🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.space
Article #7497

Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)

#7497
From: Gary Coffman
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:18
42 lines
2860 bytes
In article <ewright.726516760@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan7.072839.1460@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Once we have Freedom in operation, even less need
>>will be found for Shuttle, and it can be phased out. But there will still
>>be missions where there's no viable substitute for heavy lift and only
>>the Russians still have an operational very heavy lift vehicle. It may
>>make sense just to contract with them, 
>
>Why does this have to wait for Freedom?  We could do that right now.  
>In fact, we'd save money launching Freedom on Energia instead of Shuttle.

The *redesign* (yet again) of Freedom required for it to be launched
by Energia would very likely cost more than any launch cost savings
that might be achieved. Planning Freedom from the start for launch
on a heavy lifter would have been the cheap way to go, but at the time
of Freedom's initial design the Russians were the "Evil Empire" and
we didn't have any heavy lift in the class of Energia operational.

>>but I'd like to see the US 
>>develop a new generation VHLV designed from the ground up to achieve
>>the lowest possible cost per pound. We've never tried to do that so
>>we don't know how cheaply it can be done.
>
>A new gneration VHLV designed to achieve the lowest possible cost
>per pound would be an SSTO, which you support as research vehicles 
>only. 

A SSTO *might* be a low cost launcher, or it might not, but a VHLV it
is very likely *not* going to be. SSTO claims of low cost depend on
reusability. The only reusable launcher we have experience with most
definitely *isn't* cheap. That's one of the things *research* vehicles 
may tell us. That's why I support them. I'm not going to gamble taxpayer 
money on another operational system until it's costs are *proved* to be 
enough less than current vehicles to make it's deployment cost effective.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1993Jan10.171824.25105@ke4zv.uucp>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
References: <1992Dec28.172953.26161@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec28.202920.5932@iti.org> <1993Jan1.030602.21051@ke4zv.uucp> <1i2lnqINN50b@mirror.digex.com> <1993Jan7.072839.1460@ke4zv.uucp> <ewright.726516760@convex.convex.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Message-ID: <1993Jan10.171824.25105@ke4zv.uucp>
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
References: <1992Dec28.172953.26161@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec28.202920.5932@iti.org> <1993Jan1.030602.21051@ke4zv.uucp> <1i2lnqINN50b@mirror.digex.com> <1993Jan7.072839.1460@ke4zv.uucp> <ewright.726516760@convex.convex.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:18:24 GMT
Lines: 42