Xref: utzoo sci.space:5950 sci.space.shuttle:813
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!vanvleck!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!web@garnet.berkeley.edu
From: web@garnet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus!
Keywords: Caution.
Message-ID: <11122@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 19 Jun 88 08:26:56 GMT
References: <1988Jun17.053132.5314@utzoo.uucp>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: web@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: UCB Math Dept
Lines: 50
In-reply-to: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)

In article <1988Jun17.053132.5314@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo (Henry Spencer) writes:
>	  The June 6 issue just arrived, and the lead story is the
>best news in years.  So here's a special out-of-sequence report.]
>
>New launcher:  Pegasus, a winged three-stage design that will be air-
>launched from a B-52.  It's a joint effort of Orbital Sciences and
>Hercules, with Rutan building the wing.  Payload is 600lb into low
>polar orbit, 900 into low equatorial orbit.
>
>Now the GOOD news...  Pegasus is 100% private, although the first customer
>is DARPA.  Total funding is $40-45M, about a third of it already spent.
>It has been underway about one year, they are already bending metal on
>the first one, and it flies NEXT YEAR!  There is already a lineup of
>customers.  Cost to orbit will be half or less that of similar-sized
>payloads on existing launchers.
>

Private development is not new-- Space Services Inc. of Houston has
designed, built and *flown* the Conestoga using private funds.  And they
are offering their launchers to DARPA on a strictly commercial basis.
Furthermore, it is an exaggerated claim that the $10M launch price (or
is it expected launch price) of the Pegasus is half that of the
competition.

If DARPA commits to buying launches on a vehicle which is still in the
development stage, how is that significantly different from them paying
for development?  What happens when there are cost overruns and
production delays?  The article also raises questions about possible
hidden subsidies: How much are OSC and Hercules paying for use of the
NASA B52?  How much are they paying for computing at Ames?

There are certainly advantages to a B52-launched vehicle, and Henry
mentioned several.  But there are still large obstacles to be overcome.
Hercules and OSC claim that they will develop, build and certify not
one, not two, but three new motors with $45M, and in one year.  I hope
so!  How is Hercules doing on its more luxuriously funded motor
development programs?

One of the more important aspects of this article is the tense.  The
Pegasus will cost less than $10M per launch.  The Pegasus will fly next
summer, even though none of the three motors has yet been built.  The
Pegasus will only cost $45M to develop.  The Pegasus will succeed
because the project needs only five to six missions annually to remain
viable.  

Hercules and OSC have far to go before this project amounts to much more
than the inflated claims of a marketing campaign.  I sincerely hope they
succeed, and wish them luck.
-- 
--