Article View: sci.space
Article #6509Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
From: Brian Stuart Thorn
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:18
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:18
46 lines
2797 bytes
2797 bytes
>A few years ago I saw some figures on the amount of overtime needed to
>process a Shuttle. It was horendous. Adding more Shuttles will just tax
>the groundcrew even more. Adding staff to eliminate this bottleneck will
>only increase costs.
Maybe so, but I don't see the reasoning that NASA can launch monthly
(assuming they manage it) from December 1992 to April 1993 (five
launches of three orbiters) but can't keep up that pace throughout
the year. Does this mean they're pushing hard to get five flights
off early and then stopping to do alot of postponed maintenance? This
doesn't seem likely to me. So WHAT IS the reason for the sparse flight
rate in the second half of 1993? Politics.
>Your assuming that orbiter availability is the only bottleneck.
>I'm sure they could add one or two flights a year. But so what? all that
>means is that instead of spending three times what we need we are 'only'
>spending 2.75 times what we need to. I don't consider that much of a
>victory.
But you digress. This was not a question of costs but one of performance.
I doubt anyone at the DC program would be happy knowing that DC-1 was
flying two or three missions per year less than it was able to. The same
can be said for Titan, Atlas, Delta, or Ariane. So again you seem to have
two sets of measuring systems: One for the Shuttle and another for
everything else.
>> This is all
>> moot, since NASA apparently does not want to push its luck prior
>> to SSF assembly, but it does show that the launch rate is lower
>> than it could be.
>
>No because those are factors. The bottom line is that NASA cannot fly
>many more missions per year than they are now.
That's not what you said earlier, Allen. Even you acknowledge one or
two more flights per year is possible (I say three of four BTW). With
the current 8 per year, that's a 25% increase. The folks at Titan or
Atlas would LOVE that.
-Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven."
-Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<72486@cup.portal.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!BrianTReferences:
<9gt204c@rpi.edu> <1992Dec23.132824.14131@iti.org> <72332@cup.portal.com> <1992Dec27.204310.21837@iti.org>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!BrianT From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Message-ID: <72486@cup.portal.com> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 17:18:51 PST Organization: The Portal System (TM) References: <9gt204c@rpi.edu> <1992Dec23.132824.14131@iti.org> <72332@cup.portal.com> <1992Dec27.204310.21837@iti.org> Lines: 46