bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison) (10/05/88)
In article <1988Oct3.172838.8828@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >Don't forget that the economics of reusability are not quite as simple as >one might think. The Soviets have a far more capable space program than >the US's, based entirely around expendable boosters. Their costs for an >expendable launch are considerably lower than for the US's mostly-reusable >shuttle. Mass production makes a big difference. The West tends to think >that 50 boosters is a huge bulk order; that's six months' supply for the >Soviet space program. They are committed to a 40-year production run on >Energia already. (Lest we forget, the Saturn V was dead ten years after >its first flight.) > >Sticking a shuttle on a Saturn V would have been a hell of a lot better >than sticking it on segmented solid boosters! And it would have flown >sooner, and probably have been cheaper, too. >-- >The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu It seems to me that people are constantly over-stating the value of reusable boosters in the American space program. As I recall, the solid-fuel boosters only have a lifetime of three launches and the recovery and overhaul adds up to a significant fraction of the price of the booster. Of course, we're only saving on the cost of the shell, the fuel and assembly still has to be paid for. (As I recall, I heard that a booster (or maybe the pair) cost around $75M, and the re-furbishing was around $25M, and if all this is correct, that gives you $50M per launch for reusable vs. $75M per launch to not reuse, and initial estimates of the cost of an entire launch was in the $25M range). I've always felt this was one of these non-issue issues which people have latched onto since it seems so neat at first glance. A reusable shuttle is definitely a good thing (leaving all debate over whether the shuttle is a good thing), but the whole booster issue seems to be a false economy. Henry, you seem to have the most consistently solid data of anyone in this group (you've certainly been around the longest): am I all wet? Bob Allison
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/08/88)
In article <142@microsoft.UUCP> bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison (uunet!microsoft!bobal)) writes: >It seems to me that people are constantly over-stating the value of >reusable boosters in the American space program. As I recall, the solid-fuel >boosters only have a lifetime of three launches and the recovery and >overhaul adds up to a significant fraction of the price of the booster. >... the whole booster issue seems to be a false economy. It's hard to deny that the big benefit of reusing the shuttle boosters is political rather than economic. Shortly after Challenger, at least one fairly knowledgeable group suggested abandoning booster recovery to permit strong, permanent seals on the joints. They didn't cite exact numbers, but they did state that the extra expense would be small, given the abolition of recovery/refurbishing expenses and the greater production volume. -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (10/08/88)
In article <142@microsoft.UUCP> bobal@microsoft.UUCP (Bob Allison (uunet!microsoft!bobal)) writes: > >It seems to me that people are constantly over-stating the value of >reusable boosters in the American space program. As I recall, the solid-fuel >boosters only have a lifetime of three launches and the recovery and >overhaul adds up to a significant fraction of the price of the booster. >Of course, we're only saving on the cost of the shell, the fuel and assembly >still has to be paid for. (As I recall, I heard that a booster (or maybe >the pair) cost around $75M, and the re-furbishing was around $25M, and >if all this is correct, that gives you $50M per launch for reusable vs. >$75M per launch to not reuse, and initial estimates of the cost of an >entire launch was in the $25M range). > >I've always felt this was one of these non-issue issues which people have >latched onto since it seems so neat at first glance. A reusable shuttle >is definitely a good thing (leaving all debate over whether the shuttle >is a good thing), but the whole booster issue seems to be a false economy. > >Bob Allison Add an additional $30M for the external tank and you have about $80M/launch in non-resusable supplies. But remember, the original shuttle was meant to be fully re-usable. Hans Mark the former Deputy NASA administrator spoke out here about 3 years ago and told the "inside" story of the shuttle funding. While Apollo was beginning to wind down Nixon asked Jim Fletcher for a follow on project, "What next Jim?". Fletcher came back a little later and said, "Well, for about $24billion, we can put up a permanent moon-base, earth orbiting space station, and a reusable space shuttle". Nixon in turn told him "Gee Jim, this looks great, but I don't think that the congress will be willing spend that. See what you can do for 1/2 the amount, $12billion".." So Fletcher went away for a while, and came back and said. "Well, for $12 billion we could do the space station and fully reusable space shuttle". Nixon replied, "Gee, you guys at NASA sure can do some neat stuff, but I still don't think I could sell this to congress. See what you can do for 1/2 that amount, ($6 billion)". So we got: The Shuttle. A reusable payload-bay, partially reusable support boosters, and a 30 million dollar throw-away fuel can. Not to mention that the shuttle we have was co-designed by the Military. NASA originally was wanting something with about 1/2 the current payload capacity, about 30K to 35K pounds. The pentagon said "NONONONONO! We need 60,000 pounds payload capacity. Oh, and while you're redesigning the thing, see what you can do about those wing things, we need 'em bigger to support a larger cross-range landing capability. And on, and on. . . Spacecraft by committee. . . So be careful on the NASA bashing, there's plenty of blame to go around. But what it amounts to is that congress is to cheap to give NASA the kind of money it needs to do the job right. The upfront costs of the original shuttle were consderably less, but be pay for it in the end. And we see exactly the same thing now with the space-station. Oh well. . . -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "he's braindead Jim. . ." [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]