Having read both the Easterbrook and London references that Mr.
Schnitt
cites, I have to agree that the U.S. government has failed to make any
significant headway toward truly low cost space programs, especially in
the realm of launchers. Rather than subscribing to some kind of
conspiracy
theory, I just think that a lot of inertia, built up in the previous 30
years of programs like Apollo, Shuttle, and Space Station, makes it
difficult
to adopt new design criteria overnight. It may be many years before
NASA
can say that its programs are, for the most part, designed to cost. In
the interest of speedy progress, I would advocate a "spreading of the
space
dollar" to other agencies that could create space programs without 30
years
of NASA baggage dictating design criteria. For example, suppose the
Dept.
of the Interior were funded to create an earth resource monitoring
system.
Results might be much quicker and more useful than what is going on
with
NASA's mission to planet earth.
- Joshua Cohen
- New Space
Looks great Arthur. Keep up the good work!!
- Chris Largent
- CSUN
I see that Joshua Cohen objects to “subscribing to some kind of
conspiracy
theory” on the part of the aerospace industry in not reducing costs,
but
rather attributes it to “inertia” resulting from 30 years of experience
that “makes it difficult to adopt new criteria overnight.” Well, Mr
Cohen,
let me disillusion you. As far back as the early sixties, when the
aerospace
industry was relatively minuscule, MCD was rejected because “too many
programs
were set in concrete.” As time went on, there were more programs but
more
concrete. Obviously, that was not the issue and is not the issue today.
There are no agencies questioning the government trough worth billions
of dollars from which the “iron triangle” (not my term) feeds. How
knowledgeable
has Congress been about the issue? Permit me give you one, documented
example.
On July 8, 1989, Sen John Glenn was interviewed by John McLaughlin on
the
“One on One” PBS (TV) Program. In answer to the question, “Isn’t this
the
age of the big dumb booster?” Sen Glenn replied, “No. We based our
space
launch vehicles on our ICBMs......which were based on high
technology.......which
the Soviets do not have....” In the subsequent discussions Sen Glenn
promoted
the Space Station. When John McLaughlin brought up the age of the big
dumb
booster again, Sen Glenn avoided discussing it further.
- Arthur Schnitt
- Consultant
Thanks Chris. Keep up with your studies.
- Arhur Schnitt
- Consultant
Just an update on the paper "Proposed Minimum Cost Space Launch
Vehicle
System" by A. Schnitt and Col F.W. Kniss, July 1968. This paper is not
available from The Aerospace Corporation anymore. Instead they direct
you
to the Defence Technical Information Center (DTIC 1-800-CAL-DTIC;
225-3842).
The ordering number is AD395911. The Cost is $6.00
- Scott Pearson
Conspirecy may be a strong word, but it probably fits the bill.
There
has been case after case all through the government and big business of
this type thing going on. It comes down to this, If its not your money,
you tend to spend it rather freely!!!! After being a consultant for a
few
years, I have been shocked at what companies will spend their money on,
when they could have spent a fraction of the amount and done the job
themselves.............
It appears that American Aerospace companies do not want routine access
to space because routine leads to mass production, which leads to
competion
and lower margins. R & D and limited production for a contractor
means
high margins and big profits. Since corporations tend to only look at
Quarter
to Quarter numbers 'routine' does not add to the bottom line, so they
have
very little interest.
- Scott Pearson
Scott Pearson: This pertains to your first comment. Before I listed
the report in a Column, “Proposed Minimum Cost Space Launch Vehicle,” I
checked with the Aerospace Library to learn of its availability. I was
told that a written request for a copy would be directed to the Air
Force
for their approval. Approval time would take about 30 days. There would
be no charge for the report. It seems that Aerospace decided not to
supply
free copies anymore. Sorry for the inconvenience. Other readers
interested
in obtaining copies will appreciate learning of your experience.
Thanks.
This pertains to your second comment. Gregg Easterbrook and Col London
laid out the whole story, told of all the work performed by industry
and
NASA in checking my work, and talked about the political and economic
forces
involved, and nothing happened. I concur with all you say. I plan to
tell
of some of my own experiences with agencies of the government in the
Fall.
Although we are in dire need of SLV’s to launch the many commercial
satellites
that are being planned (and also could reduce the cost of the
satellites
as well) the return on the investment is so great that again there is
little
interest in saving money on a new breed of low-cost SLVs.
- Arthur Schnitt
- Consultant
Apparently I spoke to soon when I earlier wrote that the DTIC would
provide a copy of the Mr. Schinett's report....... Later in the day
after
I ordered it, I received a phone call informing me that since I was not
a government employee or an employee of a government subcontractor, I
could
not have a copy. I even tried to use the phrase "Freedom of Information
Act", but to no avail. I believe earlier we were speaking of
conspiracy.........Hum...........
- Scott Pearson
Scott Pearson: Am sorry to hear that you are unable to obtain a copy
of my (Aerospace/Air Force) report. I do not have the fortitude to
argue
with the DTIC at this time. However, if you or others wish to do so,
you
might tell them that the first unclassified and unrestricted disclosure
of the MCD criteria and the Aerospace/Air Force MCD/SLV design was made
at the SYMPOSIUM OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF ASRONAUTICS DURING the
XXIV
INTERNATIONAL ASTRONAUTICAL CONGRESS held in Baku, the Soviet Union, on
October 1973, by Gerry W. Elverum, Jr. of TRW, the inventor of the
LEMDE
engine that so completely meshed with the MCD criteria and the
resulting
design concepts. The title of the paper was “SCALE UP TO KEEP MISSION
COSTS
DOWN.” Remember: TRW had complete access to my work, and they also
conducted
a study of the MCD criteria and an MCD/SLV design for NASA that was
published
in 1969. The Aerospace/Air Force report was not declassified until
about
1980. Moreover, Col London’s report is a complete synopsis of the MCD
criteria
and all of the applicable work performed by industry under Air Force,
NASA,
and in-house sponsorship––a most informative contribution. If you are
particularly
interested in applied Calculus you may find my report of value;
otherwise,
most everything is available in unclassified and unrestricted
literature.
- Arthur Schnitt
- Consultant
Mr. Schnitt, I have gotten a copy of the NEWSWEEK article "Big Dumb
Rockets". I must say OUTSTANDING!!! This should be required reading for
anyone studing space policy. It's also nice to be able to put a face to
someone I have read about and E-mailed..... I have also gotten a copy
of
"Leo on the Cheap", also OUTSTANDING!!!...... One item I noticed that
was
missing in the report was any mention of OTRAG. This is or was a German
company formed in the 70's that had a rocket based on MCD. One
difference
that stands out was they had all 3 stages essentially of the same
design
and used small engines, which I would say would not make the most cost
effective rocket but may allow a company to get in the business with
the
lowest up-front cost. The last I heard was the company had gotten into
political problems since they were dealing with several 3rd world
countries
as well as some type of German cruise missle scandal. Mr. Schnitt have
you ever heard of this company and if so, what do you think of their
design.
If not, I would be happy to give you all of the information that I
have...............
Looking forward to your September writings. Thanks Scott
- Scott Pearson