Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!ibmpa!szabonj
From: szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Cargo: costs and standards
Message-ID: <3354@ibmpa.UUCP>
Date: 19 Dec 89 19:26:17 GMT
References: <37951@ames.arc.nasa.gov> <3332@ibmpa.UUCP> <1989Dec19.001442.18701@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nick Szabo)
Organization: IBM AWD, Palo Alto
Lines: 44

In article <1989Dec19.001442.18701@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <3332@ibmpa.UUCP> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>Unmanned strikes again!  Delta launches cost probably one-fifth to 
>>one-tenth of a Shuttle launch, depending on whose accounting you want
>>to believe.
>
>I believe the NRC's accounting, which says that all current US launchers
>cost about the same per pound at the same launch volume.  The enormous
>cost advantage of unmanned launchers is a myth.
>
>Well, one caveat:  Delta probably *is* somewhat cheaper now because those
>are (I think) commercial launches rather than government-run ones; that
>development is more recent than the NRC findings.

Of course, I was talking about absolute cost, not cost per pound.  
Delta launch versus Shuttle launch, is what I said.  

"Cost per pound" is not necessarily a good measure; we should think in
terms of "cost per useful payload."  The second ton is usually not as 
valuable as the first ton, and the third is not as valuable as the second, 
etc.  You often can't cram twice as much into twice the mass, because "the 
second box never fits as nicely as the first."  In fact, bulk and shape of the 
payload are often more important than mass.  That is why Earth's major cargo
carriers now use the standard truck-trailer-sized "container" for rail, 
truck, ocean, and even sometimes air freight.  

Hopefully, we will soon have a set of standards for space cargo.  In fact, I 
can foresee somebody like AMROC making a "Delta clone": a launch vehicle with 
the same exact cargo hold as the Delta, with the same lift capability, but 
using the new AMROC engine technology.  That way, satellite makers can 
design their satellites for the standard without have to commit to any
specific launch vehicle.  Also, implementers of new technologies like
EML or laser-launch would be well-advised to scale the machines to 
existing payloads.


******** These opinions are not related to Big Blue's *********


-- 
---------------------------
Nick Szabo
szabonj@ibmpa.tcspa.ibm.com
uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj