Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3) Message-ID: <1566.27401C3A@ofa123.fidonet.org> Date: 13 Nov 90 03:41:54 GMT Organization: One For All Lines: 69 >>>[Previous message about future space transportation system mix...] >>I would suggest a shuttle-like vehicle with a on-pad abort >>system, and Liquid Rocket Boosters. I also think it might be >>possible to retro-fit such a capability onto the shuttle a lot >>cheaper than designing a new system. > >Perhaps. But the resulting system would still be far too expensive >to operate in a free market. True, if run by the government for the bureaucracy. But if you are in favor of turning ELV launch operations over to private firms, why not turn the Shuttle over to a private operation? If you could strip the system out of the government and turn it over to an incentive-based private organization, I think it might be worth another look. Based upon my experience and analyses, I think you could easily eliminate the top three levels of shuttle management, and at least 30-50% of remaining personnel, which are most of the "fixed" annual costs. (There are 20 "Shuttle" people at KSC for each person who touches the shuttle!) In my estimation, this would reduce the annual cost of operations from the current $3.5 billion to $2.0B within 5 years. Then, run the system like a trucking company - not a limo. That would allow smooth and standardized flows, and fixes several of the recurrent bottlenecks with specialized missions including special software loads and special training. Among other things, it would also remove the desire to get every last pound of performance, which would increase operational margin, and in turn, eliminate 25-50% of the launch delays. Adding LRBs would attack costs as well as operations. According to the MMC and GD preliminary design studies for LRBs, the estimated recurring costs for LRBs are about $5 M per flight, with about a $2 B development cost. LRBs increase reliability through engine-out on liftoff capability and more benign failure modes. They increase performance by anywhere up to an added 30-50,000 pounds. At current SRB costs of about $30 M per flight (at 8 flt/yr rate), this pays back at 39 flights, or between 3 and 5 years of operations. If we can clean house in the operations, we should be able to get to above 12 flights per year. Talking this over with some of the operations research gurus at work, their numbers show you can get up to 24 flights per year out of KSC with EXISTING facilities and orbiters (Note: this is merely through reducing the OPF flow time to 40 days from the current 95 days, and eliminating the SRB stacking bottleneck in the VAB. The LRBs eliminate the SRB stacking bottleneck by allowing the stacking of non-fueled LRB boosters, and the OPF bottleneck is reduced by merely eliminating the redundant system checks to ensure the first checkout was correct.) Cranking all these numbers in gives $2000 M for 16 flights per year at 65 Klbs (note: I'm allowing LOTS of margin...). This is about $1900/lb (annual cost), without a lot of technical, schedule, or financial risk. Taking more optimistic numbers, $2000 M for 24 flights/yr at 75Klbs gives $1100 /lb. Which is getting pretty competitive to a $1000/lb untested HLV - and is available at about the same technical risk and cost. Whether or not this is the best way to go, I'm not sure. But I think it deserves a good look along with looks at commercializing other launch operations. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wales Larrison Space technology Investor -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------