Russians Save ISS From Serious Trouble??

"Rick C" wrote
I think the idea is not that you'd h ave fewer launches per year, but
fewer total flights.

That's the idea -- that hardware doesn't stack up on the ground and overflow
onto the tarmac at KSC -- where uplift was the bottleneck long before the
neck was corked by the 107 catastrophe.

At the same cost, you launch your components 30% faster, get to 'Assembly
Complete' years sooner, and make all the users happier.

Meanwhile, in this alternate reality, the Russians would have put their
Mir-2 into the intended 65 deg orbit, as was planned from the start, for
much better land and sea coverage AND that allows access from Plesetsk,
breaking the stranglehold of a foreign spaceport. First unmanned Progress
vehicles, and then manned Soyuzes, would have launched out of Plesetsk.

And occasional NASA shuttle missions would also visit, perhaps to bring up
US earth-observation modules for the hi-inc orbit, in support of occasional
US guests on the Mir-2. Russians (aboard our shuttles) would visit ISS in
its 32 or 33 deg orbit for science research, too.

Two stations? Too perfect? Yeah, it never could have happened -- it LOOKED
more wasteful, and when it comes to government budget decisions, appearance
ALWAYS trumps reality.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:08:00 GMT, "James Oberg" wrote:
"Rick C" wrote
I think the idea is not that you'd h ave fewer launches per year, but
fewer total flights.

That's the idea -- that hardware doesn't stack up on the ground and overflow
onto the tarmac at KSC -- where uplift was the bottleneck long before the
neck was corked by the 107 catastrophe.

At the same cost, you launch your components 30% faster, get to 'Assembly
Complete' years sooner, and make all the users happier.

I understand that Assembly Complete could have occurred years earlier, and
that would have a substantial positive impact on total program costs.

But you don't actually "save a billion dollars a year" on Shuttle flights which
could then be diverted to developing hardware the Russians ultimately provided.
That was the statement being challenged.

Gary

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
I understand that Assembly Complete could have occurred years earlier, and
that would have a substantial positive impact on total program costs.

But you don't actually "save a billion dollars a year" on Shuttle flights
which
could then be diverted to developing hardware the Russians ultimately
provided.
That was the statement being challenged.


OK, point well taken -- but you DO save the money spent on integration that
made US modules much more expensive, and the money -- nearly a billion
dollars -- spent to buy Russian space bargains. And finishing construction
early IS a cash savings -- although finding a way to spend the savings could
be a challenge.

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:43:15 GMT, "James Oberg" wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
I understand that Assembly Complete could have occurred years earlier, and
that would have a substantial positive impact on total program costs.

But you don't actually "save a billion dollars a year" on Shuttle flights which
could then be diverted to developing hardware the Russians ultimately provided.
That was the statement being challenged.

OK, point well taken -- but you DO save the money spent on integration that
made US modules much more expensive,

Ok, I agree with that. Being able to fully outfit and test each module on the
ground before launch is a major plus. Being able to autonomously dock those
modules in orbit would have been an even bigger plus )only the Russians have
demonstrated that capability). Restoring a heavy lift ELV system to launch them
(US or Russian), so Shuttle could have been retired to museums, would have
been an even larger plus (and actually would free up $5 billion a year).

and the money -- nearly a billion
dollars -- spent to buy Russian space bargains.

Yeah, but I don't believe Lockmart equivalents to what was purchased from
the Russians would have actually been less expensive. The Russians are
the low cost supplier in this area.

And finishing construction
early IS a cash savings -- although finding a way to spend the savings could
be a challenge.

Finding a way for NASA to *hold onto* the savings would be the main problem.
Congress has never had a problem finding ways to spend money, but there's
no guarantee that it would be spent on space.

Gary

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
Finding a way for NASA to *hold onto* the savings would be the main
problem.
Congress has never had a problem finding ways to spend money, but there's
no guarantee that it would be spent on space.

Fully agree -- and hence, NASA has never had any real motive to save money.

"James Oberg"
Fully agree -- and hence, NASA has never had any real motive to save money.

Congress likes to spend money. Cheney wanted to stop the Osprey, but since the
program involved 200 companies in 38 states, Congress overruled him and
continued the program. Funding has as much to do with politics as budget
concerns.