Date: Sat, 22 May 93 05:51:17 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #612 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 22 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 612 Today's Topics: DC-Y payload? DC-Y Payload? (try #2) Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO HEY SHERZER! Saturn V vs. STS Impediments to NASA productivity Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" 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: 21 May 1993 22:45:03 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: DC-Y payload? Newsgroups: sci.space I had originally asked: >>Does anyone know the mass return capabilities of DC-X/Y? NASP? Several posted: >An operational DC orbital vehicle (which is very different from DC-X) >will have the capability to take down as much as it brings up if for no >other reason than as a safety issue. For some reason, this doesn't sound right to me. 20K up doesn't mean 20K down. It couldn't be that easy. Any mass calculation for return to Earth would need to account for the landing site location. The aerodynamic performance would need information on center of gravity, etc. The thermal calculations would also need trajectory estimations. Both of these would be impacted by the mass in the payload bay. Plus the mass in the fuel tanks is changing during flight. On lift-off the STS spends 60 seconds clearing most of the atmosphere, so there isn't much thermal load from air friction. On reentry its the reverse. tons of air smashing in to the hull of the shuttle at hypersonic velocities creating lots of thermal concerns. DC-Y has to pancake through the same atmosphere. So, payload up probably does not equal payload dowIn fact, under selected conditions, DC-Y could even big down more than it lifted off with, depending on the location of the launch and landing sites. Any physicists-engineers with credentials want to comment? ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 1993 23:43:35 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: DC-Y Payload? (try #2) Newsgroups: sci.space Allen Sherzer posted: >Often Shuttle lifts satellites with upper stages. Yet we still consider it >payload. Ten Saturn flights over about 4 years delivered to >LEO roughly the same as 50 shuttle flights over 10 years. >...A resurrected Saturn would cost only $2,000 per pound >(if development costs are ignored) which is five times cheaper than Shuttle. Allen, Exactly what are you describing here? manufacturing? Assembly? Cost to government? launch facilities? hiring workers and training them? Please post your source for this estimate. I am most interested in the exact source of your projection because I am attempting to calculate the total number of pounds of payload Saturn V inserted in to LEO. In addition, I am attempting to assess the total number of pounds the STS - shuttle program has inserted into Earth orbit. I think I have a fair way to compare the cost per mass into LEO. For each system I will do the following: MASS CALCULATION Saturn V mass to orbit: Mass of S-IV-B upper stage, LEM with shroud, C-SM and escape tower. STS/shuttle mass to orbit: Mass of the orbiter plus payload in the bay. Fair? COST CALCULATION If someone out there is an economist and can help me compare dollars from FY 1967 and FY 1991, I would appreciate a post on how people standardize across fiscal years in order to compare performance costs year to year (i.e. post the formula please). Total Cost per flight= total R&D budget of program divided by number of flights in program plus cost of manufacturing launch vehicle Definition of Developmental Costs Saturn V developmental cost= Total R&D budget for years of Apollo-Saturn Program adjusted for inflation in 1993 dollars STS developmental cost: Total R&D budget for years of Shuttle program to date adjusted for inflation in 1993 dollars Manufacturing Cost per Launch Vehicle Saturn V vehicle cost at peak production (i.e. cheapest vehicle) adjusted to 1993 dollars STS launch vehicle cost at peak production (i.e. cheapest vehicle): Summation of following costs external tank orbiter manufacturing cost divided by number of flights (will give manufacturing cost per flight) SRB manufacturing cost divided by number of flights (will estimate SRB cost per flight) note: these cost estimates will not include Saturn or shuttle launch processing costs because I am not sure how to quantify them or even where to locate those budgets. FINAL CALCULATION: Divide Total cost (R&D + Manufacturing) of Apollo-Saturn V or STS by Total mass delivered to LEO by respective program. will equal dollar per pound for each program. If you want to help, please locate US Budget for shuttle R&D during the 1970's and 80's. We need to find the NASA authorization bill for the last 30 plus years to do this right. ken ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 1993 00:20:26 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO Newsgroups: sci.space Sorry gang about the errors in the subject bars in the other posts for this week. guess that's what happens when you spend too long studying! 8-) Any how, Allen Sherzer posted: >Often Shuttle lifts satellites with upper stages. Yet we still consider it >payload. Ten Saturn flights over about 4 years delivered to >LEO roughly the same as 50 shuttle flights over 10 years. >...A resurrected Saturn would cost only $2,000 per pound >(if development costs are ignored) which is five times cheaper than Shuttle. Allen, Exactly what are you describing here? manufacturing? Assembly? Cost to government? launch facilities? hiring workers and training them? Please post your source for this estimate. I am most interested in the exact source of your projection because I am attempting to calculate the total number of pounds of payload Saturn V inserted in to LEO. In addition, I am attempting to assess the total number of pounds the STS - shuttle program has inserted into Earth orbit. I think I have a fair way to compare the cost per mass into LEO. For each system I will do the following: MASS CALCULATION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Saturn V mass to orbit: Mass of S-IV-B upper stage, LEM with shroud, C-SM and escape tower. STS/shuttle mass to orbit: Mass of the orbiter plus payload in the bay. Fair? COST CALCULATION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HELP: If someone out there is an economist and can help me compare dollars from FY 1967 and FY 1991, I would appreciate a post on how people standardize across fiscal years in order to compare performance costs year to year (i.e. post the formula please). My formula is: Total Cost per flight= total R&D budget of program divided by number of flights in program plus cost of manufacturing launch vehicle plus cost of reuse of launch vehicle components Definition of Developmental Costs Saturn V developmental cost= Total R&D budget for years of Apollo-Saturn Program adjusted for inflation in 1993 dollars STS developmental cost: Total R&D budget for years of Shuttle program to date adjusted for inflation in 1993 dollars Manufacturing Cost per Launch Vehicle Saturn V vehicle cost at peak production (i.e. cheapest vehicle) adjusted to 1993 dollars STS launch vehicle cost at peak production (i.e. cheapest vehicle): Summation of following costs external tank orbiter manufacturing cost divided by number of flights (will give manufacturing cost per flight) SRB manufacturing cost divided by number of flights (will estimate SRB cost per flight) note: My cost estimates won't include processing costs (i.e. reuse or refurbishment costs). I'm not going to spend time to find costs on each component reused in the orbiter. The rough calculation will be interesting enough. If someone else wants to take it further then let them. FINAL CALCULATION ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Divide Total cost (R&D + Manufacturing) of Apollo-Saturn V or STS by Total mass delivered to LEO by respective program. equals dollars per pound into LEO for each program. well, that's it. References Allen? ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 1993 22:56:01 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: HEY SHERZER! Saturn V vs. STS Newsgroups: sci.space Allen Sherzer posted: >Often Shuttle lifts satellites with upper stages. Yet we still consider it >payload. Ten Saturn flights over about 4 years delivered to >LEO roughly the same as 50 shuttle flights over 10 years. >...A resurrected Saturn would cost only $2,000 per pound >(if development costs are ignored) which is five times cheaper than Shuttle. Allen, you need to define yourself better. Exactly what are you describing here? manufacturing? Assembly? Cost to government? launch facilities? hiring workers and training them? Please post your source for this estimate. I am most interested in the exact source of your projection because I am attempting to calculate the total number of pounds of payload Saturn V inserted in to LEO. In addition, I am attempting to assess the total number of pounds the STS - shuttle program has inserted into Earth orbit. I think I have a fair way to compare the cost per mass into LEO. For each system I will do the following: MASS CALCULATION Saturn V mass to orbit: Mass of S-IV-B upper stage, LEM with shroud, C-SM and escape tower. STS/shuttle mass to orbit: Mass of the orbiter plus payload in the bay. Fair? COST CALCULATION If someone out there is an economist and can help me compare dollars from FY 1967 and FY 1991, I would appreciate a post on how people standardize across fiscal years in order to compare performance costs year to year (i.e. post the formula please). Total Cost per flight= total R&D budget of program divided by number of flights in program plus cost of manufacturing launch vehicle Definition of Developmental Costs Saturn V developmental cost= Total R&D budget for years of Apollo-Saturn Program adjusted for inflation in 1993 dollars STS developmental cost: Total R&D budget for years of Shuttle program to date adjusted for inflation in 1993 dollars Manufacturing Cost per Launch Vehicle Saturn V vehicle cost at peak production (i.e. cheapest vehicle) adjusted to 1993 dollars STS launch vehicle cost at peak production (i.e. cheapest vehicle): Summation of following costs external tank orbiter manufacturing cost divided by number of flights (will give manufacturing cost per flight) SRB manufacturing cost divided by number of flights (will estimate SRB cost per flight) note: these cost estimates will not include Saturn or shuttle launch processing costs because I am not sure how to quantify them or even where to locate those budgets. I'd like to include them, if you have ideas, please post a specific source document and a formula. I got one formula, but to get it to work i've got to find the manufacturing and reuse charges (or should I say "refurbishment charges?") for each SRM segment and their flight history in order to divide the initial manu- facturing cost by the number of flights each segment made. thus: I'd need info on the individual componenets which have flown. I'd prefer not to dig this far because I think that the rough calculation will show the trends enough for our purposes. FINAL CALCULATION: Divide Total cost (R&D + Manufacturing) of Apollo-Saturn V or STS by Total mass delivered to LEO by respective program. will equal dollar per pound for each program. I'm gonna see for real if Saturn V out performed shuttle in the mass to LEO! I'm waiting Allen.......8-) (You gotta be likin' this challenge eh?) ------------------------------ Date: 21 May 93 23:24 PDT From: tom@igc.apc.org Subject: Impediments to NASA productivity Newsgroups: sci.space as absurd as the laws of augustine! tom ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 1993 00:07:33 -0700 From: Ken Hayashida Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >So we see that Ken is pro-Defense and you are basically anti-Defense, >and neither one of you is really looking at the objective picture. What a compliment! 8-) Hey, pat, I'm not sure you realize it, but space funding is a social program, but instead of only providing for "general welfare", it also pays for the "common defense" So, while we could be paying for people to get free homes, free food, free health care, and not work; we could alternatively be paying for people to work, pay for their own homes, their own food, their own health care, and get a shuttle program or space station out of it. Which is preferable to you? BTW, I'm not republican (as someone seemed to infer). I'm a conservative democrat. Don't misconstrue my arguments, I'm for space shuttle because its the most sophisticated and best example of American technology in the air-space field. We need shuttle in order to better understand how we can use the space environment in future scientific and maybe commercial development efforts. I still feel that there's no flying machine which can match the characteristics of the orbiter. If anyone can challenge that, lets hear it! Pat, I took offense to your off-handed comment (maybe in jest?) about the poor on welfare and rich people gaining from shuttle. I was under the impression that people in the US were supposed to better themselves and that the shuttle program provided that vehicle for social change. Gee, let's see. My dad grew up in a family that worked on sugar cane plantations in Hawaii. My mom grew up in Manzanar. Does that qualify me as a "rich" kid? I've been working 80 hr weeks in LA County General hospital. Does that make me rich? I support defense and science R&D by the federal government because the fed is the only organization with enough money to back those programs. To all you DC-er's and shuttle-haters...could you folks please ante up with the market that private space launchers are supposed to fill? where is the capital supposed to come from in order to support a private launch industry and private space hardware development? Nobody's out there with 1 billion bucks except the US gov't. guys. DC-X ain't cheap either folks. DC-X-2 development could reach 600 million according to Dornan's office in the House of Representatives. And, don't say that's only due to government intervention either! shuttle is the best piece of hardware we've got. If shuttle haters get their way, we'll be out of the manned space business for the rest of the century. boy (smirk), that'd be a great legacy wouldn't that? Back to the days of 1976-1979 when skylab fell and shuttle couldn't fly. Carter administration II...hope not! ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 612 ------------------------------