Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!space From: dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: Shuttle Articles in Discover Magazine Message-ID: <8512031610.AA20665@s1-b.arpa> Date: Tue, 3-Dec-85 09:21:35 EST Article-I.D.: s1-b.8512031610.AA20665 Posted: Tue Dec 3 09:21:35 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Dec-85 05:33:49 EST Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 69 >> In the long run, NASA >>can't keep susidizing shuttle launches. In an economic sense the >>shuttle *doesn't* work. Spending money to do it again -- and do it >>*right* -- makes more sense than pouring money down the current rathole. >Only if the savings (i.e. the difference in operating expenses) is >greater than the development cost, which is unlikely. NASA is going to spend $1.3 billion next year on shuttle launches (that's after commercial fees have been paid). In the long run, wouldn't we be better off if NASA had spent that money on R&D? As more shuttle flights are scheduled and the competition improves these numbers may well get worse. > We've barely started using the ones we have, coming up with >a new fleet that may have slightly better economics would not go over >well it this point. In any case, you won't get a factor of 10 reduction >with an improved shuttle design; we're talking a totally different kind >of vehicle. Probably single stage to orbit, quite possibly vertical launch/ >vertical landing, low maintenance, 48 hour turnaround. Recall, though, that the shuttle originally promised a to-orbit cost of $100/lb which (taking into account inflation) is around 10x cheaper than what it currently costs. By "doing it right" I mean living up to these original promises. Your argument points out a drawback of reusable spacecraft: once you build one, you're stuck with it. NASA was expecting much heavier traffic than they've been able to sustain, and, as a result, is stuck with the shuttle for years to come. Developing a better launcher with slightly improved economics will not go over well with NASA. But what about the europeans? They'll be grabbing NASA's market share, so they'll be quite willing to invest the money. >>But why should one want to integrate manned and unmanned space travel? >For the same reason we don't have unmanned cargo planes (or trains, or ships). >It makes good sense to have people there in case something goes wrong (which >is, if anything, *more* likely in a complex activity like spaceflight than >in rail transport). The cargo plane analogy is bogus. The economics of air & sea transport are completely different from that of space transport, where reducing mass is the primary concern. At least in the satellite launch business, it makes little sense to lift people into orbit along with the cargo. The proper response is to make the hardware sufficiently reliable that it doesn't need costly human supervision. >>...then NASA's failure to develop >>a better follow-on is even more damning. >Spending billions of dollars to develop that follow-on after just a few >years of using the first-generation shuttle would be a silly waste of >hard-to-get funding. Developing the current shuttle was a silly waste of hard-to-get funding. (I'll be charitable; it was a learning experience.) Pouring billions of dollars into subsidizing it would be even more tragic. Developing a better follow-on would at least bring us closer to the day space can be economically exploited. Note that I'm not suggesting mothballing the shuttles immediately. They're all we've got now, given that we can't make Saturns anymore. But fear of congressional retribution should not serve to stifle criticism of NASA's mistakes (Congress will find out anyway).