NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/space/18838

Text File | 1993-01-06 | 3.5 KB | 86 lines

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!mojo.eng.umd.edu!cadlab.eng.umd.edu!SYSMGR
From: [e-mail] (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 17:16:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Lines: 74

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>
>>>Facilities costs can be paid with the interest on the savings.
>
>>It's statements like this that make me wince when I read your posts.
>
>>You can't get interest on money just because you don't spend it;
>
>It's just an expression! All I am saying is that the cost of facilities
>is only a few hundred million $$. I realize that nobody is going to
>actually collect any interest; I was simply using an expression to show
>how small the expense would be compared to the savings.

No, the problem is there are enough money-grubbers in Congress who do the math
will  figure it's cheaper to subcontract launches to the Russians, and push for
full-up assembly in the United States.

LOTS less risk in buying a Soyuz and Russian booster than buying a Soyuz and
integrating it onto a U.S. booster. MUCH less money too.

"Gosh, we can take that money and spend it on roads and bridges at home, thank
you Mr. Sherzer, goodday, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

>>Besides, even if we do save all the money you claim, I don't see it being a
>>fair trade for scrapping chunks of the U.S. aerospace industry in favor of
>>the Russian industry.
>
>Far from scraping, this will SAVE large chunks of US aerospace. The
>Russians will get contracts worth maybe $250M per year.

In a previous post, you stated they'll be 10 to 20 launches a year. Now, how do
you get $250/year?

If it's such a brilliant idea, why isn't US aerospace proposing it on its own.

It's time for the periodic reality check:

    A) Alan will fight for Freedom and favor it over renting space
       on Mir, yet Freedom has yet to be launched. Mir Exists.

    B) Alan will fight to shut down the 4 Shuttles, a multibillion
       dollar program ) and replace them with a
       Soyuz sitting on a U.S. booster. Which hasn't been launched, but
         with a few hand-waving tricks, manages to respark the whole
       U.S. aerospace industry.

What is wrong with this picture?

> In return, the
>US commercial launch market will roughly double producing about $1.5
>billion in new MLV orders.

So, according to Alan's inflated numbers of $500 million * 8 flights a year
that's $4 billion.

Now, $4 billion of current work - $ 1.5 billion in new orders =

    $2.5 billion worth of cutbacks in the aerospace industry.

The "saved" money will end up being stuffed somewhere else; HUD or Head Start.
Take your pick. It's not going to magically roll back into NASA for other
projects.

>More importantly, US space will be working not to maintain an
>albatros but to reducing the cost of space access and growing the
>space market. We will see a stronger growing space effort to replace
>the dying and stagnant one we suffer with today.

You forgot "America the Beautiful" here.


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --