Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Tue, 19 Feb 91 01:24:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 19 Feb 91 01:24:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #173 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 173 Today's Topics: Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia Martian mystery? Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 09:25:56 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia Newsgroups: sci.space Cc: In article <~{=&G8+@rpi.edu> Mr. Kent writes: [repeat of Shuttle appropriation deleted] >This is program cost. No it is my estimate of flyaway cost for a Shuttle mission. This figure does not include ANY costs associated with the development of the Shuttle or any costs associated with procurement of orbiters or structural spares. This is what we spend on salaries of the crews, fuel, ETs, SRBs, wire, electricity, replacement parts, and the other things needed to keep the Shuttle flying every year. You say that we collect $1.5B in user fees for the Shuttle. Yet we spend over $3B on flying it. Tell me, if the actual flyaway cost of a mission is $193 then what happened to the other $1.5B? >The figures you give for the Titan are flyaway costs. Actually, the figures I give for Titan are flyaway price. However, if the Titan is to make money then the flyaway price must be above flyaway cost. However, since the government doesn't need to make money their flyaway price can be below their costs (in other words, a subsidy). > [B-2 example deleted] Good example. However, I am not including those costs in my estimates. This is the fixed cost of operating the fleet every year. >When comparing prices in the government aerospace world, you must remember to >compare like costs. and I still don't understand why you don't regard my estimates as program costs when they don't include the program costs. Just because the government is willing to take a loss doesn't mean that the price reflects their costs. >Why use flyaway costs in the first place? Consider this. Was the Titan IV >commercially developed or was it developed under government contract? I was using the Titan III (commercial Titan) not Titan IV for the estimate. Yes some of the development cost is not included in this price. On the other hand, some of the development cost IS included. Martin did incur costs to commercialize the Titan. GD spent half a billion on the Atlas and I assume a similar number went to the Titan. This cost (and the associated cost of money) is included in the Titan estimate. It is not included in the Shuttle estimate. In this estimate I did everything I could to make the Shuttle look good and Titan look bad. Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: | |aws@iti.org | "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ ReSent-Message-ID: Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 91 13:56:18 EST Resent-From: Harold Pritchett Resent-To: Space discussion group Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 15:12 CDT From: Subject: Martian mystery? Original_To: BITNET%"space@finhutc" A few nights ago, on a late night talk show, a gentleman was promoting a book about UFO's and the like. I generally don't pay too much attention to such discussions but he had one piece of evidence that he claimed was photo of the Martian surface. The photo appeared to show a huge face and a pyramid. Of course he claimed that they were not natural features and had to be made by some intellignet life. Are these photos really of the surface of Mars, has anyone heard of these photos before, and what is the commonly accepted interpretation of these photos? Just curious, Tim McCollum (tpm4017@panam) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 91 08:25:16 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!masscomp!rpi!mvk@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael V. Kent) Subject: Re: SPS, Shuttle, Gaia In article <9102180159.AA17362@iti.org> aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: > >The 101ST Congress appropriated $4.2B for Shuttle Operations and Structural >Spares. I allocated $1.2B to spares (although since that is 60% the cost >of a new Shuttle that must be far too high) and $3B to operations. Divided >by seven or eight flights we get the figures above. This therefore is a >conservative estimate of what the Shuttle costs the taxpayers every year. This is program cost. The figures you give for the Titan are flyaway costs. There is a difference. Consider the B2 bomber. I'm not sure of the actual figures after last year's cuts, but we are buying approximately 75 B2's for a total cost of $65 billion. This equals a program cost of about $875 million per plane. Is this the actual cost of the plane? No. Flyaway cost is about $270 million. That is, now that the B2 is invented and the production lines are running, each additional B2 will cost $270 million. Flyaway costs are fairly independent of production rates and development costs, which is why they are used. When comparing prices in the government aerospace world, you must remember to compare like costs. I remember an article in which the St. Louis Post-Dispatch took the $875 million program cost for the B2 (right) and compared it to the flyaway cost for the F-16 (which was also right) and concluded that 1 B2 cost the same as 40 F-16's. (Wrong!!) When comparing the Shuttle to the Titan, make sure the costs you are quoting are the same type. Why use flyaway costs in the first place? Consider this. Was the Titan IV commercially developed or was it developed under government contract? What percentage of the development costs and the production costs did Martin Marietta pick up? How much of the Titan IV was derived from the Titans originally developed under government contract? What would that engineering be worth today? Does anyone even know? To avoid going into some complex analyses every time you want to run a quick calculation, most people in the defense/gov't sector use flyaway cost. Whether you agree with that use or not, you can't legitimately compare the flyaway cost of one system with the program cost of another. Since we would have a very hard time accurately estimating the program cost of the Titan, we must use flyaway cost for both launch vehicles. Hence the Shuttle costs $193 million / launch.> I know how you're going to respond -- "But the Shuttle doesn't actually COST that." I know, but that's the number we should use for comparisons. Think of the figures as EPA mileage estimates. Consumers claim that those numbers are too high; dealers say they are too low. It doesn't really matter as long as all the numbers are calculated the same. If the EPA says an Escort gets 40 mpg and a Cadillac gets 20 mpg, you could safely conclude the Escort gets twice the mileage as the Caddy. If the Escort really gets 30 mpg and the Caddy gets 15 (25% lower), Escort still gets twice the mileage as Caddy. Hence the comparison is valid even if the numbers aren't. Michael Kent mvk@itsgw.rpi.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #173 *******************