Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.gov
Date: 23 Dec 1992 20:37 CST
 <STEINLY.92Dec23121415@topaz.ucsc.edu> <1992Dec23.212100.18194@iti.org>
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Houston
NNTP-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec23.212100.18194@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <STEINLY.92Dec23121415@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
> 
[stuff deleted]

>The fact remains however that we did spend $34 billion to develop Shuttle
>and that cost should be accounted for. If we are going to pick and choose
>what costs we include and which we don't then why not say Shuttle is
>free?
> 

The numbers that I have seen from the Congressional budget office are 8.8
billion dollars in 1974 dollars. Are you saying that we have had 400 percent
inflation from 74 to 86?

>>I thought you quoted a (Pike?) study saying $500 M per flight
>>charging all costs to shuttle, $750 M if (sunk) development costs
>>were included. Apologies if it was Dennis...
> 
>That was Dennis misquoting Pike. Pike said that if you add up all the
>manned costs you get a figure of ~$750M. I claim the cost of a Shuttle
>flight to be $500M plus the then year development costs amortized over
>say, 20 years. I don't remember what that comes to but it is easially
>over a billion. 
>

No what I said was that only if you included every single item that could
possibly related to *any* US manned space program, would you get a number
greater than 500 million dollars. This is what Pike did. A great portion
of these costs would be there no matter what system it is that is flying
men in space. This includes maintaining the test stands at Marshall and at
Stennis and at Edwards and at Simi valley where the RL-10's are tested.
This also includes buildings at Edwards where Shuttle work is done and at
Rockwell Downey and other things that only very tangentally support the
manned space program. This also includes the hangers at 501 Bolsa Avenue
in Huntington Beach (McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Plant) where the
DC would be built.

>This is the formula American uses to sell most tickets so I think
>Shuttle should do the same. I also insist on DC doing the same, I'm
>not giving it a free ride.
> 
>>   could amortize DC-Y development, DC-X development, and DC-1 development
>>   and it STILL comes out cheaper than the operational costs of Shuttle
>>   (~$6,000 per pound for DC vs $10,000 per pound for Shuttle). All three
> 

[more stuff deleted]

>I just looked up the exact numbers. At 10 flights per year (roughly 80%
>the US MLV market) a DC-1 should (if it works) cost $2700 per pound. This
>is a third the cost of Shuttle and about 25% less than existing expendables.
>If flight rate goes to 12 a year then costs drop to about $2300 per pound.
>This assumes a $3B (twice McD's estimate) DDT&E cost over 10 years.
> 
>Now if we amortize over 25 years we get $1890 (10 flights) to $1658 (12
>flights) per pound. Again, this compares to $3900 for Titan III and
>$10,000 for Shuttle. This still leaves plenty of room for error.
> 
>After development is amortized (which can happen with the existing market)
>costs drop to $100 to $500 per pound.
> 

Allen did you include the $9.9 billion dollar (1960 dollar) cost of the 
development of the Titan? This number is from General Medaris and was one
of the things he was peeved about, due to the fact that the Saturn 1 could
lift an order of magnitude more payload than the early Titans. It was an
Air Force program so they got money and Saturn was turned over to NASA. BTW
I saw a film of the first static firing of the Saturn C-1 booster. It was
in April 1960. Also the Titan SRM's are direct developments from the
Shuttle program. You gonna include the R & D for the Shuttle SRM's in 
your Titan cost accounting?

Creative accounting does wonders when you sin by omission. As for some earlier
commets of your about the shuttle being at maximum flight rate, it is obvious
that NASA can launch one per month. They do it in stretches all the time using
only three orbiters. The only increase in cost would be the 37 million 
marginal cost that you dismissed as being irrelevant for some reason. I also
agree with some other poster that NASA may be keeping the flight rate down
below max in order to stretch the odds somewhat.

Also for your comment that the Shuttle can't handle more than 50 launches, I
would love to hear your references for that. According to structural 
Engineers who did the work that refitted Columbia for the EDO package, they
found no problems that would keep the orbiters from doing their 100 missions
and more. The only problem that was found was some water corrosion around
the Elevon interfaces. This they fixed and as the orbiters come in for 
updating they will all get this fix.

I still support the DC program even with all the ranting and arm flapping.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space