Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!microsoft!bobal
From: bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Reusability
Summary: It's not that great
Message-ID: <142@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 5 Oct 88 15:20:02 GMT
References: <6981@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <1988Oct2.021158.15076@utzoo.uucp> <5705@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <1988Oct3.172838.8828@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison (uunet!microsoft!bobal))
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 39

In article <1988Oct3.172838.8828@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Don't forget that the economics of reusability are not quite as simple as
>one might think.  The Soviets have a far more capable space program than
>the US's, based entirely around expendable boosters.  Their costs for an
>expendable launch are considerably lower than for the US's mostly-reusable
>shuttle.  Mass production makes a big difference.  The West tends to think
>that 50 boosters is a huge bulk order; that's six months' supply for the
>Soviet space program.  They are committed to a 40-year production run on
>Energia already.  (Lest we forget, the Saturn V was dead ten years after
>its first flight.)
>
>Sticking a shuttle on a Saturn V would have been a hell of a lot better
>than sticking it on segmented solid boosters!  And it would have flown
>sooner, and probably have been cheaper, too.
>-- 
>The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

It seems to me that people are constantly over-stating the value of 
reusable boosters in the American space program.  As I recall, the solid-fuel
boosters only have a lifetime of three launches and the recovery and 
overhaul adds up to a significant fraction of the price of the booster.
Of course, we're only saving on the cost of the shell, the fuel and assembly
still has to be paid for.  (As I recall, I heard that a booster (or maybe
the pair) cost around $75M, and the re-furbishing was around $25M, and
if all this is correct, that gives you $50M per launch for reusable vs.
$75M per launch to not reuse, and initial estimates of the cost of an
entire launch was in the $25M range).

I've always felt this was one of these non-issue issues which people have
latched onto since it seems so neat at first glance.  A reusable shuttle
is definitely a good thing (leaving all debate over whether the shuttle
is a good thing), but the whole booster issue seems to be a false economy.

Henry, you seem to have the most consistently solid data of anyone in this
group (you've certainly been around the longest): am I all wet?

Bob Allison