are, by
>definition, anti DC-X/Y/1, then continuing any discussion is pointless.  

Again, as far as I am concerned, these are two completely separate issues.
Between Shuttle and DC there are four possible pro/con positions. I, myself,
know people holding all four positions.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space