Russians Save ISS From Serious Trouble??

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:18:33 GMT, "James Oberg" wrote:
That ISS would have been in a 28-32 deg inclination, so payload performance
would have been 30% greater per launch -- and the money saved in unnecessary
shuttle flights, about a billion dollars a year, was plenty enough to
develop the propulsion and life support hardware that the Russians were
allocated, along with some sort of non-shuttle crew transport capability.

My understanding of Shuttle flight cost accounting is that the great bulk of
the cost is fixed per year (the standing army), and that the cost is distributed
over the number of flights per year. So reducing the number of flights simply
means each flight that does take place costs more.

With that as background, how would a billion dollars a year have been
saved by making fewer flights per year?

Gary

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:18:33 GMT, "James Oberg"
wrote:
That ISS would have been in a 28-32 deg inclination, so payload
performance
would have been 30% greater per launch -- and the money saved in
unnecessary
shuttle flights, about a billion dollars a year, was plenty enough to
develop the propulsion and life support hardware that the Russians were
allocated, along with some sort of non-shuttle crew transport capability.

My understanding of Shuttle flight cost accounting is that the great bulk
of
the cost is fixed per year (the standing army), and that the cost is
distributed
over the number of flights per year. So reducing the number of flights
simply
means each flight that does take place costs more.

With that as background, how would a billion dollars a year have been
saved by making fewer flights per year?

Because of the 30% payload penalty, you wouldn't be able to do theoriginal
plan, which was to (for example) launch Destiny fully outfitted with all 24
payload racks. Instead, we had to launch it with only, I think, 5 racks,
and then send up a couple additional MPLM flights to load it up. There's
two "wasted" flights that could otherwise have been used for other purposes.

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

"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