From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Soyuz as ACRV
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:59:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.121815.11564@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>Gary, your model of the political process and
>>budget allocation just isn't correct. We DO have some clout. We have
>>enough clout to get about $15B per year for NASA. 

>NASA is a popular political whipping boy in Congress. 

Among some Congresscritters NASA is a whipping boy. Among others it
is the greatest thing between sliced bread. The amont of money it gets
is a balance of the desires of those who would kill it and those who
would spend 10X as much.

>Much of the support for NASA comes from 
>Representatives who have NASA pork in their districts.  

And much comes from those who do not. Sounds like any other major
government allocation.

>Your plan 
>would shift most of the pork to the districts of the Senator from McD 
>and the Representative from MM. 

This shows the flaw in your model of the political process. The people
you refer to are all one and the same. Congresscritters from aerospace
districts like to see aerospace spending.

>Fred has been downsized how many times? And Fred's schedule has been
>stretched out how many times? 

Several times; just like many other federal programs.

>NASA has gone to Congress with funding
>requests for Fred and come back with a half a loaf how many times?

No more so than a number of other programs.

>This is the standard way that Congress kills a program. 

Again, this shows the flaws of your model:

1. Freedom will see stable funding to the end of the decade despite
   your prediction that it will die.

2. Using the above arguement, Shuttle should also have been killed in
   the 70's.

3. Lots of other programs are the same way. When I worked in Aerospace
   fluctuations like this happened all the time. Yet most of those
   programs didn't die.

>There is no defined *mission* that requires HLVs today, and Congress
>is very reluctant to fund any new starts right now. 

Wrong, space station deployment and resuply is just such a mission. Congress
has also shown great interest recently in funding NLS which is an
HLV.

>There are no
>*commercial* launches waiting development of HLVs. Poor Fred is the only
>possible market. 

So? It is a perfectaly adaquate market to support two or three HLV's
and still save money. The cost reductions to both HLV and MLV this brings
about will also promote greater use of space which will open up new
markets for HLVs.

>Any savings in the NASA budget will *not* be plowed 
>back into NASA new starts. 

Since your model has been shown to be flawed (since it predicts that
the Shuttle was never built) this must be regarded as unproven.

>And Shuttle, with all it's unique capabilities,
>that are operational *right now*, will be lost. 

How many times need I say this before you will understand it? Let's try
again: Shuttle will not be phased out until the equivalent and cheaper
capability is in place.

That means that the unique capabilities of the Shuttle won't be going
away until they ceace to be unique.

One more time: Shuttle will not be phased out until the equivalent and cheaper
capability is in place.

That means that the unique capabilities of the Shuttle won't be going
away until they ceace to be unique.

And again (just in case): Shuttle will not be phased out until the
equivalent and cheaper capability is in place.

That means that the unique capabilities of the Shuttle won't be going
away until they ceace to be unique.


>That's the political reality 
>as I see it, a smaller and less capable NASA and no commercial concern 
>stepping in to fill the space development gap. 

The alternative is a dying NASA stuck with expensive unreliable systems
and a space frontier which never opens because NASA felt that
reducing cost wasn't important.

>Space exploration and
>development still needs NASA as a driver. 

Of course we do. I'm not disputing that. All I am saying is that we
aren't going anywhere until costs come down and that won't happen
so long as the Shuttle is killing markets and adding costs.

>Commercial operators are happy
>making risk free bucks off of comsats.

Again, commercial launch companies have invested well over a billion
$$ of their own money with no assurance of reward. They ARE willing
to take intelligent risk. Having them do so will save billions.

More important, the HLV and MLVs flown will work to greatly reduce
the cost of getting to orbit. Even if you are correct, we face the
following two choices:

1. A $15 billion/year NASA with Shuttle and access to space costing
   $4,000 to $10,000 per pound.

2. A $10 billion/year NASA without Shuttle but all the Shuttle capabilities
   and access to space costing $750 to $1,000 per pound.

The former program chokes under its own weight and gets very little
dont. The latter even with lower spending opens up not only more
science oportunities but vast commercial potential as well.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------245 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space