NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/space/18894

Text File | 1993-01-07 | 5.5 KB | 104 lines

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:28:39 GMT
Lines: 92

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>Gary,
>
>    The operating methods of any stackable vehicle are going to
>    significantly different from a recoverable single stage vehicle.

And the operating methods of any reusable vehicle are going to be different
from any expendible. The only reusable spacecraft we have experience with
isn't cheaper per pound to fly than some expendibles, just ask Allen. DC
is *supposed* to be much better, but then so was Shuttle at the same point
in it's development.

>    You keep arguing that the russians have high costs for their
>    stackables, and that ariane has high costs subsidized by the government.

The Russians do have higher costs than the ones they are quoting during
the current fire sale. As their economy converts from communism, those
costs will begin to show in their export products. I'm not saying their
costs are higher than ours, but they could be, it depends on how salaries
go in the new economy. Arianne's development costs were subsidized by the
ESA governments, mainly France in it's nationalized aerospace industry,
and operational pricing is in large part political. That's not to say that
their real costs are higher than ours, but they may be. Long March is in
the same situation, but worse, because the economy producing it is still
shifting costs in hidden ways. The *Chinese* probably don't even know the
true cost of the vehicle, and they certainly aren't telling anyone else.
They're willing to operate at a loss just to get foreign exchange.

>    I know you believe that cheap stackables can be done,  but those
>    are the same paper designs you condemn DC for.

I don't condemn DC for being a paper design. All new vehicles are paper
designs at some point. What I do condemn is the idea of giving up an
operational system in the *hope* that the paper vehicle will meet it's
promise on schedule and on budget. That would be like telling Delta to
quit flying all it's current aircraft today and laying off all it's
personnel today because there's going to be a cheaper aircraft available
in 5 or 10 years. Once you dismantle an enterprise, it's extremely
difficult to ever bring it back to life.

>    Shuttle could have lower costs then  NASA currently has,
>    but it still needs a tremendous infrastructure.  The OPF,
>    the VAB, Tilting bay,  the crawler/transporter.  Launch towers.

Of course Shuttle *already* has this infrastructure, and it's paid
for whether Shuttle continues to use it or not. The only costs you
can save are salary costs at the Cape, Houston, Stennis, etc. Now
those salaries represent the real core of NASA. So if your objective
is to destroy NASA, saving that money for HUD or the VA is the way
to do it.

>    The DC  will not need much more infrastructure, then a
>    airline hangar.  Henry, alan and I all believe that eliminating
>    all this structure and cost  will make up for any lower
>    vehicle lift capacity.

And it likely will in competition with MLVs if it works, but not with
HLVs or Shuttle for the missions they are best suited to do. Currently
there aren't that many missions needing heavy lift, seven people on orbit,
remote manipulation, long duration experiments, or payload return. Shuttle
does it with less than 8 launches a year. DC may put Atlas, Delta, Titan,
and Pegasus out of business, but it doesn't have the capacity to match
Shuttle or a true HLV for the times they're needed. DC may free Shuttle
for more such missions by relieving it of the need to fly less demanding
missions. That's good. Once we have Freedom in operation, even less need
will be found for Shuttle, and it can be phased out. But there will still
be missions where there's no viable substitute for heavy lift and only
the Russians still have an operational very heavy lift vehicle. It may
make sense just to contract with them, but I'd like to see the US
develop a new generation VHLV designed from the ground up to achieve
the lowest possible cost per pound. We've never tried to do that so
we don't know how cheaply it can be done.

>    Please demonstrate how Lockheed could eliminate all these costs
>    from commercial shuttle operations.

I don't think *Lockheed* could do it (reduce, not eliminate, these costs),
but Rockwell might, and Delta likely could. The government has civil
service, tons of rules, and mountains of paperwork that a commercial
firm would not have. Remember, most of Shuttle's costs are salary
costs for those folks filling out the forms, and the lawyers inventing
the forms, and the layers of managers overseeing it all. The guys and
gals actually touching the hardware are only a small fraction of that
army. Contrast UPS with the US Postal Service to get an idea of the
kinds of economies a private operation could offer.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]