Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site vger.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!vger!al From: al@vger.UUCP ( Informatix) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: scuttle the shuttle? Message-ID: <336@vger.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Feb-86 22:08:54 EST Article-I.D.: vger.336 Posted: Mon Feb 10 22:08:54 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Feb-86 20:07:24 EST References: <8602070221.AA08568@s1-b.arpa> Organization: UC Santa Cruz, CIS Dept. Lines: 124 In article <8602070221.AA08568@s1-b.arpa>, dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) writes: > > NY Times reports $2000 to $2500/lb. Where do your figures come from ... Shuttle pricing has been set at about $73 million/launch by the administration. Maximum payload is supposed to be 65,000 pounds but I don't think that's a practical figure for a while yet. Thus, $1500/lb is a rough, conservative figure for what real customers will really have to pay. Cost is MUCH lower for get away specials - I think its $10,000 for 40 lbs. but I don't have the data in front of me. > Cost to the *user* is also > a little misleading, since it doesn't include the cost NASA incurs to > subsidize launching rates. Misleading perhaps, but a very practical figure if you want to do work. To figure out the 'real' cost (whatever that truely means) requires far more data than I'm ever likely to get or want to go through. The size of the check I'd have to write to launch a satellite is the most valuable number. Note that Ariane is also subsidized - as are many terrestrial industries. > > The ability to make things in space is worthless if the product costs > more than you can sell it for. > No, because the next generation launch costs will be less, and we'll have a head start knowing some of what works and what doesn't from shuttle experience. > > You can do microgravity experiments in unmanned satellites (fit them with > a heat shield and retrorockets). Some experiments may be practical, but as far as I can tell only a small percentage of the work that has actually been done has been on unmanned spacecraft - here, USSR, and Europe. Perhaps you know why this is? > > > McDonnell Douglas and 3M are both seriously working > > on orbital processing. > > McDonnell Douglas's partner, Ortho Pharmaceuticals, has pulled out ... 3M took their place. > The later Arianes will have the problems fixed and will (asymptotically) > become more reliable. Ariane lost two or three of their first flights - entirely. A few months ago they dumped a couple more satellites into the Atlantic. I'm very glad Ariane is around - but their reliability has been very poor. The next flight has been significantly delayed while they figured out what went wrong (recent delays have been for other reasons). Ariane was developed about the same time as the shuttle and has had at least as many problems - demonstrating that unmanned launchers have serious problems just as manned launchers do. > If you criticize Ariane for teething problems > you must also, in all fairness, criticize the PAM, IUS and the shuttle > itself for reliability problems. Space flight is extremely difficult. Problems are to be expected. I only mentioned Ariane's problems to illustrate the fact that unmanned launchers have problems as serious as the shuttle (except for loss of life). > The utility of people doing EVAs in low orbit is debatable; You should tell that to Solar Max and Leasat users - EVA saved their satellites. You might try explaining that to those involved with Skylab - which was salvaged by unplanned EVA. Russians involved with Salyut - which was also (temporarily) rescued by EVA would also be interested in that statement. > expertise does not easily extend to where it would be more useful > (geosynchronous orbit). The only problem with geosynchronous EVA's (other than getting there) is the radiation environment. As far as I know no solution has been found, but they're still trying. > I don't believe space manufacturing is currently > economically viable, so I don't buy the space station argument. It probably isn't, but it may could be in five or ten years if we work the problem. Shuttle, with all its flaws, allows us to work the problem in situ, now. > > About teleoperation: because people are adaptable, they can do things > (like doing unanticipated repairs on satellites) that would be hard > for a machine to accomplish. However, the important question is: is > the extra adaptability humans possess worth the considerably higher > costs incurred in putting them in space? If teleoperators can > accomplish 90% (say) of the things people can do, people should probably > stay on the ground for a while. But is it 90%? or is it 10%? You need good data to make the trade properly. People aren't as expensive as some think. All of the basic problems have well know solutions and the weight penalty isn't really all that great. You need more reliability in the launch and life support systems but you require less reliability in the payloads. Much of the cost of the shuttle is due not to the people, but to excessive requirements placed on the vehicle by DOD (the military). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the size of the payload bay, the 65,000lb payload weight requirement, once around landing, and much of the cross-range were requirements that DOD added. These requirements severely strained the state of the art and added enormously to shuttle's cost. Other problems have been caused by DOD; for example, TDRSS would have been launched long ago if a problem hadn't occured in the secure channel - which only DOD requires. Another reason for shuttle's cost over-runs was anemic funding in the early stages. This is happening the space station right now - and its causing some of the same basic problems. > > The need for adaptability can be reduced by proper design. For Of course it can, but proper design doesn't always actually get done. Everyone, including desingers, make mistakes. People on orbit can help bail you out of some of those mistakes.