Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_6/V16NO612.ZIP/V16NO612

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 15KB

Date: Sat, 22 May 93 05:51:17
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #612
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 22 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 612

Today's Topics:
                            DC-Y payload?
                        DC-Y Payload? (try #2)
                  Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
                    HEY SHERZER! Saturn V vs. STS
                   Impediments to NASA productivity
               Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1993 22:45:03 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-Y payload?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I had originally asked:
>>Does anyone know the mass return capabilities of DC-X/Y? NASP?

Several posted:
>An operational DC orbital vehicle (which is very different from DC-X)
>will have the capability to take down as much as it brings up if for no
>other reason than as a safety issue.

For some reason, this doesn't sound right to me.  20K up doesn't mean
20K down. It couldn't be that easy.  Any mass calculation for return to
Earth would need to account for the landing site location.  The
aerodynamic performance would need information on center of
gravity, etc.  The thermal calculations would also need trajectory
estimations.  Both of these would be impacted by the mass in the payload
bay.  Plus the mass in the fuel tanks is changing during flight.

On lift-off the STS spends 60 seconds clearing most of the atmosphere, so
there isn't much thermal load from air friction.  On reentry its the
reverse.  tons of air smashing in to the hull of the shuttle at hypersonic
velocities creating lots of thermal concerns.  DC-Y has to pancake
through the same atmosphere.  So, payload up probably does not equal
payload dowIn fact, under selected conditions, DC-Y could even big
down more than it lifted off with, depending on the location of the
launch and landing sites.


Any physicists-engineers with credentials want to comment?

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1993 23:43:35 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-Y Payload? (try #2)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Allen Sherzer posted:
>Often Shuttle lifts satellites with upper stages. Yet we still consider it
>payload. Ten Saturn flights over about 4 years delivered to
>LEO roughly the same as 50 shuttle flights over 10 years.
>...A resurrected Saturn would cost only $2,000 per pound
>(if development costs are ignored) which is five times cheaper than Shuttle.

Allen,
Exactly what are you describing here?  manufacturing?  Assembly?
Cost to government?  launch facilities?  hiring workers and training
them?

Please post your source for this estimate.  I am most interested in the
exact source of your projection because I am attempting to calculate
the total number of pounds of payload Saturn V inserted in to LEO.
In addition, I am attempting to assess the total number of pounds the
STS - shuttle program has inserted into Earth orbit.

I think I have a fair way to compare the cost per mass into LEO.

For each system I will do the following:
MASS CALCULATION

Saturn V mass to orbit:
Mass of S-IV-B upper stage, LEM with shroud, C-SM and escape tower.

STS/shuttle mass to orbit:
Mass of the orbiter plus payload in the bay.

Fair?

COST CALCULATION
If someone out there is an economist and can help me compare dollars
from FY 1967 and FY 1991, I would appreciate a post on how
people standardize across fiscal years in order to compare performance
costs year to year (i.e. post the formula please).

Total Cost per flight=
  total R&D budget of program divided by number of flights in program
plus
  cost of manufacturing launch vehicle


Definition of Developmental Costs
Saturn V developmental cost=
Total R&D budget for years of Apollo-Saturn Program adjusted
for inflation in 1993 dollars

STS developmental cost:
Total R&D budget for years of Shuttle program to date
adjusted for inflation in 1993 dollars


Manufacturing Cost per Launch Vehicle
Saturn V vehicle cost at peak production (i.e. cheapest vehicle)
adjusted to 1993 dollars

STS launch vehicle cost at peak production (i.e. cheapest vehicle):
Summation of following costs
    external tank
    orbiter manufacturing cost divided by number of flights
        (will give manufacturing cost per flight)
    SRB manufacturing cost divided by number of flights
        (will estimate SRB cost per flight)


note:  these cost estimates will not include Saturn or shuttle launch
processing costs because I am not sure how to quantify them or even
where to locate those budgets.


FINAL CALCULATION:
Divide Total cost (R&D + Manufacturing) of Apollo-Saturn V or STS
 by
Total mass delivered to LEO by respective program.

will equal

dollar per pound for each program.


If you want to help, please locate US Budget for shuttle R&D during the
1970's and 80's.  We need to find the NASA authorization bill for the
last 30 plus years to do this right.

ken

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 1993 00:20:26 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

Sorry gang about the errors in the subject bars in the other posts for this
week.  guess that's what happens when you spend too long studying! 8-)

Any how,

Allen Sherzer posted:
>Often Shuttle lifts satellites with upper stages. Yet we still consider it
>payload. Ten Saturn flights over about 4 years delivered to
>LEO roughly the same as 50 shuttle flights over 10 years.
>...A resurrected Saturn would cost only $2,000 per pound
>(if development costs are ignored) which is five times cheaper than Shuttle.

Allen,
Exactly what are you describing here?  manufacturing?  Assembly?
Cost to government?  launch facilities?  hiring workers and training
them?

Please post your source for this estimate.  I am most interested in the
exact source of your projection because I am attempting to calculate
the total number of pounds of payload Saturn V inserted in to LEO.
In addition, I am attempting to assess the total number of pounds the
STS - shuttle program has inserted into Earth orbit.

I think I have a fair way to compare the cost per mass into LEO.

For each system I will do the following:

MASS CALCULATION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saturn V mass to orbit:
Mass of S-IV-B upper stage, LEM with shroud, C-SM and escape tower.

STS/shuttle mass to orbit:
Mass of the orbiter plus payload in the bay.

Fair?

COST CALCULATION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HELP:  If someone out there is an economist and can help me compare dollars
from FY 1967 and FY 1991, I would appreciate a post on how
people standardize across fiscal years in order to compare performance
costs year to year (i.e. post the formula please).

My formula is:
Total Cost per flight=
  total R&D budget of program divided by number of flights in program
plus
  cost of manufacturing launch vehicle
plus
  cost of reuse of launch vehicle components


Definition of Developmental Costs
Saturn V developmental cost=
Total R&D budget for years of Apollo-Saturn Program adjusted
for inflation in 1993 dollars

STS developmental cost:
Total R&D budget for years of Shuttle program to date
adjusted for inflation in 1993 dollars


Manufacturing Cost per Launch Vehicle
Saturn V vehicle cost at peak production (i.e. cheapest vehicle)
adjusted to 1993 dollars

STS launch vehicle cost at peak production (i.e. cheapest vehicle):
Summation of following costs
    external tank
    orbiter manufacturing cost divided by number of flights
        (will give manufacturing cost per flight)
    SRB manufacturing cost divided by number of flights
        (will estimate SRB cost per flight)


note:  My cost estimates won't include processing costs (i.e. reuse
or refurbishment costs).  I'm not going to spend time to find costs
on each component reused in the orbiter.  The rough calculation
will be interesting enough.  If someone else wants to take it further
then let them.

FINAL CALCULATION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Divide Total cost (R&D + Manufacturing) of Apollo-Saturn V or STS
 by
Total mass delivered to LEO by respective program.

equals

dollars per pound into LEO for each program.


well, that's it.

References Allen?

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1993 22:56:01 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: HEY SHERZER! Saturn V vs. STS
Newsgroups: sci.space

Allen Sherzer posted:
>Often Shuttle lifts satellites with upper stages. Yet we still consider it
>payload. Ten Saturn flights over about 4 years delivered to
>LEO roughly the same as 50 shuttle flights over 10 years.
>...A resurrected Saturn would cost only $2,000 per pound
>(if development costs are ignored) which is five times cheaper than Shuttle.

Allen, you need to define yourself better.

Exactly what are you describing here?  manufacturing?  Assembly?
Cost to government?  launch facilities?  hiring workers and training
them?

Please post your source for this estimate.  I am most interested in the
exact source of your projection because I am attempting to calculate
the total number of pounds of payload Saturn V inserted in to LEO.
In addition, I am attempting to assess the total number of pounds the
STS - shuttle program has inserted into Earth orbit.

I think I have a fair way to compare the cost per mass into LEO.

For each system I will do the following:
MASS CALCULATION

Saturn V mass to orbit:
Mass of S-IV-B upper stage, LEM with shroud, C-SM and escape tower.

STS/shuttle mass to orbit:
Mass of the orbiter plus payload in the bay.

Fair?

COST CALCULATION
If someone out there is an economist and can help me compare dollars
from FY 1967 and FY 1991, I would appreciate a post on how
people standardize across fiscal years in order to compare performance
costs year to year (i.e. post the formula please).

Total Cost per flight=
  total R&D budget of program divided by number of flights in program
plus
  cost of manufacturing launch vehicle


Definition of Developmental Costs
Saturn V developmental cost=
Total R&D budget for years of Apollo-Saturn Program adjusted
for inflation in 1993 dollars

STS developmental cost:
Total R&D budget for years of Shuttle program to date
adjusted for inflation in 1993 dollars


Manufacturing Cost per Launch Vehicle
Saturn V vehicle cost at peak production (i.e. cheapest vehicle)
adjusted to 1993 dollars

STS launch vehicle cost at peak production (i.e. cheapest vehicle):
Summation of following costs
    external tank
    orbiter manufacturing cost divided by number of flights
        (will give manufacturing cost per flight)
    SRB manufacturing cost divided by number of flights
        (will estimate SRB cost per flight)


note:  these cost estimates will not include Saturn or shuttle launch
processing costs because I am not sure how to quantify them or even
where to locate those budgets.  I'd like to include them, if you
have ideas, please post a specific source document and a formula.

I got one formula, but to get it to work i've got to find the manufacturing
and reuse charges (or should I say "refurbishment charges?") for each
SRM segment and their flight history in order to divide the initial manu-
facturing cost by the number of flights each segment made.

thus:  I'd need info on the individual componenets which have flown.  I'd

prefer not to dig this far because I think that the rough calculation will show
the trends enough for our purposes.

FINAL CALCULATION:
Divide Total cost (R&D + Manufacturing) of Apollo-Saturn V or STS
 by
Total mass delivered to LEO by respective program.

will equal

dollar per pound for each program.

I'm gonna see for real if Saturn V out performed shuttle in the mass to LEO!

I'm waiting Allen.......8-)
(You gotta be likin' this challenge eh?)

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 93 23:24 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Impediments to NASA productivity
Newsgroups: sci.space

as absurd as the laws of augustine!
tom

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 1993 00:07:33 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>So we see that Ken is pro-Defense and you are basically anti-Defense,
>and neither one of you is really looking at the objective picture.

What a compliment!  8-)

Hey, pat, I'm not sure you realize it, but space funding is a social program,
but instead of only providing for "general welfare", it also
pays for the "common defense"  So, while we could be paying for people
to get free homes, free food, free health care, and not work; we could
alternatively be paying for people to work, pay for their own homes,
their own food, their own health care, and get a shuttle program or
space station out of it.  Which is preferable to you?

BTW, I'm not republican (as someone seemed to infer).  I'm a conservative
democrat.  Don't misconstrue my arguments, I'm for space shuttle because
its the most sophisticated and best example of American technology in the
air-space field.  We need shuttle in order to better understand how
we can use the space environment in future scientific and maybe commercial
development efforts. I still feel that there's no flying machine which
can match the characteristics of the orbiter.  If anyone can challenge that,
lets hear it!

Pat, I took offense to your off-handed comment (maybe in jest?) about
the poor on welfare and rich people gaining from shuttle.  I was under the
impression that people in the US were supposed to better themselves and that
the shuttle program provided that vehicle for social change.

Gee, let's see.  My dad grew up in a family that worked on sugar cane
plantations in Hawaii.  My mom grew up in Manzanar.  Does that qualify me
as a "rich" kid?  I've been working 80 hr weeks in LA County General hospital.
Does that make me rich?  I support defense and science R&D by the federal
government because the fed is the only organization with enough money to back
those programs.

To all you DC-er's and shuttle-haters...could you folks please
ante up with the market that private space launchers are supposed to fill?
where is the capital supposed to come from in order to support a private
launch industry and private space hardware development?

Nobody's out there with 1 billion bucks except the US gov't. guys.

DC-X ain't cheap either folks.

DC-X-2 development could reach  600 million according to Dornan's office
in the House of Representatives.  And, don't say that's only due to
government intervention either!

shuttle is the best piece of hardware we've got.  If shuttle haters get
their way, we'll be out of the manned space business for the rest of the
century.  boy (smirk), that'd be a great legacy wouldn't that?
Back to the days of 1976-1979 when skylab fell and shuttle couldn't fly.
Carter administration II...hope not!

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 612
------------------------------