Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 05:19:36 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #607 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 29 Dec 92 Volume 15 : Issue 607 Today's Topics: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments) Latest Pegasus news? Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Dec 92 15:44:58 From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments) Newsgroups: sci.space David Anderman writes: >The Space Shuttle is simply the highest cost (per pound) launch >vehicle ever operated. ** Sigh ** This seems to have become a net legend -- unfortunately it does not seem to be supported by fact. I've seen this statement made numerous times over the past year or so in sci.space, but based upon a little bit of research, it seems to be wrong. To repeat what I posted about a month ago.... David could you provide some data to support this statement? For example, Pegasus costs about $14.5 M to put about 950 lbs in 150 nmi circular 28.5 deg LEO orbit (Cost from the price for the SCD-1 launch, planned for 1st quarter 1993, performance from the Pegasus Users Manual). That's about $15,000/lb. In comparison, Shuttle costs (depending on your source) about $350-500 M per launch. (As a check on this cost/flight range, the FY 1992 NASA budget numbers for shuttle operating costs came to about $ 3.2 B, and there were a total of 8 flights flown in 1992, which gives about $ 400 M/flt, which is within the cost band I'm using). For a 50,000 lb shuttle payload delivered to 150 nmi 28.5 deg circular orbit, that's about $7000 -10,000 /lb. (Note: shuttle fleet average performance to 150 nmi, 28.5 deg circ orbit is actually about 56,000 lbs -- so, again I'm being conservative about shuttle cost $/lb) Titan IV, capable of putting about 32,000 lbs to the same orbit (note the T-IV performance is corrected to put payloads into 150 nmi 28.5 deg circular orbits) is currently running about $360 M per unit (Cost data from the Oct 92 DoD Selected Acquisition Reports), which yields about $11,200 /lb. From these data points, I think the statement "the most expensive per pound in orbit of all current launch vehicles" is incorrect. If you have better data, I would greatly appreciate it if you could post it. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor --- Maximus 2.01wb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 21:39:28 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: Latest Pegasus news? Newsgroups: sci.space >> That was those despicable fools at NASA doing this. > >here you lost me. You seem to live in a very black and white world. You >assume that since I don't support everything NASA does (even its mistakes) >that I must oppose everything NASA does. I went off the deep end on that one and hereby apologize, Allen. Maybe it's because I don't recall you ever saying a kind word about NASA or one of its programs. >This is not the case. There is lots of great stuff going on at NASA. I >criticize the unproductive things NASA does so that we can have more of >the good stuff. Why does that bother you so much? Because very seldom does anyone ever mention the great stuff going on at NASA. >> Just because NASA isn't deep in development of a new space booster >> (why bother when SDIO already is) > >NASA shouldn't be developing OR operating any operational space transport >system. That is outside its charter and is ultimately wasteful and harmful >to lower cost solutions. Agreed but with one exception. Presently there is no means other than Shuttle to send people into space. When MacDac or someone else develops a system to send people into space, and a new firm or organization gets going to do the dirty work of launching, then and only then will I be in favor of kicking NASA out of the manned space transportation arena. >The problem is that you seem to think asking the question: "is >there a cheaper way to do this" is treason. No, I think that urging the elimination of our only manned space transport system before a proven replacement is available is contrary to the cause of space exploration and development. When someone shows me that they have a workable, cheaper manned space system, then I'll go along with them. But remember, Space Shuttle looked cheaper and faster than the alternatives early in its design phase, too. The transition from paper to flight article seems to have a serious negative effect on launch systems. Asking if there is a cheaper way to do this is a good idea. Saying, "this system which we plan to fly in five or six years definitely will be cheaper than Shuttle" must be carefully considered. >As an engineer I ask myself that same question every single day. Why do you >think NASA shouldn't worry about the costs? > >> It's not fair to denounce NASA for >> laying the foundation while praising OSC and McDAC for erecting the >> skyscrapers. >As to denouncing NASA, I praise NASA when they lay the foundation. I >condemn them when they prevent the skyscraper from being built. But didn't you just say that NASA should not be operating a space transport system? If this is so, then how is NASA preventing private industry from building said skyscraper? -Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss, BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven." -Diane Chambers, "Cheers" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 21:38:47 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Newsgroups: sci.space >The cost of shuttle operations is so high that regardless of whether the >flight rate is 4 or 6 or 8 per year that the cost compares unfavorably with >private launch services (or a successful DC-1). > >The Space Shuttle is simply the highest cost (per pound) launch vehicle ever >operated. > >--- Maximus 2.01wb > Space Shuttle is also the only system designed to be used repeatedly, is the only system capable of returning very heavy payloads to Earth, and is the second most-powerful booster every made in the U.S. It is also one of only two man-rated systems presently in use. Shuttle is also as much a technology demonstrator as it is a launch system. That the technology proved to costly to replace the expendable market is beside the point. This was the very argument used to scrap the Saturn V program... too expensive as I recall. Hopefully the DC program will eventually be able to replace both Shuttle and the aging expendables, but until it has proven this performance let's stick with what we have and use Shuttle to its fullest advantage. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss, BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven." -Diane Chambers, "Cheers" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 607 ------------------------------