🚀 go-pugleaf

da>>Under the terms of the Launch Services Purchase Act, NASA is prohibit
da>>from orbiting non-shuttle-specific payloads. Therefore,
da>>using the shuttle to orbit Soyuz spacecraft contravenes the LSPA.

AW>In a perfect world you would be correct. However, it is currently too
AW>easy for NASA to declare a payload Shuttle specific.

I dare them to declare that Soyuz is shuttle specific. I double dare
them. Go ahead, make my day.


da>>However, several U.S. commercial vendors can supply launchers that
da>>can easily orbit a Soyuz for a more reasonable price than the shuttle

AW>As you well know, I have long supported exactly this. It is obvious th
AW>using non-shuttle based logistics systems are both cheaper and more
AW>reliable. The problems are political and not technical.


There is a grand compromise inherent in all this that may work out to
almost everyone's satisfaction:

The Russians want to launch US comsats on Proton from Baikonur.
Protons are significantly cheaper for geosynchronous launches than
US comemrcial launchers.

NASA wants to launch Soyuzes inside the shuttle.
US commercial launchers are significantly cheaper than shuttle flights;
however, Soyus would probably require at least five ELV launches per
year (compared to two shuttle flights).
Proton cannot loft a fueled Soyuz to Freedom's orbit, and is still
not man-rated.

The solution?

Allow US Commercial launchers to orbit the Soyuzes from the Cape.

Allow Proton to orbit as many comsats as US launchers orbit Soyuzes -
a one for one treaty, so to speak. Only NASA loses, except it gets
a cheap ACRV. The US commercial launch industry gets to survive,
and the Russians get some business.



___ WinQwk 2.0b#0

--- Maximus 2.01wb