Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) (11/13/90)
Serre, a few additional comments: >Question: Do Shuttle payloads require insurance? Answer, yes. Commercial rates for the shuttle (based upon the few semi-cmmerical payloads left in the shuttle manifest) run about the same as for the Delta, and maybe a few percent less. [The reason for this, according to the space insurance broker I talked to, is the successful record for Shuttle launch of payloads - and the successful retrieval or repair of several satellites.] >Points: Note that the payload costs given for classified satellites >imply that the Air Force is probably not really that interested in >cheap boosters. I also agree with this. The primary interest for those missions is "launch on demand". Something the DoD has not yet been able to achieve. >Also, note that there's no reason to think that reusable boosters >are any more reliable than expendables, notwithstanding Mr. >Larrison's preference for reusables. Glen, Please! Where'd you get that impression? I agree with you. I do not have a preference for reusable BOOSTERS! As a matter of fact, I think a bulk cargo carrying launch systems should have an expendable booster to reduce cost and increase system robustness. (For a variety of reasons, which I'll skip for brevity..) My concern with the HLLV costs, and the discussions going on regarding HLLVs is that they ignore some real-world "manifesting" issues. If we are launching lots of bulk cargos, such as hundreds of thousands of pounds per year of propellent or bulk manufacturing materials, then a really cheap HLLV makes a lot of economic sense. If we are trying to launch very expensive, very complex spacecraft, I'm not so sure that a "cheap" HLLV is the way to do. We need a revolution in the way payloads are built more than we need a new HLLV. Current transportation costs run about 20% of the cost of a satellite program - with about 70% of the costs going into the payload. There is a hidden assumption in my opinion, that high reliability costs money, which will be reflected in the launch cost. I will submit that we can design systems to be more reliable, and that future systems will have higher inherent reliability at lower cost. However, I have a hard time believing in my guts that we can get 99.9% reliable without some cost considerations. Less costly than today's systems, to be sure, but some of the current claims using rocket technology are a bit extreme. (SSX is claiming 99.9% at $185/lb for a manned system.... Ref: Cost Impacts of True Spacecrafts, S. Hoeser, J.Pract. Applic. Space, Vol1. No.4) My feeling is the optimum mix for future space operations circa year 2000 is a pretty reliable, expendable large booster (150Klbs to orbit, <$300/lb, rel=.98), a space station(s) of some type for orbital assembly and to support orbital operations, and a highly reliable, reusable small manned system for workcrew rotation and on- of-a-kind, very expensive payloads. (20Klbs to orbit, <$1000/lb, rel=.999). ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------