Date: Sun, 23 May 93 05:16:13 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #615 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 23 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 615 Today's Topics: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long) (2 msgs) Case for Mars V Conference Schedule How do the Soviets retrieve boken satellites? (4 msgs) Moon Base Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" (3 msgs) 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: Sat, 22 May 1993 22:00:27 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May22.160923.5824@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >>I suppose you could modify an aluminum SST for a short sprint to Mach 3+, >>with active cooling for leading edges and limits on high-speed flight time >>so the rest of the structure wouldn't get too hot, but it sounds a little >>marginal to me. > >Is there *anything* about space launching that isn't marginal when >compared to civil aviation? High speed dash capability has been >demonstrated in B-58, SR-71, and of course X-15 without active cooling... The B-58 wasn't capable of Mach 3 even in a dash, and neither the SR-71 nor the X-15 was made of aluminum. (The SR-71 was mostly titanium, and the X-15 used titanium for its *low-temperature* structure plus various refractory metals for the hot stuff.) The crucial question is, are we talking about an operational transportation system, or a low-duty-cycle research aircraft? Marginal approaches won't cut it for operational transportation -- there you need safety margins and fault tolerance. >... Active cooling for the necessary >short dashes might be easiest, but even Shuttle tiles or thermal blankets >might do for passive protection... Except that adding *external* insulation means throwing most of the old aerodynamic test results in the garbage -- you're dealing with something approaching a new aircraft. You don't just casually slap insulation on the leading edge of a wing; the slightest change in leading-edge shape makes a big difference to the aerodynamics. And a fatter leading edge, in particular, is seriously bad news for supersonic drag. It's probably feasible, but it's getting pretty far from the notion of an off-the-shelf aircraft. -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 01:39:50 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long) Newsgroups: sci.space gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >> >>I suppose you could modify an aluminum SST for a short sprint to Mach 3+, >>with active cooling for leading edges and limits on high-speed flight time >>so the rest of the structure wouldn't get too hot, but it sounds a little >>marginal to me. >Is there *anything* about space launching that isn't marginal when >compared to civil aviation? High speed dash capability has been >demonstrated in B-58, SR-71, and of course X-15 without active cooling >systems. Now the latter used special materials, but we've become much >more adept at that in recent years. Are you on skunk-works? I was a while back when there was discussion of something called the "Super-Hustler" which I think you would find very interesting. >Active cooling for the necessary >short dashes might be easiest, but even Shuttle tiles or thermal blankets >might do for passive protection. (I know, bite your tongue for mentioning >off the shelf Shuttle pieces.) I talked about it a while back; we could use them off the shelf or even off the shuttle. -- Phil Fraering |"Number one good faith! You convert, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 21:16:14 GMT From: Richard Johnson Subject: Case for Mars V Conference Schedule Newsgroups: sci.space Here's the schedule for The Case for Mars V. Appended are registration and lodging information. CASE FOR MARS V - TENTATIVE SCHEDULE - SPEAKER ASSIGNMENTS May 20, 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | May 26 | May 27 | May 28 | May 29 | | 1 Wed 2 | 1 Thu 2 | 1 Fri 2 | Sat | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7:30 | REGISTRATION | | | | 7:40 | BEGINS | | | | 7:50 | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------| 8:00 | Welcome - TM/CU | PATHWAYS TO |LIFE SCI-| MISSION | | 8:10 | | HUMAN EXPLORATION:|ENCE, THE| STRATEGY| | 8:20 | Tom Paine Dedicat.| MISSION PROPOSALS |TOP ISSUES Murbach |_________| 8:30 | | Mendell | Lyne | LeCompte| | 8:40 | | Zubrin | Pfitzer | Willis | | 8:50 | Goldin (video) | Lusignan | Cann | Turek | | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | 9:00 | | | | | Work | 9:10 | Pellerin | | | | Shop | 9:20 | | | | | Wrap | 9:30 | | Duke | Rudiger | Clark | Up | 9:40 |___________________| Morgenthaler | Reysa | Colin | | 9:50 | | Lemke | Rice | Rodin | | ------- Break |-------------------|-------------------| | 10:00 |-------------------| Break * | Break * | | 10:10 | Video Teleconf. |___________________|___________________| | 10:20 | Stanford-CU-UMD | PANEL | |SPACECRAF|_________| 10:30 | Defense Conversion| What Happened to | | | | 10:40 | & International | SEI? | Kuznetz | Herbert | Break | 10:50 | Industrial Coop | Lessons for the | VonZandt| Stoiko | | ---------------.---------------- Future ------------------------------------| 11:00 | . | . |BIOSPHERE|PROPULSIO|PUBLIC PGM 11:10 | . | . |Live Video | Life on | 11:20 | . | . | Nelson | Landis | Mars | 11:30 | . | . | PANEL: | Colvin | Past | 11:40 | . | . |FUTURE OF| Borowski| Present | 11:50 | . | |LIFE SCI | Merrihew| Future | ------------------------------------------------------------------| ----- | 12:00 | |Biosphere| 12:10 | | 2 | 12:20 | LUNCH BREAK | Live | 12:30 | | | 12:40 | | ----- | 12:50 | | Rover | ------------------------------------------------------------------- Demo | 1:00 | POLICY | PRECURS-| INTL COOPERATION |LIFE |RESOURCE | | 1:10 | | ORS | |SUPPORT |UTILIZAT.| | 1:20 | | | Bourke | | Brierley| ----- | 1:30 | Day | Cook | Gorshkov | Roberts | McMillen|Terraform- 1:40 | Meyer | Chicarr.| Friedman | Chamber.| Ramohal.|ing Mars | 1:50 | Simmons | Knocke | PortreeP | Gonzale.| Kleinbe.| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------| 2:00 | | | SPACE |EXOBIOLOGY | Ishikawa| | 2:10 | | | POWER | Ivanov | |MARS BASE| | 2:20 | Landis | Pivirot.| Gill | Clark | |DESIGN | | 2:30 | Cadden | Zubrin | Cataldo | Farmer | Asher | Cohen | Party | 2:40 | Becker | Murbach | Gaier | Rice | Herbert | Buckley | | 2:50 | Marshall| Thangav.| Landis | Landhe.P| Kuznetz | Moore | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 Wed 2 | 1 Thu 2 | 1 Fri 2 | Sat | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------| 3:00 | Break * | Break * | Break * | | 3:10 |___________________|___________________|___________________| | 3:20 |COMMERCIA|PLANETARY| |TERRAFORM|NEW TECH-| | | 3:30 | |PROTECTION | Fogg |NOLOGY | | | 3:40 | Ryan | Race | Gaier | Zubrin | Yowell | Ishikawa| | 3:50 | Vanaja | Gonzales| Burger | Yashar P| Willoub.| Cliffton| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------| 4:00 |EDUCATION| Spiero P| ROVERS | Oberg P| Chapin | Sadeh | | 4:10 | Laatsch |PANEL: | Savu P|TERRAFORM| | Scott | | 4:20 | Scott |WHAT NEXT| Smith |PANEL: | | Laatsc.P| | 4:30 | Richard | SCIENCE | Burleson|FUTURE OF| | | | 4:40 | | OBJECT- | Morgent.|EARTH AND| | | | 4:50 | | IVES? | Garvey |MARS | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------| 5:00 | | |TELEOPER.| | | | | 5:10 | | | ROVER | | | | | 5:20 | | | DEMO | | | | | 5:30 | | |----.--------------| | | | 5:40 | | | . | | | | 5:50 | | | . | | | | --------------------------- . ------------------------------| 6:00 | | | Martin Marietta | | | | 6:10 | | | | | | | 6:20 | | | Reception | | | | 6:30 | | | | | | | 6:40 | | | | | | | 6:50 | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------| 7:00 | | | 7:10 | | | 7:20 | <--------------------- WORKSHOPS ----------------------> | | 7:30 | 7:30 - 10:30 pm | | 7:40 | | | 7:50 | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------| 8:00 | | | | | | | | 8:10 | | |Biospheres | | | | 8:20 | | |Workshop | | | | | 8:30 | | |via Video| | | | | 8:40 | | |Boulder- | | | | | 8:50 | | |to-Bio 2 | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------| 9:00 | | | | | | | | 9:10 | | | | | | | | 9:20 | | | | | | | | 9:30 | | | | | | | | 9:40 | | | | | | | | 9:50 | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------| 10:00 | | | | | | | | 10:10 | | | | | | | | 10:20 | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Rover Demo During Break ** Note to authors: two slide and two overhead projectors will be available. @Workshops (Proposed) --------------------- A plenary workshop meeting will be held at 7:00 PM Wednesday May 26 and again on Thursday evening in the Glenn Miller Ballroom to propose, define and coordinate the workshops. 1. Short Term Economic and Social Justification for Human Exploration Chair: Robert Becker 2. Biospheres Workshop Chairs: Penelope Boston, Kelly McMillen Workshop will include video linkup with Biosphere 2 at 7:30 PM, May 27 3. Workshop on Earth and Mars - The Future of Two Biospheres Chair: Chris McKay, Robert Haynes With terraforming notes by Robert Haynes 4. What happened to the Solar System Exploration Initiative? - Lessons for The Future. Chairs: Carol Stoker, Larry Lemke * * * * * * * REGISTRATION AND PRESENTATION RESPONSE FORM The Case for Mars V Name:__________________________________________________________________ Organization:__________________________________________________________ Mail Code:_____________________________________________________________ Address:_______________________________________________________________ City,State,Zip:________________________________________________________ Country:_______________________________________________________________ Phone:____________________________FAX:_________________________________ E-mail address:________________________________________________________ PRESENTATIONS: The conference program will consist of invited papers and panels as well as contributed oral and poster papers. Titles for contributed papers should be sent as soon as possible. Abstracts for papers must be received by May 12, 1993. Abstracts sent by electronic mail are preferred. ____ I wish to offer a paper for consideration in the program. Please indicate preference for ____ oral or ____ poster presentation. Title/Subject:___________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ WORKSHOP: The conference program will include a workshop for professionals and advanced students that will focus on technical, social and programmatic aspects of Mars exploration. ____ I wish attend the workshop. Please indicate your area of interest/expertise: ___________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ REGISTRATION FEE: Conference facilities are limited and advanced registration is recommended. The registration fee is $90 (US) until May 12, 1993 and $120 thereafter (students and K-12 educators $20, $25 after the deadline). Make checks payable to The Case for Mars. ____ I plan to attend the conference, ____ Undecided, ____ Will not attend. ____ I wish to register at this time, payment enclosed. Please send to: Tom Meyer (303) 494-8144 (Tele.), (303) 494-8446 (FAX) Case for Mars V zodiac::marscase (SPAN) P.O. Box 4877 marscase@zodiac.colorado.edu (Internet) Boulder, CO 80306 U.S.A. tmeyer (NASAMAIL) THE CASE FOR MARS V HOTEL AND TRAVEL INFORMATION REGISTRATION: The Case for Mars V will held at the University Memorial Center (UMC) on the University of Colorado campus in Boulder. Registration begins at 7:30 AM, Wednesday May 26th in the main lobby. The UMC is located on Euclid Street at Broadway. DIRECTIONS: If you are driving from Denver/Stapleton Airport to Boulder via Highway 36 (28th Street in Boulder), take the Baseline exit off of Highway 36 (second exit in Boulder), turn left (West/toward the mountains) and go two blocks to Broadway (second stop light). Go right on Broadway to Euclid (second stop light). The UMC is on the NE corner of Broadway and Euclid. Go right on Euclid 1/2 block to short term public parking on your left just beyond the UMC. Note, park only in designated lots, campus parking is heavily patrolled. Long term parking permits may be purchased at the registration desk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HOTELS: Clarion Harvest House, 1345 28th Street (Hy 36), Boulder, CO 80302. (303) 443-3850, (303) 443-1480 FAX. Conference rates until April 15th: $68 S, $78 D, $57 S Gov't. Coming from Denver via Hy 36, the Clarion is located on the left one block past the first stop light on 28th Street as you enter Boulder. Distance to the Conference is 6 blocks. Hotel Boulderado, 2115 13th St., Boulder, CO 80302. (303) 442-4344, (800) 433-4344 FAX, (303) 442-4378, Rates: $104-$144 S, $116-$156 D. Distance 9 blocks. Days Inn, 5397 S. Boulder Road, Boulder, Colorado 80303. (303) 499-4422, (800) 325-2525, Rates: $64 S, $69 D, (Gov't rate less $5). Distance 2 miles. Golden Buff Lodge (Best Western), 1725 28th St., Boulder, CO 80301. (303) 442-7450, (800) 999-2833, (303) 442-8788 FAX, Rates: $62-70 S, $72-80 D. Distance 9 blocks. University Inn Motel, 1632 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302. (303) 442-3830, (800) 397-9512, (303) 449-3777 FAX, Rates: $50-80 S, $55-85 D, $5 each additional person, includes Continental Breakfast. Distance 4 blocks. Holiday Inn, 800 28th St, Boulder, CO 80303. (303) 443-3322, (800) 465-4329. Rates: $74 S, $84 D. Distance 6 blocks Boulder Broker Inn, 555 30th St., Boulder, CO 80303. (303) 444-3330 or (800) 338-5407, (303) 333-6444 FAX, Rates: $91 S, $101 D. Distance 8 blocks Mariott Courtyard, 4710 Pearl East Circle, Boulder, Colorado 80301. (303) 440-4700, (800) 321-2211, (303) 440-8975 FAX, Rates: $69-$75 S, $69-$85 D, ($66 D Gov't Rate). Distance 2 miles. Briar Rose, Bed and Breakfast Inn, 2151 Arapahoe Ave., (303) 442-3007, Rates: $70-94 S, $85-109 D. Distance 7 blocks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LOCAL TRANSPORTATION: AIRPORT: Denver Stapleton Airport is located about 30 miles from Boulder. Car rental, buses and limos are available. AIRPORT LIMO: The Airporter Limo to Boulder hotels is $9.50, travel time 45 minutes. It departs on the hour from Stapleton Airport, 8 AM to 8 PM, and 10:15 PM last departure, tickets at airport baggage level Door 6, ride space available or call 303 321-3222 for reservations. BUS, AIRPORT-TO-BOULDER: The RTD bus from Denver Stapleton Airport to the terminal in downtown Boulder departs from the area near the airport baggage level Door 11. The bus is marked Boulder, and travels approximately every 30 minutes from 7:40 AM to 5:40 PM and hourly until 12:40 AM, cost $2.50 exact change, travel time 75 minutes. Hourly on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. The Regent Street bus stop is nearest Kittredge dormitory, followed by the Euclid Street stop at the University Memorial Center, the conference registration site. The bus next passes the University Inn motel and continues to the downtown terminal which is three blocks from the Hotel Boulderado. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAMPUS HOUSING [NOTE: DURING THE FINAL WEEK BEFORE THE CONFERENCE, THE UNIVERSITY WILL ACCEPT DORM RESERVATIONS BY PHONE AT (303) 492-7002.] A University of Colorado room and board package is available for The Case for Mars V conference. The package includes lodging in Kittredge Residence Halls Complex from May 25 - May 29, 1993 (Tuesday - Saturday). The price for single accommodations is $181.93 per person. This includes lodging Tuesday night May 25th through Friday night May 28th and all meals beginning with breakfast on Wednesday through breakfast on Saturday. Payment is due at check-in, do not send payment in advance. Reservations should not be made by phone. Please mail the enclosed application card to make your reservation. A confirmation will be sent to you prior to the conference. The package can be extended but not broken; call (303) 492-7002 in order to arrange an extended stay, or for prices on double rooms. Check-in is at Kittredge Commons located just south of the Fiske Planetarium easily distinguished by its geodesic dome. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SUMMER CONFERENCE HOUSING APPLICATION KITTREDGE (303) 492-7002 MAIL TO: Kittredge Commons The University of Colorado Boulder, Colorado 80310 Name of Conference:____________________________________________________________ Participant Name(last/first):__________________________________________________ Address:_______________________________ City:___________ State:______ Zip:_____ Telephone(Home): ___________________ (Business): ___________________ Sex:_____ First night lodging:_____________ Last night lodging:______________ Please Request One of the Following: * Single Room _______ Double Room:_______ (No Roommate Preference) Double Room (Name of Roommate)______________________________________________ Special Requests(Smoker/Nonsmoker, etc):____________________________________ * There are a limited number of single rooms. If unavailable, assignment will be made to a double room with another conference participant. Complete if Accompanied by Spouse and/or Family: Spouse: Name:______________________ First night lodging:_________Last night:________ Children: Name:_____________Age:____ Sex:____ Double:____ Single:____ First night lodging:_________Last night:________ Name:_____________Age:____ Sex:____ Double:____ Single:____ First night lodging:_________Last night:________ Name:_____________Age:____ Sex:____ Double:____ Single:____ First night lodging:_________Last night:________ Will a Rollaway Bed be Needed? _____________ Crib? __________ Total Number in Party:________________ Payment is due at check in. Cash, travelers checks, personal checks, Visa and MasterCard will be accepted. Do Not Send Payment in Advance. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Loudyellnet: Richard Johnson | Sneakernet: ECOT6-29 or ECNT1-6, CU Boulder Phonenet: +1 303.492.0590 | Internet: johnsonr@Colorado.EDU RIPEM and PGP public keys available by server, finger or request Speaker to avalanche dragons. Do you really think they listen? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 20:08:40 -0400 From: "William F. O'Dell" Subject: How do the Soviets retrieve boken satellites? Newsgroups: sci.space All of this STS vs. Soyez got me wondering. How do the Soviets retrieve scewed up satellites?-Or do they? Just curious. Furman wo04@andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 01:45:07 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: How do the Soviets retrieve boken satellites? Newsgroups: sci.space In article "William F. O'Dell" writes: >How do the Soviets retrieve scewed up satellites?-Or do they? In general, they don't. They did do a major repair job on one of their space stations -- Salyut 6? -- by the obvious method of docking a Soyuz to it. The ability to return large payloads from orbit is much oversold. It is almost always better, or at least simpler, to just leave things up there. Things that do need to be returned are usually small. (The only thing big about LDEF was its frame; the individual experiments were small.) -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 93 02:52:04 GMT From: Pawel Moskalik Subject: How do the Soviets retrieve boken satellites? Newsgroups: sci.space In article "William F. O'Dell" writes: >All of this STS vs. Soyez got me wondering. >How do the Soviets retrieve scewed up satellites?-Or do they? >Just curious. > >Furman >wo04@andrew.cmu.edu > No, they don't. They launch new satelite to replace the broken one. For most military sats, they actualy launch the replacement BEFORE the old one breaks. Pawel Moskalik ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 1993 03:12:26 GMT From: Pawel Moskalik Subject: How do the Soviets retrieve boken satellites? Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>How do the Soviets retrieve scewed up satellites?-Or do they? > >In general, they don't. They did do a major repair job on one of their >space stations -- Salyut 6? -- by the obvious method of docking a Soyuz >to it. > It was Salut 7. There have been two repairs. In 1984 they did a major plumbing job on the fuel system. It took 5 EVAs. In 1985 the station went completely dead. It turned out that the acumulators were not recharged and the whole station froze (!!). They have docked Soyuz with it and the crew fixed the problem and slowly reactivated all systems. There are some nice pictures of Dzhanibekov and Savinykh working on board, in warm coats, gloves and fur hats (!!). >Things that do need to be returned are usually small. (The only thing big >about LDEF was its frame; the individual experiments were small.) Good point. Soviets do LDEF-type experiments all the time. They place the samples outside of the MIR station during EVA. Some time later another crew during another EVA takes them back and returns to Earth in their Soyuz, or in Progress Landing Capsule. Pawel Moskalik ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 22:14:36 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Moon Base Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May22.164247.6190@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >The more pressing question though is "Why go back to the Moon?" >The general public says "Been there, done that." And there seems >little commercial justification. There are certainly more interesting >scientific targets. Mars for one, minor planets and comets for others. The main reason for going back to the Moon is to start a sustained program of space exploration. The first step in doing that *has* to be convincing the public (or whoever's funding you) that one or two visits is not enough. A program whose support is based on "firsts" is headed straight for another post-Apollo disaster, because there just aren't that many readily-accessible "firsts". If the objective is sustained spaceflight, the Moon is the right place to start. Commercial justification for a return to the Moon is slim, but for anything else -- Mars, asteroids, etc. -- it's nil. As for "more interesting" scientific targets, that depends on who you ask. There is a long list of unsolved mysteries of lunar science. And letting your space program be run by which target looks most interesting at the moment means not having a *program* at all, just a random grab-bag of missions. -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 21:49:35 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1993May22.130208.286@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >If you look at polling information, the space program comes in next to >last as a priority for funding; only defense is lower... This depends a whole lot on what sort of question you ask, as is usual with such things. For example, Joe Average typically has a wildly inflated idea of the size of the NASA budget, and supplying a bit of information with the question can change the answer quite a bit. Last I heard, the overall picture hasn't changed much in recent years: the public generally likes the space program and wouldn't support killing it... but doesn't think it's particularly well run, and doesn't consider it a high priority. -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 01:29:22 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: MS>On Sat, 22 May 1993 14:34:38 GMT, pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) said, in reference to the Shuttle: >Phil> And there isn't a flying machine in the world that has destroyed >Phil> as much money/effort/resources. MS>Well, the B-1 program is certainly a close competitor, if not the MS>victor. It can't even perform its mission and has spent more time MS>grounded than Shuttle did after Challenger. Well, it depends on _what_ B-1 you mean; the B-1B seems to be an attempt to make the baseline B-1 into something that could pretend to compete with the B-2 (subsonic low-level stealth) and given the airframe and mission it was originally designed for, the conversion was bound to produce something really costly. And maybe now would be a good time to pump you for info on the great Shuttle/B-1 scandal I saw on 60 seconds a while back, where allegedly Rockwell was charging NASA under the shuttle program for stuff related to the B-1. >On the other hand, the B-1A, in the white livery, was a great deal >more attractive than the Shuttle. Not so the B-1B--what a difference >a little paint makes. Well, were you expecting them to maybe paint a target on it? Camo may not look that great, but it's not like there was _that_ much choice. And you're also forgetting the ATF; not only is the winner starting to look like a turkey (only flying copy crashed in a PIO), but it looked horrible to begin with. I mean, if we're going to spend money for a plane to fight the currently scaled-back Soviet Threat, couldn't we have at least spent money on the one that looked good? >I see B-1s and B-2s fairly frequently. For all the ballyhoo about the >B-2's cost, I'll bet that the B-1 is a great deal more expensive, in >current dollars, over the entire life of the program. Particularly if >you add in all the lobbying costs. I've also heard that the B-2 is expensive for the same reason the Shuttle Orbiters are expensive: the program got stretched out to the point where they weren't being built assembly-line fashion any more, but one at a time... _Nothing_ is cheap as a hand-made one-off item. -- Phil Fraering |"Number one good faith! You convert, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 93 04:48:08 GMT From: Mary Shafer Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space On Sun, 23 May 1993 01:29:22 GMT, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) said: Phil> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: MS>On Sat, 22 May 1993 14:34:38 GMT, pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. MS>Fraering) said, in reference to the Shuttle: Phil> And maybe now would be a good time to pump you for info on the Phil> great Shuttle/B-1 scandal I saw on 60 seconds a while back, Phil> where allegedly Rockwell was charging NASA under the shuttle Phil> program for stuff related to the B-1. All I know is what I read in the L A Times and AvLeak. Remember that I work on the first A in NASA, not on the S. I will say that charging problems aren't unique to Rockwell--I've heard of a lot of such cases. Phil> And you're also forgetting the ATF; not only is the winner Phil> starting to look like a turkey (only flying copy crashed in a Phil> PIO), but it looked horrible to begin with. The YF-22 wasn't that bad a plane--remember that the plane that crashed was just the fly-off bird and not the real thing. Certain compromises were made to get something in the air cheaply and quickly. The Y in the name tells you this up front--Y aircraft aren't quite as risky as X aircraft, but they're not production aircraft and have to be treated as special aircraft. For what it's worth, that YF-22 was coming to Dryden just as soon as they finished a little 100-hour program of testing that they wanted to do for the F-22, trying to save some time and money when the Cat I testing started. Phil> I mean, if we're going to spend money for a plane to fight the Phil> currently scaled-back Soviet Threat, couldn't we have at least Phil> spent money on the one that looked good? The F-4 Phantom is flying proof that looks aren't everything. Ditto the F-117 and virtually any USN carrier-based aircraft. We're getting the YF-23s, according to the latest notes from the Facility staff meeting. One will be flyable and I think the other will be an iron bird. >I see B-1s and B-2s fairly frequently. For all the ballyhoo about >the B-2's cost, I'll bet that the B-1 is a great deal more expensive, >in current dollars, over the entire life of the program. >Particularly if you add in all the lobbying costs. Phil> I've also heard that the B-2 is expensive for the same reason Phil> the Shuttle Orbiters are expensive: the program got stretched Phil> out to the point where they weren't being built assembly-line Phil> fashion any more, but one at a time... Actually, I read somewhere that for the original order size, the B-2 costs just a little less than the B-52 in current dollars. Since the BUFF was built in 50's dollars, I think this is pretty believable. Phil> _Nothing_ is cheap as a hand-made one-off item. -- Or even a two- or three-off item. The X-15, the X-29, the X-31, the X-anything come to mind here, as do the Y-anythings and the N-anythings. Not just expensive to buy but expensive to maintain. I've decided that the only reasonable way to cost R&D is to apply its cost only to the first sample--this means that the first B-2 was _very_ expensive, but the subsequent ones just have the incremental cost. None of this averaging the R&D costs over all the aircraft. After all, it took all that just to get the first plane in the air. If you start out building ten planes, you don't really spend 1/10 the R&D on each one; you spend it all on the first one. It takes as much R&D to fly one as it does to fly ten. (Obviously, it costs more to build more aircraft and to operate more aircraft. I'm sure you realize this, Phil, but I'm spelling it out so that no one will point out that ten times as many aircraft use ten times as much fuel or maintainence, etc. An ounce of prevention....) ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 615 ------------------------------