Fight to Save Shuttle

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn?= Ove Isaksen wrote:
So basicly you want to keep the shuttles because you cant trust a
predetermined sum in a contract?

The problem with a "predetermined sum in a contract" is, what are the
incentives for abiding by the contract? You need look no farther than US
aerospace contractors to see various innovative ways of reneging on an
allegedly fixed-price contract, and the Russians are quick studies on this
capitalism stuff.

A "predetermined sum" is trustworthy only if there are at least two
suppliers, so that if X starts acting up, you can say "to hell with you,
we're buying from Y instead".

You also need enforcable laws that keep the two suppliers from fixing
prices so if your two suppliers are both in 2nd world countries all
bets are off

-McDaniel

Edward Wright wrote:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...

On the other hand, if Alt Access is nothing but a brief stop-gap
between Shuttle and CEV, how do you expect a commercial provider to
charge $40 million per flight but still recoup its development
costs
during the brief period before it is shouldered aside?

Simple, agree not to use CEV for ISS crew rotation/resupply if a US
commercial provider is available, CEV has plenty of non-ISS missions
(lunar/Mars/asteroids) to do.

From the White House fact sheet on the new policy: "The Crew
Exploration Vehicle will also be capable of transporting astronauts
and scientists to the International Space Station after the Shuttle is
retired." I see nothing in the fact sheet about NASA agreeing not to
use CEV for ISS crew rotation or to allow private enterprise to do
anything.

There's also a very strange statement about the CEV schedule: "The new
spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, will be developed and tested
by 2008 and will conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014."
If the CEV will be developed and tested by 2008, what's it going to be
doing during the six years between 2008 and 2014?

If I take the news release literally I would say about 6 years of unmanned
tests of the CEV. Or perhaps the term "first manned mission" refers to
some kind of operational mission as opposed to manned test flights.

Mike Walsh

(Edward Wright) wrote in message
Let me get this straight. You believe that a commercial provider could
build and launch a crewed capsule for $40 million per flight and that
NASA should use it to resupply ISS? At the same time, you think NASA
should build its *own* capsule for non-ISS missions?

Actually, a variant on this may not be that bad an idea. Take a two
pronged approach. Guarantee some market for the first vendor to
develop the capability of resupplying the station. Make it as
flexible as possible. Set a certain amount of money aside for a
certain tonnage and number of personnel to the space station for
a given time period: like for example 5 years all supplies and
personnel to the ISS would go through the vendor's transport.
Let the vendor figure out how to do it. Just guarantee the
money for the job done and the absolute minimalist set of requirements.
To prevent the Lucy-esque ball snatch, get it passed as a law as
part of the funding bill.

Then let NASA go about building their own vehicle as well. Let them
do it as they as they see as necessary with the goals they have in mind.

Why do both? Because one or the other is *LIKELY* to fail.

Even if you have 10 vendors try for the prize, how many demonstratedly
competant LEO logistics companies are there out there?

Zip. Nada. Zilch.

Even if you guarantee a market, there may never be. Even if there
was no threat from NASA at all, or even perceived threat of NASA.
It might just be too high of a risk for VC's to even want to consider
it.

That leaves NASA working away at what they do 'best'. NASA's
record kinda blows as of late for developing spacecraft as well.
So it's just as likely this might fail as well.

However, one fails and the other suceeds, you've come out on top.
If both fail, you're no worse off than you were before. If both
suceed - the ideal situation - then you have guaranteed space
access and this BS of putting all the eggs in one manned platform
ends.

In any case, I think that if shrub is gonna redirect NASA, he
ought to help get things set so that legimate smaller outfits that
are aiming (ultimately) for orbit can do so. Right now the
regulations are a 'little' stiffling and causing no end of
frustration. Hell, just designate a national range that is
freely usable by them w/o fees. They just have to coordinate
with the flight safety folks, etc.

Will

--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Speaking for me has so few explorers? Normally, there
Home: anzha@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp
Work: wbaird@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.

(Edward Wright) wrote in
om:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...

On the other hand, if Alt Access is nothing but a brief stop-gap
between Shuttle and CEV, how do you expect a commercial provider to
charge $40 million per flight but still recoup its development
costs
during the brief period before it is shouldered aside?

Simple, agree not to use CEV for ISS crew rotation/resupply if a US
commercial provider is available, CEV has plenty of non-ISS missions
(lunar/Mars/asteroids) to do.

From the White House fact sheet on the new policy: "The Crew
Exploration Vehicle will also be capable of transporting astronauts
and scientists to the International Space Station after the Shuttle is
retired." I see nothing in the fact sheet about NASA agreeing not to
use CEV for ISS crew rotation or to allow private enterprise to do
anything.

Well, duh! The fact sheet describes Bush's proposed policy. I was stating
how I would modify that policy to mitigate your concern.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:09:43 +0000, Iain Young
wrote:


Some questions answered, more posed....Like what does "ISS Complete" mean ?
US Core Complete ? International Core Complete ?

Bush also said they'd meet their ISS obligations to the international
partners, so it looks like International Core Complete.

International Core Complete is 24-25 flights away AIUI...assuming flights
happen between 2005 and 2010, thats 5 missions a year...With 2-3 orbiters,
at least 1 would have to fly 3 times a year...

3 flights in 1 year by a single Orbiter was demonstrated in...
1982
1983
1984
1985
1991
1993
1996
1997 (by both Atlantis and Columbia)

Brian

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 03:51:21 +0100, Bjørn Ove Isaksen
wrote:

Depends on what they've been charging, which seems to be something of
a mystery. But the answer is probably 'no'. It takes three Soyuz to
duplicate one Shuttle, and that's just for the crew. Add the 20,000

As usual some fancy and realy practical numbers. Do you suggest sending the
"captain" and "pilot" down after a few days?

While there is no particular reason you can't swap out an entire
Shuttle crew at ISS, I agree you probably wouldn't want to swap the
Commander/Pilot. But Soyuz has been doing that for years.

lbs of cargo a Shuttle offers, and Soyuz/Progress lose some of their
luster. It's still certainly cheaper, but not 1/10th the Shuttle's

Proton can not repace the shuttle cargo, and it has not been suggested. IMHO
heavy lifting (if found necessary) will go to American contractors.

I wrote "Progress" not "Proton". Progress is the unmanned cargo
spacecraft for ISS, launched by the same booster as Soyuz. It has
about 5,000 lbs cargo capacity. Shuttle's Logistics Modules can
support up to 20,000 lbs of cargo. So you need four Progress to equal
a Shuttle's cargo capacity. Then you need at least two, and possibly
three Soyuz to replace Shuttle's crew exchange capability. That's six,
maybe seven Russian launches to replace one Shuttle launch.

costs to achieve the same results.

So basicly you want to keep the shuttles because you cant trust a
predetermined sum in a contract?

I want better evidence that dumping Shuttle and switching entirely to
throwaway vehicles will save us money. It probably will, but much
depends on the numbers assumed, and the Russians aren't very
forthcoming with the numbers.

And look at how many Soyuz and Progress flights the Russians signed-on
to support for ISS back in 1995, versus how many they've actually
provided. Depend on them at your own risk.

Brian

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:56:56 +0100, Bjørn Ove Isaksen
wrote:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

I'd much prefer to throw some money into Alt Access, and see if a US
commercial provider can beat the price of a Soyuz by 2010. I'd be
surprised if they couldn't.

That is no problem. You have already made the case that the shuttle works
for 3 Soyuz'es and more than 1 Proton and for less money (and is safer).
Just commersialize the shuttle program. There are plenty of payloads ready
to go.

Um, that was me -- not Jorge, and I was talking about the Progress,
not Proton.

Brian

(William Baird) wrote in message om...

Even if you have 10 vendors try for the prize, how many demonstratedly
competant LEO logistics companies are there out there?

Zip. Nada. Zilch.

No company has ever demonstrated the ability to put a payload into
LEO? So, I guess all those satellites up there are a myth?

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...

There's also a very strange statement about the CEV schedule: "The
new
spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, will be developed and
tested
by 2008 and will conduct its first manned mission no later than
2014."
If the CEV will be developed and tested by 2008, what's it going to
be
doing during the six years between 2008 and 2014?

If I take the news release literally I would say about 6 years of unmanned
tests of the CEV. Or perhaps the term "first manned mission" refers to
some kind of operational mission as opposed to manned test flights.

Or perhaps, since NASA has reverted to using the term "manned",
they're planning to fly the first six years with female crews? (It
makes as much sense as anything else.)

Henry Spencer wrote:
So basicly you want to keep the shuttles because you cant trust a
predetermined sum in a contract?

The problem with a "predetermined sum in a contract" is, what are the
incentives for abiding by the contract? You need look no farther than US
aerospace contractors to see various innovative ways of reneging on an
allegedly fixed-price contract, and the Russians are quick studies on this
capitalism stuff.

I agree, but you dont pay until the goods are delivered. IIRC there has been
more problems currently with no-paying passengers (on soyuz) than
non-compliance with the russians. And the passengers had no other choice as
to get to orbit.

If you see the historical evidence today, I'd say US have been mutch more a
underpreformer in the way it influences the partners than Russia. Both ESA
and Japan have been envisaged a 15 years usefull lifetime and have invested
in that.

A "predetermined sum" is trustworthy only if there are at least two
suppliers, so that if X starts acting up, you can say "to hell with you,
we're buying from Y instead".

That is correct, but no delivery gives no money. China is also an option in
the long (political) term, and I can't see Europe or Japan support a
station with that kind of russian attitude. I think the entire case is FUD.

Sincerely
Bjørn Ove