From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:58:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.223322.5189@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>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).

You need to read between the lines. With the support NASA, the
contractors, and Congress is giving it IS going to get built.
The Senate vote last Tuesday just confirms it.

It may shrink or change in some other way but in some form it
will be built. Traxler had a solid year to build up a constituency
against it. He carved it up and tossed chunks as all the special
interests (except, of course, science) and still lost.

>The probability of SSF being a significant milestone in space
>development remains very low; 

Sure. But that's not the point. We are now past trying to kill it and
must now find ways to live with it.

>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.

We aren't talking about a unique capability. What we are talking about
is a market driven solution to reduce costs. One advantage is that this
will not only give us a HLV but will reduce the cost of MLVs as well.

>I don't understand the 160,000 pounds.  

That is the estimates I have for the amount of material which will
be lifted to Freedom every year.

>What in blazes does #3 mean?  We only need to circularize 
>at 300 nm, normal launchers can do that.

Shuttle proponents argue that this capability is needed to eliminate
Shuttle. I agree it isn't immediately needed but it had to be costed
out so we could justify eliminating the Shuttle.

>I thought you said we need 160,000 pounds?  In any case, why
>can't we use Titan IV?  

Two reasons:
1. It's cheaper.
2. A Titan IV couldn't carry the load plus the reusable logistics
module/re-entry vehicle.

>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. 

It isn't custome made. The launchers in question have been proposed
for use in SDI experiments, Moon/Mars exploration, and Freedom resupply.
That hardly makes it a custom vehicle.

>This service has a politically risky future, 
>both in terms of funding SSF and non-use of the Shuttle. 

We can wait for Freedom (should the market require that andlthough since
we are talking about doubling the market it's worth a lot of risk). But
you are correct in that it will require NASA to say up front that they
will be open minded about it.

>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?   

First of all, they charge less than that for Titan IV (the figure I
have seen is $225 million. In addition, the Titan V doesn't use the
Centaur upper stage (which is included in the $225 million). Finally,
this is a commercial procurement of multiple launchers which will
cut lots of paperwork costs.

It would be better to compare it to a scaled up Titan III instead
of a scaled up Titan IV. Take a $120 million Titan III, add three
more main engines and three more solid boosters and you have a
Titan V. In quanity meeting a $200M price shouldn't be hard. BTW,
my estimate is that with a 50 unit buy the price will be $187M
each (which includes development costs). This estimate assumes
a .95 learning curve.

>It makes more sense to use the Shuttle phase-out to fund
>new technology, like AMROC and SSTO, 

I myself would rather just have the government buy services and
let the market fund vehicle development.

>instead of stretching out the ancient missiles to even more bizzarre
>lengths.  

If it works, no problem. All I am doing with this article is providing
an existance proof: we can get more capability for less money if we
let the market decide. My plan doesn't require that the feds buy Titan
V, only that they buy the cheaper service.

I have shown that for the cost of Shuttle they can easially fund
the vehicles I speak of with private money. If Martin selects Titan V
or Titan IV for their bid is up to them. I only use the Titan V because
it is cheaper.

   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?"                               |
+----------------------225 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.space:1166 sci.space:12659