NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/sci/space/11872

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-15 | 6.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!slc3.ins.cwru.edu!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!gwh
From: [e-mail] (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Date: 16 Aug 1992 07:34:35 GMT
Organization: Dis-
Lines: 126
Sender: [e-mail] (George William Herbert)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <h-aym4#@rpi.edu> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Summary: Get it Right...

[e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>>[e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>>>    Soyuz is great, Soyuz is God, Soyuz can carry ONE passenger.  The
>>>other two occupants must be qualified as pilots.
>> [Allan questions above]
>You may be right here Allan, The Soyuz is usually pretty much automated.

Allan is right.  The Russians fly one passenger on the Soyuz for one
reason and one reason only:  they're piggybacking guests on two-man
crew exchange flights to Mir, not "maxing out" on potential passengers.
Only one of the two "crew" has to be pilot rated.  The difficulties
involved in Soyuz pilot-rating a few US astronauts for Station ops
are trivial compared to the difficulties and costs involved in
building a new ACRV and training people to use it 8-)

>>But I point out that if in fact you are correct, this is still a problem
>>for Shuttle. Soyuz WILL be the ACRV. Congress isn't going to fund anything
>>else.
>Allan you have still not addressed with numbers the propostion that the
>Shuttle will become MORE useful as the return of large payloads grows more
>common in the SSF era.

Oh, ok.  What large payload returns?  I haven't seen one manifested
thru oh 2005 or so 8-)

>>>    If the station EVER (and I doubt this for a LONG time) gets to
>>>8-person capability you will need 6 Soyuz flights to recrew.
>>I'm assuming three although even with six we still save money.

Use three.  there's no reason why the Soyuz pilots aren't otherwise useful
SSF crew.

>>[...allan re: shuttle costs]
>What is your source for this statement Allan. The maximum flight rate for the
>Shuttle is about one per month.

Wrong-o.  Nobosy's _planning_ on more than ten a year.  Eight is
a better assumption (look at recent history).  Shuttle refurbishing is
and will always be the critical path.

>>>Before you argue
>>>that costs would go DOWN as a result of a larger production line, keep in mind
>>>that you will need more launch pads, more ground support, etc.
>>A government report (I think it was 'Launch Options for the Future') said
>>that there is plenty of facilities available to greatly increase the
>>rate of Atlas launches. [...]
>I wonder where all of these facilities are at. They certainly aren't at KSC.
>[...]

Pads are cheap.  If you're going to commit to 25 launches a year,
you can streamline pad ops a lot and build a new pad or two and
amortize the cost REALLY QUICKLY.

>>>You can't
>>>simply double or triple the flight rate of any rocket without taking into
>>>account the cost of these factors.  Therefore, I don't think your savings in
>>>production quantity would help, it would end up being eaten in launch support
>>>costs.
>>
>>The relevant government reports says larger launch rates can be sustained.
>>This will provide better utilization of ground facilities which will reduce
>>costs even more.
>>
>see the above

Where did you learn your ground operations and engineering economics? 8-)
Building a new pad is a capital expense.  It's a pretty minor one, on the
order of the same cost of a launch or two.  If the customer base is
sufficient to guarantee a lot of use of that capital expense, it will
get amortized pretty quickly and you can find financing for the project
with little trouble.  If, for instance, we were going to launch 10 more
Atlases per year for Freedom ops, we could buy another pad on the
guarantee of those launches having to take place and pay it off over
next year or two.  Businesses make investments like that all the time:
Oil tankers, production facilities, etc.  All you need is evidence
you're going to use it.  Once you've made that capital investment,
you often on a per-unit basis experience a significant cost reduction.
Including paying off the investment.  Just about everything in this
world gets cheaper in quantity...

>>>Two: Boeing is operating in the real world with real customers who
>>>WON'T allow them to underbid and get away with it.
>>
>>EXACTLY. Since we are making the government a real customer it will
>>work just like Boeing. Now the govenrment is simply another buyer of
>>launch services just like Intelsat (which McDonnell Douglas and GD
>>already serve).
>
>That ain't the way Boeing does it in Reality Allan.  Boeing before they
>even begin development REQUIRES a certain number of firm orders.
>[...]
>Now to be honest, in your arguments favor is the commitment of General Dynamics
>commercial space divison to build a large number of Atlas's without firm
>orders. BUT, in this case there is an identifed market with a large
>customer base AND the mass procurement of Atlas vehicles makes sense in this
>competitive environment where they can not use the procurement to lower
>prices for launch service.  BUT there ain't no way on God's green earth that
>any of these guys would go for a contract that says "no deliver no pay"
>without a hefty insurance policy.

    I would think that 62 Atlases with no orders is a pretty
strong argument for companies taking risk for potential payoff.
Even more significant was the hundreds of millions invested in
R&D on the vehicle when the Commercial Atlas startup occurred.

    When GD sold their board on the Commercial Atlas, they had
no guaranteed market.  Arianne looked like it could take everything
that wasn't already booked.  Until recently, now that they've sold
their 42nd or so vehicle, they were pretty worried about it all.
Now, they're looking at a lot of profit.

    As for "no deliver no pay"; I know several companies who will
do that for launch services on large (multi launch) contracts.  They're
just betting on their own launch reliability.  In most cases, they
add 15% to the contract price and end up with a profit overall.
In today's market, presuming that you won't end up paying for a failed
launch anyway is pretty silly; you lose customers at least, and at
most someone sues you for a whole lot (witness the nearly half-billion
suit against Martin Marietta over the Intelsat oops).



-george william herbert
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail] until 28 aug