[sci.space] Cargo: costs and standards

szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nick Szabo) (12/20/89)

In article <1989Dec19.001442.18701@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <3332@ibmpa.UUCP> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>Unmanned strikes again!  Delta launches cost probably one-fifth to 
>>one-tenth of a Shuttle launch, depending on whose accounting you want
>>to believe.
>
>I believe the NRC's accounting, which says that all current US launchers
>cost about the same per pound at the same launch volume.  The enormous
>cost advantage of unmanned launchers is a myth.
>
>Well, one caveat:  Delta probably *is* somewhat cheaper now because those
>are (I think) commercial launches rather than government-run ones; that
>development is more recent than the NRC findings.

Of course, I was talking about absolute cost, not cost per pound.  
Delta launch versus Shuttle launch, is what I said.  

"Cost per pound" is not necessarily a good measure; we should think in
terms of "cost per useful payload."  The second ton is usually not as 
valuable as the first ton, and the third is not as valuable as the second, 
etc.  You often can't cram twice as much into twice the mass, because "the 
second box never fits as nicely as the first."  In fact, bulk and shape of the 
payload are often more important than mass.  That is why Earth's major cargo
carriers now use the standard truck-trailer-sized "container" for rail, 
truck, ocean, and even sometimes air freight.  

Hopefully, we will soon have a set of standards for space cargo.  In fact, I 
can foresee somebody like AMROC making a "Delta clone": a launch vehicle with 
the same exact cargo hold as the Delta, with the same lift capability, but 
using the new AMROC engine technology.  That way, satellite makers can 
design their satellites for the standard without have to commit to any
specific launch vehicle.  Also, implementers of new technologies like
EML or laser-launch would be well-advised to scale the machines to 
existing payloads.


******** These opinions are not related to Big Blue's *********


-- 
---------------------------
Nick Szabo
szabonj@ibmpa.tcspa.ibm.com
uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/21/89)

In article <3354@ibmpa.UUCP> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>Hopefully, we will soon have a set of standards for space cargo...

Actually, we already have this in small ways.  Commercial Titan payload
fairings are the same as Ariane 4 payload fairings (MM buys them from
the same outfit -- I think it's Contraves in Switzerland -- that builds
them for Ariane).

However, the real problem is that there is no standardization *within*
a single launcher's payloads, never mind across launchers.  Every launch
is a custom job at present.  If you read the user's manual for a launcher
(I've seen the ones for Ariane and Titan), you find not a standard set of
services and facilities, but a list of constraints on exactly what custom
facilities can be provided.

I suspect that this situation is likely to continue as long as launch
volumes are low.  The ALS people have talked about various schemes for
both standardizing interfaces and minimizing them (requiring payloads
to be more independent of the launcher), but ALS is most unlikely to
ever become real, precisely because there isn't enough volume of business
to justify it.

>... Also, implementers of new technologies like
>EML or laser-launch would be well-advised to scale the machines to 
>existing payloads.

I think we can be fairly sure that that *won't* happen.  Many of the
non-rocket schemes really want to work with much smaller payloads; the
costs scale non-linearly with payload size.  For example, existing
CO2 laser technology would probably suffice for a laser launcher... if
the payload is measured in tens of kilograms, not thousands.  Such
systems have enormous capacities, but they get them by launching lots
of small payloads, not a handful of big ones.

What's more, such systems will be justified in terms of launching new
kinds of payloads, not existing ones.
-- 
1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu