home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Path: sparky!uunet!hela.iti.org!aws
- From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
- Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
- Message-ID: <1992Aug15.222003.751@iti.org>
- Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
- References: <h-aym4#@rpi.edu> <1992Aug14.152325.29323@iti.org> <_kbyx3j@rpi.edu>
- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:20:03 GMT
- Lines: 77
-
- In article <_kbyx3j@rpi.edu> strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
-
- >>I would like to see a source for this. The S[Soyuz must have 2 pilots]
-
- > Source? Look at any Soyuz flight.
-
- In other words, you don't have a source.
-
- > If it were so easy, I'd think that
- >the CIS would be willing to fly TWo paying passengers, rather than one.
-
- They don't fly two paying passengers because the other two are needed to keep
- Mir operating. the passenger stays up a few days and returns with the
- other crew.
-
- >to convince NASA and/or its astronauts to sit in a capsule while it flies
- >without I think would be harder than convincing Congress of your ideas.
-
- We aren't talking about astornauts. Soyuz doesn't need two pilots.
-
- > I've just demonstrated that your costs may be higher than you're
- >admitting, and all you can do is say how much the shuttle can costs. You've
- >gone from 2 Soyuz flights (3+1 or 2+2) to recrew the station to possibly as
- >many as 4, doubling your cost of Soyuz.
-
- We need eight Soyuz flights to provide crew rotation. Two go on HLV
- and the rest go on Atlas. The HLV also provides logistics. This adds
- up to about $1 billion per year. Doubling the number of Atlas flights
- brings the cost to $1.6 billion; still a bargin.
-
- > Non-Sequitor. I never argued that shuttle costs would come down.
- >I argued that your non-hardware costs would go UP.
-
- You did assert that but the government estimates of Atlas launch capicity
- don't bear those assertions out. It is therefore not a problem.
-
- >Assuming you want to
- >change the crew within a short period of time (i.e. in a week or so) you've
- >got to launch 4 Soyuz's in the space of a week. HOW?
-
- We don't. We launch one every siz weeks and rotate crew that way. This
- may even be to our advantage since Freedom will then have somebody who
- has been around for a while on board. This experience could be valuable
- in repair and other activities.
-
- > Sorry, my argument was not clear here. EOS should be handled the
- >same way your are arguing for HL Delta etc.
-
- Indeed it should.
-
- >But, clearly the government does NOT want to work this way.
-
- With the exception of payloads which MUST go on the Shuttle, the
- government is REQUIRED to act the way I propose according to public
- law 101-106.
-
- Freedom resuply does not need to go on Shuttle.
-
- > One poster sent me a message explaing partly why. It's typical for
- >contractors to underbid and ask for more money later.
-
- When the government is paying for hardware to be developed this can indeed
- happen. This can't happen when the government is only buying services. Like
- anything else, if the service is not provided, the contractor isn't paid.
-
- > And what has the government done in the past?
-
- since you ask, when the government buys launch services instead of launchers
- it generally saves 30 to 50%.
-
- 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?" |
- +----------------------251 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
-