Date: Mon, 30 Nov 92 05:00:03 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #472 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 30 Nov 92 Volume 15 : Issue 472 Today's Topics: Evil wicked flying bombs! Going out of business launcher sales... hypergolics (was Re: Pumpless Liquid Rocket?) Launch Cradles (was: escape systems) ParaNet Directory Shuttle replacement (7 msgs) Simplicity Two stage DC-1 Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 29 Nov 92 21:00:26 GMT From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Evil wicked flying bombs! > Just a quibble, but it's real damned hard to get a n-weapon to go off in > a crash. This is a direct correlary of the fact that it's hard to get > one to go off at all. > Nonetheless, go back and look into Life Magazine circa 1959-1960. An H-bomb was accidentally dropped. Might have been in North Carolina(?) There was a good size crater in the photo and I suspect it spread a bit of Plutonium around. I think there were comments that only a few safeties actually held... I also believe some of the charges went off on impact. I think they did a bit of work on the safeties after that. -- ======================================================================= Give generously to the Betty Ford Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist Home for the Politically Correct amon@cs.qub.ac.uk ======================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 92 10:27:27 -0600 From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: Going out of business launcher sales... In article <70469@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes: [Actually gary]: >>The companies who went with Shuttle went out of buisness long ago. They >>paid too much for launch costs. [Now Brian Thorn]: > Wait a second, Allen... I though Shuttle prices were very competitive > with Ariane. [Allen Sherzer]: \We where referring to a hypothetical situation where Shuttle users paid the /actual costs. Gary seems to feel Shuttle is worth three times the cost. \I for one object to having my tax dollars paid to subsidize commercial /enterprises and snuff out cheaper commercial launchers. \I can't see it as anything but a big step backwards for us all and I /don't see why you don't agree. [bt]: >Nobody went out of business because they launched on the Space Shuttle. [aws]: \That is because they had suckers like us to pay their bills for them. What about Geostar: didn't the launch delays brought on by the shuttle program postpone them until after GPS was up, at which point that was All She Wrote? -- Phil Fraering "...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat." <<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_ PGP key available if and when I ever get around to compiling PGP... ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 92 06:21:30 GMT From: Andrew Folkins Subject: hypergolics (was Re: Pumpless Liquid Rocket?) Newsgroups: sci.space In martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes: >In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > If you're willing to settle for a hybrid liquid/solid combination, water > and aluminum foil work once you get them started. Aluminum is difficult > to ignite but is a *ferocious* fuel, enough so to rip oxygen out of water > molecules. > >Oooh, I like the sound of this. I have this image of Our Hero >improvising a rocket out of materials available in the USS Enterprize's >kitchen. (Old Generation, of course. NG people would just use the >replicator.) > >What would it take to light it off? Would thermite be sufficient? So we're talking about a few grams of thermite, an aluminum frying pan and a bottle of Perrier? The last two are easy enough to obtain, but the first one is a bit tougher... -- Andrew Folkins ...!ersys.edmonton.ab.ca!adec23!ve6mgs!cuenews!andrew Newsfeed for the Amiga SIG of the Commodore Users of Edmonton (AmiCUE) "But that's not a fair comparison. People like using the Etch-A-Sketch." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 92 13:11:33 EET From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi (F.Baube x554) Subject: Launch Cradles (was: escape systems) Brian Stuart Thorn mentions: > Subject: escape systems > In fact, when Gemini 6 misfired at T+1 second in 1965, > [..] Titan was fully fueled, a few inches off the launch > cradle, and the engines had conked-out. Just out of curiosity, how *are* launchers held and released ? How is it designed so that a launcher can start off and then conk out and be "recaptured" ? Obviously they don't stand these critters on their engines. /fred :: baube@optiplan.fi ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 92 01:40:05 GMT From: Michael Corbin Subject: ParaNet Directory Newsgroups: sci.space Below is the current list of ParaNet Affiliates. ================================================================= LIST OF PARANET INTERNATIONAL AFFILIATES ================================================================= ParaNet Information Services Headquarters Michael Corbin, Director P.O. Box 172 Wheat Ridge, CO 80034-0172 FidoNet Address: 1:104/422 ParaNet Address: 9:9/0 Internet Address: mcorbin@paranet.org For any information about ParaNet, direct your inquiries to one of the addresses listed above, or phone voice at (303) 431-8796. Affiliate applications can be file requested via 1:104/422 by requesting APPLICATION. ================================================================= LIST OF PARANET ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACTS --------------------------------------- Don Ecker - Director, Network Security FidoNet Address: 1:104/422 ParaNet Address: 9:1012/3 Internet Address: Don.Ecker@paranet.org Clark Matthews - Network Development/Coordinator FidoNet Address: 1:107/816 ParaNet Address: 9:1012/4 Internet Address: Clark.Matthews@paranet.org Cyro Lord - ParaNet/Internet/Gateway Administrator FidoNet Address: 1:104/422 Internet Address: Cyro.Lord@paranet.org James Roger Black - ParaNet/Internet Network Development FidoNet Address: 1:104/422 Internet Address: James.Roger.Black@paranet.org Deryl Jon Bair - Director, Public Relations FidoNet Address: 1:104/422 ParaNet Address: 9:1012/30 Internet Address: Deryl.Jon.Bair@paranet.org Matthew McKenna - ParaNet Financial Operations FidoNet Address: 1:104/422 ParaNet Address: 9:1012/29 Internet Address: Matthew.McKenna@paranet.org John Burke - Director, ParaNet Legal Affairs FidoNet Address: 1:104/422 ParaNet Address: 9:1012/9 Internet Address: John.Burke@paranet.org Vladimir Godic - Australian Bureau Chief/UFORA Representative FidoNet Address: 1:104/422 ParaNet Address: 9:1040/7 Internet Address: Vladimir.Godic@paranet.org ================================================================= AFFILIATES UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA DENVER, CO MICHAEL CORBIN 9:9/0 Headquarters Node 303-431-8797 2400 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA-BETA LINCOLN, NB BOB DUNN 9:1012/31 Fortean Research Center 402-488-2587 2400 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA-CENTAURI SAN FRANCISCO, CA RICK MOEN 9:1012/2 Bay Area Skeptics Board 415-572-0359 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA-GAMMA BLOOMINGTON, IN JIM GRAHAM 9:1012/13 Portal Dolmen BBS 812-334-0418 2400 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA-DELTA LOS ANGELES, CA DON ECKER 9:1012/3 Network Security **Private System** ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA-EPSILON ALEXANDRIA, VA STEVE ROSE 9:1011/2 The ABySS BBS 703-823-6591 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA-ZETA MINNEAPOLIS, MN DON SUDDUTH 9:1012/26 Sirius Rising BBS 612-780-5916 2400 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA-MU HAMLIN, NY NEIL PALUMBO 9:1012/27 The Rat's Edge 716-964-7968 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA-THETA PALM SPRINGS, CA JEFF & DANNI BREWI 9:1012/33 Gray's Anatomy 619-778-1866 2400 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA-ETA KINGSLAND, TX RICHARD SALTS 9:1012/28 Highland Lakes BBS 915-388-3209 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA-IOTA HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE, AR JIM BAUGUSS 9:1012/32 501-922-3276 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA-KAPPA EL CAJON, CA DON ORCHARD 9:1012/6 619-530-0613 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA-LAMBDA BAINBRIDGE, WA MICHAEL SCHUYLER 9:1012/23 Quicksilver BBS 206-780-2011 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHA-NU GILBERT, AZ FRANK WARD 9:1012/8 The Encounter 602-892-1853 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- DELTA-ALPHA FOLSOM, PA CHRIS LIGHTNER 9:1010/21 The Lighthouse 215-543-8734 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- KAPPA AUBURNDALE, WI JOHN HRUSOVSZKY 9:1010/13 The Twilight Zone 715-652-2758 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- NU-ALPHA CAPE CORAL, FL BOB SABO 9:1012/14 813-549-1761 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- NU-DELTA ORLANDO, FL JOHN HICKS 9:1011/12 Gourmet Delight 407-649-4136 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- XI-ALPHA MILWAUKEE, WI PETE PORRO 9:1011/40 Radio Free Milwaukee 414-352-6176 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- OMICRON BUSHKILL, PA PAUL FAEDER 9:1010/70 Pocono Mountain BBS 717-588-7549 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- PI JERSEY CITY, NJ CLARK MATTHEWS 9:1012/4 The Wrong Number BBS 201-451-3063 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAU-CETI CHICAGO, IL JOHN BURKE 9:1012/9 **Private System** ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZETA-RETICULI SCOTTSDALE, AZ STEVE GRESSER 9:1010/100 Remotron HQ 602-661-1881 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- EPSILON DENVER, CO MIKE KEITHLY 9:1012/16 MICAP/ParaNet Affiliate 303-933-7179 2400 ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------- AUSTRALIA --------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- UFORA CAIRNS, QUEENSLAND VLADIMIR GODIC DIRECTOR 9:1040/7 **Private System** ----------------------------------------------------------------- UFORA CAIRNS, QUEENSLAND PONY GODIC SECRETARY 9:1040/6 **Private System** ----------------------------------------------------------------- UFORA PENNANT HILLS, NSW BILL CHALKER ASSOCIATE NSW 9:1040/8 **Private System** ----------------------------------------------------------------- UFORA WYNNVALE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA KEITH BASTERFIELD RESEARCH OFFICER 9:1040/12 **Private System** ----------------------------------------------------------------- UFORA PROSPECT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA GRANT GODIC ASSOCIATE PROSPECT 9:1040/13 **Private System** ----------------------------------------------------------------- UFORA WOOMERA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA ROGER KOCH ASSOCIATE WOOMERA 9:1040/14 **Private System** ----------------------------------------------------------------- UFORA PRAHRAN, VICTORIA KEITH SONERSON ASSOCIATE VICTORIA 9:1040/15 **Private System** ----------------------------------------------------------------- UFORA HEPBURN SPRINGS, VICTORIA ROSS SKINNER ASSOCIATE VICTORIA 9:1040/16 **Private System** ----------------------------------------------------------------- UFORA MONTROSE, TASMANIA PAUL JACKSON UFORA/TUFOIC ASSOCIATE 9:1040/17 **Private System** ----------------------------------------------------------------- UFORA NORTH ADELAIDE, SA PETER JONES ASSOCIATE ADELAIDE 9:1040/18 **Private System** ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- GERMANY ------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIGMA-BETA SEEHEIM, FRG HENDRIK BOHM 9:1021/1 49-6257-7966 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIGMA-ALPHA BERLIN STEGLITZ, FRG ANDRE EICHNER 9:1021/2 49-30-7919269 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIGMA-GAMMA MOENCHENGLADBACH HILMUT BUESCHGES 9:1021/3 49-2161-53668 2400 ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIGMA-DELTA FRANKFURT, FRG DIETER HUMMEL 9:1021/4 49-6190-7366 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIGMA-ETA KARLSRUHE, FRG MIRKO KETTERER 9:1021/7 49-721-370267 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------ EUROPE ------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIGMA-EPSILON BASILDON ESSEX, UK STEVE DIXON 9:1021/5 44-268-543889 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIGMA-ZETA ZUERICH, CH GEORGE RAGAZ 9:1021/6 41-81-362584 9600 ----------------------------------------------------------------- -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 92 16:33:31 GMT From: Bruce Dunn Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space Regarding the difficulties of vertical landings, Gary Coffman writes: > That's funny. We've had to abort helicopter landings many times. Some > idiot walks out on the pad, some yo-yo parks in our space, a gust of > wind blows us off course, etc. We often have to hover or go back up a > ways, look for another spot, try the approach again, even fly around > for a while until we find one or the pad is cleared. Wind gusts are > the worst. You almost always have to go back up a ways, get straight, > and try again. For a more accurate comparison with a DC-1 landing, consider that you will be landing on a huge flat area which has been cleared of all personnel and obstructions. Furthermore consider that it doesn't matter where on the area you land - if there is a gust of wind which pushes the vehicle sideways, you will have to do some thrust vectoring to kill the sideways velocity, but there is no need to maneuver to regain your original touchdown point. For those who think that all this is too difficult, remember that it was done 6 times for moon landings, and probably thousands of times in the various "flying platform" gadgets that the military used to fool with (devices that flew and hovered by thrust alone). -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 92 17:23:17 GMT From: Jeffrey J Bloch Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space In article <70494@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes: .................Stuff Deleted.............. >The only good thing that came out of the Challenger disaster was the >Pegasus booster system... at last: innovation. ^^^^^^^^^^^ >(Next spring when it flies, you can add DC to the list) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >-Brian What I'm about to say is my personal opinion and not that of anybody at LANL, DOE, or anyone else associated with the ALEXIS project.... That said, I would like to comment on this tangential remark in this thread. Pegasus IS innovation, but the jury is still out on how successful it will turn out to be. (For our project's sake, we fervently hope it will be highly successful!) Innovation can introduce bugs into subsystems whose tried and true methodologies were worked out 20 years ago. The real problem with these new high-risk innovative systems is that you need a lot of them at one time being developed in parallel to pay off. If you only have a few, then there is the inherent contradiction that the first high risk program HAS to work, or else nobody will do them anymore. Therefore, better, cheaper, faster, runs headlong into reliability and confidence issues when there aren't enough high risk programs to spread the risk around. Jeff Bloch Astrophysics and Radiation Measurement Group LANL ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 92 18:11:10 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space In article james@cs.UAlberta.CA (James Borynec; AGT Researcher) writes: >>As I have pointed out, at landing there is not a lot of fuel on board >>to burn. >This brings up an interesting point. What happens if you run out of >fuel? That would depend on altitude. One option is to design the hydrogen tank so it crummples on impact and absorbes energy (as is done with cars today). That might allow the crew and payload/passengers to survive a fall of some TBD altitude. Another option is to put a parachute in the nose but I think that would be more trouble than its worth. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------146 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 18:36:05 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space In article <70494@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes: >> that's not what you said in a previous posting >Well, I was referring todeep-space probes with four to six-week launch >windows, not commercial satellites. Amounts to the same thing. Most of the Shuttle flights which have ever been scheduled have been cancled. That's not reliable service. >I believe that Shuttle's performance as an Earth >satellite launch system was at least as good as any of the expendables >(again, we aren't talking cost here.) Read this again and thing about it. You agree that service A and service B work just as well. Yet service A costs three times as much. I assert that makes service A not as good. Again, if it where YOUR money which would you pick? >In reference to your point that we could have put the satellites on >expendables and *made* money, I agree! Well, mostly agreee. GD, Mc-D, and >Martin have yet to make a profit with their expendables. Maybe if they hadn't been forced to compete with the US government who was happy to spend OUR money providing subsidies they would be doing better. At any rate, at least the commercial providers aren't spending MY money and the money they are spending is REDUCING costs. >The U.S. poured a heap of money back into those >systems after Challenger Not for the commercial launchers. Between GD and Douglas over $1 billion of THEIR money was spent to get the buisness going. Note that was their money, not ours. >mistake. The Shuttle could have returned to service at least a year >earlier than STS-26, if politics had no intervened That's like saying we could get to the moon if only gravity whern't in the way. NASA is a political organization; it can't avoid political intervention. That's one reason why it is important that we have a commercial launch infrastructure so we aren't totally dependant on the wims of politicians. >(and all that NASA bashing in the press). No doubt we should all be good little troopers and ignore the problems and hope they go away! >The Shuttle started flying again in 1988 *anyway*, >so, Allen, we didn't save any money by pulling commercial payloads off But what would have happened if we developed a commercial based infrastructure back in 1980? Much furthur I'll bet. >the Shuttle! My point is that if these missions (the non-military missions, >at least) had each carried three comsats, at least NASA would have made >*some* money You don't seem to understand. If you spend more than you take in, you havne't made anything. Consider a cab driver who is offered $5 to take a party somewhere. It costs the driver $10 to make the trip but he figures something is better than nothing so he aggrees. By your reasoning the driver has made $5 but by the reasoning of every accountant and cost analyst on the planet the driver LOST $5. >(some being better than none, agree?) Some is better than none but this approach doesn't get us some in the first place. >U.S., instead of Europe and China, and we would now be closing in on an >operational replacement for Space Shuttle. Not bad, eh? Look, give us the numbers. Show me how much we sill make by selling half a billion $$ flights for $250 million. Add the cost of this replacement and see if you can get a sum greater than 0. If you can't then your plan won't work. I urge you to add up the numbers and show us. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------146 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 92 20:19:18 GMT From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: shuttle replacement > weight is 240,000 lb. It also voids RCS and OMS fuel during descent > so that it lands with nearly dry tanks. Only APU fuel is on board in > any quanity. I believe that the APU is burning Nitrogen Tetroxide and Hydrazine? Nasty stuff, that... > Lots of physical > damage in it's path, but no serious fire from Orbiter fuels. There > might be fire from combustion sources on the ground of course. > Note that there is a fleet of specialized craft and crews who drive up to the shuttle and safe it BEFORE the astronauts exit the craft. This is both due to danger of explosion or fire as well as the worry about highly toxic gases. True, a massive explosion of the shuttle is not in the cards. But neither is the shuttle going to be certified as an airliner, something which the DC-1 WILL be. I'd not waste my time comparing the DC operationally to the shuttle. They ain't similar enough to be worth the effort. Even comparing it with the 747, as we have all been doing is fairly silly. I'd say the old 707 is probably more in line as far as gross weight, fuel load and complexity. Incidentally, I've also been crew on a dicey flight too. Ever spend an hour debating whether you should try the trees or ditch in the lakes if you can't make it through the unexpected head winds over the mountains before becoming you become a glider? The thin strips of lake shoreline might have been wide enough for a DC-1 to plop down, but they sure as *HELL* weren't long enough for a Cessna to do anything except clear a hiking path through the woods. Luckily we made it over the range with a prayer and fumes. Unpowered landings in any aircraft are dicey affairs. And if it happens at night you will be damned lucky to find a place to come down, particularly if you are from the Alleghenies, the "hell strip" of mail pilot fame. I've walked around more than one airframe sitting on the edge of a Pennsylvania field, the remnants of the last flight of someone who could not find a field. About the only real difference between a crash in a DC (assuming loss of all power) and a crash in the Alleghenies is that in a light plane in the Alleghenies you can try to convince yourself you'll find a field at the last moment, so at least your mind is occupied up to the moment you die. Just as a multiengine aircraft is safer (assuming proper pilot training) than a single engine, so is a multiengine spaceship with minimal landing pad requiements safer than a single or no engine equivalent, or a vehicle that require miles of runway. When things go badly wrong, you die. It doesn't matter whether you are in a Cessna or a 747 or a DC-1. The result is the same. The shuttle was an historic beginning but its end is nigh. The DC family is where the future lies. -- ======================================================================= Give generously to the Betty Ford Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist Home for the Politically Correct amon@cs.qub.ac.uk ======================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 92 20:49:51 GMT From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Shuttle replacement > The Amsterdam 747 disaster has been mentioned much here lately, but in > most cases, pilots have been able to steer a doomed aircraft away from > buildings. The Amsterdam disaster took place at night, when visibility was > poor. The Shuttle rarely lands at night, and presumably neither will > DCX. > Sometimes yes. A lot of times no. A 747 hit by a terrorist bomb came down on a Scottish town and took out a huge swath. A 747 freighter crashed into an apartment block. An airliner crashed into the bridge over the Potomac and took a few cars with it into the water. US, UK and German fighter planes occasionally came down in Germany in innopportune places. That is why people breathed a sigh of relief over the decrease in low level operations practice with the end of the cold war. A jet fighter hit a hotel in the US just a few years ago. The pilot had already ejected. A Cessna crashed into a shopping mall. I can go on and on. Henry and others can add to this list. And yet fighters and commercial and light planes are still flying. Likewise, DC-1 will someday have an accident and drop on a building complex. It will do so at the same or a smaller rate than do the existing vehicles and will cause a similar or lower level of damage and loss of life to that of the existing vehicles. That is all that any of us (Alan, me, Henry, etc) are saying. There ain't now or ever been any form of transport that has perfect safety. My grandmother was barely thrown out of the way of a runaway horse and buggy when she was a small child. Today we have an occasional airplane fall out of the sky. In 20 years we'll have an occasional space ship drop in our back yards. That's the way the world goes round... > I'm sure Allen or Henry will say it momentarily... the DCX is very > unlikely to lose all power on the way in. True enough, but this discussion > appears to be of worst-case scenarios (at least when directed at the > Shuttle) so I chose the worst case scenario for a DCX accident, too. > The worst case is no worse than the accidents that occur already and will continue to occur. Shit happens. > Oh, any by the way, I and my family live in Rockledge, Florida. Shuttle > KSC landings do indeed come VERY close to flying overhead. I'm not worried, > because if the thing were off course, the Shuttle pilot could point his > (or her, soon) ship into the Indian River or the marshes out west. > The problem is that neither you nor I will ever be on board it. There will never be more than a half dozen of them, and they won't be landing at AGC (where I first flow) or at Aldergrove (the nearby airport here in Belfast). I'm glad you get to see the spaceships take off and land. I'd like to be able to do the same. The DC-1 gives me some hope that *I* will fly before I freeze. It gives me the hope that the next decade will see kids with wide eyed stares standing outside the fence to see those ships come down and take off on their pillars of fire at the local airport. And will stand in awe at the pilots who walk out the gate and chat with them, and give them a look around the inside of their ship. That is the sort of future I want to see. The current path of the space program leads to a future that simply turns my stomach. I frankly don't give a damn about the shuttle. I can't fly on so it has no value or utility to me at all. (Well, the pictures are nice, but I'd not bo into a decline if I didn't have them for my walls and screen backdrops) -- ======================================================================= Give generously to the Betty Ford Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist Home for the Politically Correct amon@cs.qub.ac.uk ======================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 20:48:20 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Shuttle replacement Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1992Nov25.234722.6307@bby.com.au> gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes: >>What are the limits on scaling up something like DC-Y? My intuitive >>guess would be that scaling up should be _easier_... >Generally correct. There's no obvious upper limit. People have proposed >some really huge SSTO designs in the past; most things get easier at large >size. (You can theoretically build a *solid-fuel* SSTO if you make it >big enough, I'm told. Although why you'd want to...) > >One obvious nuisance is going to be engine development, though. You can go >only so far with clustering; sooner or later you need bigger engines. Mind >you, the ones we've got (or can reconstruct, e.g. the F-1) should suffice >for some pretty huge SSTOs... Actually, the square-cube law *hurts* you as you make launchers larger. The thrust from a rocket engine is roughly proportional to the area of the throat times the chamber pressure. If you just scale up a launcher in all dimensions, its weight increases faster than thrust, and eventually it cannot get off the ground. Conversely, if you make a launcher smaller, you can get adequate thrust even at modest chamber pressure. Witness Hudson's Liberty unmanned launcher concept, for example. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 20:07:03 GMT From: Jonathan Hardwick Subject: Simplicity Newsgroups: sci.space roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes > -From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) > -Shuttle has redundancy but no simplicity. It has more and more complex > -interfaces which reduces reliability. Reliable systems tend to be ones > -where a single person can pretty much understand the operation of the > -entire machine. > > "Understandability" may be a more important factor than simplicity as such - > if a system is understandable, it's easier to spot design errors. But that's > not the final word on reliability - the human body is (in general) much more > reliable than any launcher, but also vastly more complex and difficult to > understand. The human body is self-correcting to an incredible degree. Until we develop machines that are similarly fault-fixing (not just fault- tolerant), using it as some yardstick of simplicity vs reliability is bogus. To put it another way : we can imagine really really complex systems that will be reliable because they have self-knowledge and can constantly correct and repair themselves. But we can't build them. We're still on the upswing of the complexity vs unreliability graph, and haven't yet reached the highlands where the line should peak and then fall rapidly. Jonathan H. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 17:40:42 GMT From: Bruce Dunn Subject: Two stage DC-1 Newsgroups: sci.space The design margins on the hypothetical DC-1 are quite tight. Consider the following performance model (1 ton = 1000 kg, LEO assumed to require 9300 m/sec, gravity and air resistance losses included) Proposed DC-1: Isp 430 Usable Ascent Propellant Fraction 0.91 Liftoff Mass (exclusive of payload) 500 tons Ascent propellant mass 455 tons Structure, landing propellant 45 tons Payload to LEO 11 tons But suppose everything is heavier than expected, and all the weight margins are used up and the vehicle is still overly heavy. Assume the extra mass completely eliminates the payload. We then have: Obese DC-1: Isp 430 Usable Ascent Propellant Fraction 0.89 Liftoff Mass (exclusive of payload) 500 tons Ascent propellant mass 445 tons Structure, landing propellant 55 tons Payload to LEO 0 tons It might be thought that the resulting obese DC-1 is a complete failure, and that all the money spent has been wasted. However, consider the obese DC-1 not as a SSTO, but as a high performance recoverable second stage for a two stage system. What would its performance be with a very low-tech first stage using LOX/kerosene and existing engines? Hypothetical first stage: Isp (LOX/kerosene) 300 Usable Ascent Propellant Fraction 0.80 Liftoff Mass (exclusive of payload) 1000 tons Ascent propellant mass 800 tons Structure, landing propellant 200 tons This can be a really low-tech vehicle. With care, such a vehicle can be built with a mass fraction of near 0.95 (the propellants have a bulk density nearly 3 times that of LOX/LH2). But there is no need for this - build it four times heavier than a light weight design, and use the weight to simplify the design and the structure. Add lots of redundancy, and a large fuel margin for landing. Use 6 ex-Soviet RD-170 engines running at partial throttle for lift (even at liftoff, four engines at full throttle are sufficient). Engines are in a hexagonal arrangement, and any single engine failure and most two engine failures are not fatal as the other engines can take up the slack. For launching the obese DC-1 goes on top of the first stage. The first stage climbs in a largely vertical trajectory (to avoid getting too far from the launching point), accelerating to approximately 1200 m/sec (and incurring about 800 m/sec gravity losses during the time). The DC-1 is then staged, and the first stage returns to the launch site and lands vertically. The DC-1 continues to orbit. Should the DC-1 have engine ignition trouble on staging, it has both the fuel and thrust to land at the launch site. With only some engines working, it can burn off fuel until it has a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1, and then land. The two stage vehicle can place approximately 51 tons in LEO. Development costs for this system are higher (two stages need to be built), but: 1) The DC-1 stage does not have to push the margins so much 2) The first stage is really low-tech so should be inexpensive 3) One flight involving the checkout and refueling of 2 stages puts as much payload into orbit as 5 flights of the original DC-1 concept (with 5 checkouts and refuelings). The third point suggests that even if the DC-1 is a complete success, if we ever get serious about putting large amounts of material into orbit, it might be preferable to build some first stages rather than build more DC-1s. -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 472 ------------------------------