Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO562.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 05:00:15
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #562
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 18 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 562

Today's Topics:
                           $5 million/hour
                             Chase planes
                 cryptocraft photography, Re: Aurora
                   Current position of past probes
                           DoD launcher use
           Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
          Greek jet engine (Was: Terminal Velocity of DCX?)
                       Hubble Sees Protoplanets
                          Images (S/W&Pics)
                          Micro-g in KC-135
                    Privately funded Lunar probes
                             Sea Dragon?
       Shuttle alternatives (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?)
                        Shuttle thermal tiles
                           SSTO vs. 2 stage
       Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) (5 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 08:52:56 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: $5 million/hour

-From: [e-mail] (Greg Moore)
-Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
-Date: 17 Dec 92 03:37:33 GMT

->>>Last I heard they're
->>>willing to rent Cosmonaut time at $5 million an hour plus launch costs
->>>for any experimental equipment you want them to use.

-    Hmm, I just did a BOE calculation and figure a NASA astronaut costs
-about 1.6 Million an hour (not including training or on-ground costs).

-    Given a figure of $500 Million a flight, useful work can be:
-10 hours/day * 6 astronauts * 5 days = 300 hours.  Divide this into the
-above number nd you get $1.6 Million.  If this is a EDO flight of 10
-days, your on-orbit costs drop in half.  So, I'd assume that
-the CIS is trying to make a little money.

I believe Gary's first post on the subject mentioned $5 million an hour
for *EVA* time. That's a little more expensive than time inside Mir or
the Shuttle.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 92 23:51:54 GMT
From: Claudio Egalon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chase planes
Newsgroups: sci.space

The chase plane that crashed with Valkyrie was being flown by Joe
Walker, the pilot that broke so many records with the X-15. I was
wondering if anyone in the net knows what was the reason for the
crash. My first impression was that it was pilot error but I may be
wrong.

[e-mail]

Claudio Egalon

------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 92 04:09:11 GMT
From: Dean Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: cryptocraft photography, Re: Aurora
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Anthony J Stieber) writes:
>[e-mail] (Dean Adams) writes:
 >>Were there any photos of the F-117A prior to the official release?
 >>I don't beleive so, even though it flew for almost a decade.
 >Yes, at least one in AW&ST, July 10, 1989, p22.

Yes... but the "official release" that I was speaking of took place on
November 10, 1988.  That is when the AF first acknowledged the F-117As
existence and released a single photo (which AW&ST of course printed :).

 >This is sometime after the first flights of the craft in 1981, but of
 >course all the early flights were done exclusivly at night.

The Have Blues flew in 1977, and the first F-117A flew on June 18, 1981.
In all that time it seems nobody really managed to catch a good view of
them on film (at least nobody without a Senior Trend clearance :)

 >I'm sure there will be pictures of whatever this/these craft are.
I'll certainly be waiting...  It may be a while though.

 >Someone with camera and a telescope lens will catch it.
The sky is awfully BIG...

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 92 22:40:19 GMT
From: Jabir Hussain <[e-mail]>
Subject: Current position of past probes
Newsgroups: sci.space

I was reading about all the probes NASA and the Soviets have launched over
the years and they all seem to end with 'lost contact on...' or 'will lose
contact after...'.  I was thinking that, for those that didn't die on the
surface of some planet, it would not be difficult to extrapolate their orbits
to get some idea of where each one is at any time.

I just had this image of future 'space tours' flying alongside Mariner II
(still going undisturbed on its way) while tour guides inform,

    "...and on your right you can now see Mariner II, the
      first Venus probe, launched AD 1961..."

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:34:53 GMT
From: Tim McDaniel <[e-mail]>
Subject: DoD launcher use
Newsgroups: sci.space

My source of information is "From Shield to Storm", James F. Dunnigan
and Austin Bay, William Morrow & Co., New York, 1992, ISBN
0-688-11034-7.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Gary Coffman) writes:
>>but as far as I know, no recon aircraft were lost.
>BTW, flying recon is one of the most dangerous types of flying in wartime.

p. 171:
"1 OH-58 helicopter.  Scouting helicopter ...
2 OV-10. Observation aircraft, spotted targets for aircraft attacks."
Missions of other lost aircraft are usually not noted, but it appears
that they were not recon (except perhaps the F-14A loss).  A total of
40 aircraft are shown as lost: that's 7.5%, comparable to the number of
sorties flown for recon.

>I don't think much if any recon was flown. The Air Force had better things
>to do with its aircraft.

*snort*  Much target location and bomb-damage assessment was done via
aircraft.  From p. 155, the top 5 mission types as percentage of
sorties flown:

    Combat supply and support        28%
    Attack logistical and support targets    22%
    Attack Iraqi troops in the field    20%
    Recon and follow-up missions        6%
    Close-air support            6%

Primary aircraft recon was in the "Great Scud Hunt" (remember how much
consternation Scuds caused?), attacks on logistical and support
targets, attacks on Iraqi troops in the field, and pure reconnaissance
and follow-up missions (pp. 150-153).  However, page 164 notes that,
with better sensors, "bombers and recon aircraft become one"; how does
one count those sorties?

P. 166 discusses "communications integration" problems.  "A particular
shortcoming was the ability to get information on targets found to
aircraft that could attack them.  Most of the Allied recon aircraft
were still using film cameras. ... Satellite reconnaissance, the
oft-heralded solution to this problem, was misunderstood (or simply
oversold) before the war."

All told, there are 55 index entries for "recon" or "reconnaissance".
Some, though, refer to ground recon, such as Special Forces or long- or
short-range ground patrols.  P. 153 notes the problems with damage
assessment.  Unfortunately, the Iraqis, like the Russians, emphasize
battlefield deception, and some assets (like pontoon bridges) may be
stored hidden while not in use.  Ground recon was often needed to
assess damage.

--
Tim McDaniel
Internet: mcdaniel@{grex,m-net}.ann-arbor.mi.us, [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 92 00:13:38 GMT
From: Michel Dignard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
Newsgroups: sci.space

** Ref. <[e-mail]>
        (sci.space.news)   16 Dec 92 01:01:52 GMT
        [[e-mail]]
        -- Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks --

I missed SCI.SPACE.NEWS for a few weeks in November.

I notice that no mention is made anymore of the Galileo High Gain Antenna
problem in the recent posts nor in the health report.

Does this means that the HGA has finally deployed, or the efforts have been
abandonned?

--
Michel Dignard                         [e-mail]
Universite de Montreal

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:50:49 GMT
From: "Charles J. Divine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Greek jet engine (Was: Terminal Velocity of DCX?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (GRASSO CHRISTOPHER A) writes:
>In article 26326, (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>>I think the ancient Greeks, who built a working jet engine,
>>lived a little more than 50 years ago.
>
>Interesting. Would you care to elaborate?

I can elaborate a bit.

There was a very small experimental apparatus built in the ancient era that could be
described as a jet engine.

Described briefly, it was a container of water that was heated.  There was an exhaust
that, when the water was converted to steam, provided a small jet action.  The
apparatus was rigged to rotate.

The device is impressive intellectually but develops very little real power.


--
Chuck Divine

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:20:47 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble Sees Protoplanets
Newsgroups: sci.space

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.               December 16, 1992
(Phone:  [phone])

Jim Elliott
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
(Phone:  [phone])

Ray Villard
Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore
(Phone:  [phone])


RELEASE:  92-226

HUBBLE DISCOVERS PROTOPLANETARY DISKS AROUND NEW STARS

     NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has uncovered the strongest
evidence yet that many stars may form planetary systems.

     Dr. C. Robert O'Dell of Rice University, Houston, and
colleagues have used Hubble to discover extended disks planetary
systems," said O'Dell. "The disks are a missing link in our
understanding of how planets like those in our solar system form.
Their discovery establishes that the basic material of planets
exists around a large fraction of stars.  It is likely that many
of these stars will have planetary systems."

     Hubble Space Telescope's detailed images confirm more than a
century of speculation, conjecture and theory about the genesis of
a solar system.

     According to current theories, the dust contained within the
disks eventually agglomerates to make planets.  Earth's solar
system is considered a relic of just such a disk of dust that
accompanied the sun's birth 4.5 billion years ago.

     Before the Hubble discovery, protoplanetary disks had been
confirmed around only four stars, Beta Pictoris, Alpha Lyrae,
Alpha Piscis Austrini and Epsilon Eridani.

     Unlike these previous observations, Hubble has observed newly
formed stars less than a million years old which are still
contracting out of primordial gas.

     Hubble's images provide direct evidence that dust surrounding
a newborn star has too much spin to be drawn into the collapsing
star.  Instead, the material spreads out into a broad, flattened
disk.

     These young disks signify an entirely new class of object
uncovered in the universe, according to O'Dell.

     Hubble can see the disks because they are illuminated by the
hottest stars in the Orion Nebula, and some of them are seen in
silhouette against the bright nebula.  However, some of these
protoplanets are bright enough to have been seen previously as
stars by ground-based optical and radio telescopes.  Their true
nature was not recognized until the Hubble discovery.

     Each protoplanet appears as a thick disk with a hole in the
middle where the cool star is located.  Radiation from nearby hot
stars "boils off" material from the disk's surface at a rate equal
to about one-half the mass of Earth per year.  This material is
then blown back into a comet-like tail by a stellar "wind" of
radiation and subatomic particles streaming from nearby hot stars.

     Based on this erosion rate, O'Dell estimates that a
protoplanet's initial mass would be at least 15 times that of the
giant planet Jupiter.

     Many of the youngest and hottest stars in the Milky Way
Galaxy are found in the Orion Nebula.  The nebula is on the near
edge of a giant molecular cloud which lies immediately behind the
stars that trace the sword of the constellation Orion the Hunter.

     The region of Orion is a bright part of the nebula where
stars are being uncovered at the highest rate.  These results
suggest that nearly half the 50 stars in this part of Orion have
protoplanetary disks.

     O'Dell's co-investigators are graduate students Zheng Wen and
Xi-Hai Hu of Rice University and Dr. Jeff Hester of Arizona State
University.  Their results will be published in the Astrophysical
Journal next spring under the title "Discovery of New Objects in
the Orion Nebula on HST Images:  Shocks, Compact Sources and
Protoplanetary Disks."

- end -
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in you life.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 17:55:59 PST
From: Kenneth W Durham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Images (S/W&Pics)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

Hello,

I'd like information on the following items:
1) S/W to handle images (change colors,etc);
2) S/W that will work under DOS/Windows;
3) A(n) List/Index of images available across the Net, be they
   asteroids, EG objects, and/or Stellar Objects.

I'd appreciate the information to be e-mailed to me, and posted.

I'll be away from the keyboard for the holidays; therefore, I'll wish
everyone a merry holiday season.

Ken Durham
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 1992 00:20:37 GMT
From: Claudio Egalon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Micro-g in KC-135
Newsgroups: sci.space

 >You don't "cancel" the gravitational acceleration, you fall with it.
> The KC-135 flies the exact trajectory that it would follow if it were
> falling free in a vacuum.

That is true you do not "cancel" gravitational acceleration (no anti-
gravity device, of course) however, I recall from my Physics, that
chapter  about inertial forces (and centripetal force, which leads to
centripetal acceleration IS  an inertial force!) you  can be think of an
inertial force to "cancel" a  non-inertial force (in our case  the
attraction of gravity) at least in an non-inertial reference frame which
is the KC-135. Maybe the way that we have explained the problem are
two different ways to explain the same thing and they all MAY have
their own merit.

 [e-mail]

 Claudio Egalon

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:00:45 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Privately funded Lunar probes
Newsgroups: sci.space

I think most of us agree that a Lunar polar orbiting space craft with
instruments suitable for the detection of hydrogen (among other things) is a
very good mission that should be performed as soon as possible.  I've seen
two private organizations trying to pull this off.  My question is what can we,
as a group, do to help them accomplish their goal?

Lunar Exploration Inc (my apologies if I have the name wrong) appears to be a
continuation of the SSI effort of a few years ago.  They have information on
ames.arc.nasa gov in the pub/SPACE/LEI directory.  While it isn't as complete
as I'd like I strongly recommend that people read it.

According to the latest Ad Astra, the University of Colorado at Boulder is
also planning a polar orbiter in conjunction with the Colorado Space Grant
Consortium.  The Deep Space Exploration Society (which seems to be a group
of amature radio enthusiasts) has two 18m dishes that they hope to refurbish
and use for tracking the spacecraft.  While I'm a tad skeptical, a good
university with commited students can sometimes pull of some impressive things.

So lets take a break from pricing shuttle flights and mentally crashing SSTOs
and think about this.  We have an opportunity to help make a real step forward.
Just what are we going to do about it?

The most immediate thing that comes to mind is a simple donation of time or
money.  Perhaps we should also work to make this a goal of our favorite space
organization - NSS, Planetary Society, SEDS, SSI or whatever.  Trying to
convince your employer to take part (if appropriate) might not be a bad idea.
I guess what I'm trying to suggest here is that we do _something_ rather than
just making this the next fashionable point of argument or sticking it in the
FAQ file.  Looking back over my article I think I need to add one final thought:
discussion is good.  Deciding that these efforts are doomed to failure and
showing why is okay.  Ignoring them is bad.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
                        Ho^3     !=L

------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 1992 04:56:12 GMT
From: Scott Fisher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sea Dragon?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Dennis Newkirk) writes:

>lift-off weight 45,360,000 kg.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                 |||||||||||||
                 No way :-)    Perhaps it's living in a place that uses pounds
that has confused you?  Using my calculator to convert to pounds (weird units
you guys use in the US) that comes to... 100,001,682 pounds...now that means
very little to me but 45 million kg sure sticks out like a sore thumb to my
metric eyes :-)

>2 stage, water launched, pressure fed motors.
>both stages reusable
>recovered by unaided atmospheric and hydrodynamic deceleration only

Does this mean they are allowed to free-fall back to earth and splash?

>The book says little more about it but talks about benefits

Regards Scott.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Scott Fisher [[e-mail]]  PH: Aus [61] Perth (09) Local (380 3272).
                                                             _--_|\       N
Department of Psychology                                    /      \    W + E
University of Western Australia.      Perth [32S, 116E]-->  *_.--._/      S
Nedlands, 6009.  PERTH, W.A.                                      v

Joy is a Jaguar XJ6 with a flat battery, a blown oil seal and an unsympathetic
wife, 9km outside of a small remote town, 3:15am on a cold wet winters morning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 92 04:11:09 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle alternatives (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>This is not true primarily because Titan IV cannot carry most Shuttle pay-
>loads.
>
>1) Titan IV cannot carry the payload of the Shuttle.  Titan IV's payload is
>only 38,500 lbs to a 100 nmi orbit, while Discovery and Atlantis can loft
>52,000 lbs to a 150 nmi orbit.  Endeavour can launch a few thousand lbs more.
>While I don't have the equations on hand, raising Titan IV's standard orbit
>to 150 nmi would cause its payload to drop to about 30,000 lbs, barely half
>that of Endeavour.

    Two problems here, Mike.
    First, what Shuttle payloads weighed this much? TDRS? I doubt it.
    Titan 34D/IUS launched an equivalent payload (two DSCS-IIIs.)
    The only payload I can think of that was above this, very debatable
    Titan IV lift capacity, was the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory.
    Second, I think Endeavour is heavier than Discovery or Atlantis,
    since it has the EDO modifications, so it's max payload is lower.

>5) The Titan IV's launch rate is very low.  It has flown six times since its
>1989 debut, while the Shuttle has flown over 20.  All available Titan IVs
>for the near future will be used for launching Air Force payloads.  None are
>available for NASA or commercial uses for quite some time.

    Agreed. Titan IV is a turkey which exists only because the Air
    Force can launch one without all the publicity of the Shuttle.
    I sure hope they think it's worth it. (We don't know what
    Titan IV No.6 launched, and we don't know what STS-53 launched.)

    -Brian


------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:45:28 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle thermal tiles
Newsgroups: sci.space

On 12 Dec 92 01:24:21 GMT, [e-mail] (John Roberts) said:

J> The Shuttle launch towers have movable covers which protect the orbiter
J> from damage by hail and severe storms.

Dryden flew a number of shuttle tiles (current and proposed) on the
aerodynamic test fixture on the F-104G.  The tiles are undamaged by
snow and devastated by rain, with hail being not quite as bad as
rain.  Of course you can cover the vehicle on the pad, but you can't
fly through rain or hail without etching the tiles down to the felt
pads they're glued to.

J> It's interesting to recall the extreme concern over the thermal tiles
J> before STS-1. Many people were convinced that the tiles would all fall
J> off during reentry. (The fact that Enterprise lost many of its tiles during
J> transport, and that Columbia lost some off its engine covers during launch
J> added to the concern.)

Enterprise, not being a _real_ shuttle, didn't have real tiles.  It
had a fairly fine-textured plastic foam, painted black.  Not foamed
ceramic with a ceramic coating, like real shuttles.  I have a small
chunk of the Enterprise that I picked up off the hangar floor when
they were doing the structural test evaluations.  These fake tiles
stayed on very well, both in transport and in flight.

On the other hand, the tiles falling off Columbia during its first
takeoff on the 747 were thicker than the the leaves falling off the
fruitless mulberry in my front yard after the first hard freeze last
month.  I think that the Air Force had a FOD walkdown before they'd
open the runway after the takeoff.

J> Now it seems to be treated as a solved problem (except
J> for the weight, of course, and the inability to fly the Shuttle through
J> rain during landing).

The various fabrics have replaced the tiles most prone to departure in
midair.

J> I got to play with some Shuttle tile replicas
J> at the Technology 2002 conference - they're being promoted as a solution
J> to some Earth-based problems.

Did you get to hold it in your bare hand while they played the butane
torch over it?  It took a lot of faith for me to keep my hand out there
when the top of the tile started glowing orange.


--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 92 22:37:38 GMT
From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO vs. 2 stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Edward V. Wright,
[e-mail] writes:
>>        A final advantage to the two stage design comes from the time
>>necessary to perform turnaround.   Since the lower stage can be
inspected and
>>prepared for another flight while the upper stage is making an orbital
>>delivery, the frequency of flights will be governed by the turnaround
time of
>>the upper stage after it gets back.
>
>Only if the first stage can teleport.
>
>>Say that turnaround time is 1 week.  If you spend your money on two
DC-1
>>vehicles and operate them in the SSTO mode, then it will take 5 weeks
to
>>put 100 tons in orbit (two flights delivering 10 tons each per week).
>
>Or 5 days, flying two flights per day.
>
>>If you spend your money on one DC-1 and 1 lower stage, then the same
>>100 tons can be put into orbit in two weeks (two flights, each
>>delivering 50 tons).
>
>Of course, you'll only have enough money to pay for half the first
>stage.

I see your point Ed, but the concept still has some attractiveness
if you really need to get alot of weight up at once.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson

------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 92 03:30:26 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>
> Nope. Just about everything on that mission could have been divied up
> and flown on other Shuttles. The Space Vision System on any flight which
> has the RMS. No RMS scheduled? Add it to a mission and then add SVS.
i
    This would work except for one major requirement of the SVS, a
clear payload so that visibility and movement wasn't hindered.

> USMP? That's one pallet. LAGEOS was another. What was Columbia carrying
> in the rest of the payload bay? Room for two more pallets, at least.
> Put differently, LAGEOS and USMP-1 could have been flown on any mission
> with space for one pallet in the payload bay. That's most missions.
> Even the TDRS/IUS flights have room for one more pallet or good-sized
> payload. 51L had TDRS/IUS and the Spartan satellite in the payload bay,
> so the capabilty is there. The LBNP? That's a middeck experiment, suitable
> for just about any Shuttle mission. The crew was too busy? Okay, then
> fly the EDO pallet for the mission and spread the work out over four or
> five more days. This was Columbia, afterall.
>
    I agree with flying the EDO.  It's there, and the incremental cost
of extending a flight by 5 days has to be a heck of a lot less than
flying an entirely new mission.

> By the way, now NASA is planning to fly STS-62 carrying ONLY the USMP.
> At least, that's all that appears on the manifest for the mission posted
> here a couple of weeks ago. How on Earth is NASA going to justify THAT?
>
> -Brian
>
>

------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 92 04:06:13 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) w
r
>ites:
>
>> That it can be done, I am more or less with you. (But I fully expect
>> a design problem or two to slow things down...) That it can be done
>> at the price you quote, that's another story. Say I'm from Missouri.
>> Show me.
>
>I and others are working very hard to do exactly that.
>
>  Allen
>

   And when you do, I'll get right in line behind DC with you. Until
   then, I'll hedge my bets.

   -Brian


------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 92 04:09:42 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>One Shuttle flight is a bit less than half the projected cost of DCX
>>development to flight test. It doesn't even begin to cover costs for
>>the development of DCY which requires different structures and engines,
>>or of DC-1.
>
>McDonnell Douglas has estimated the total development costs of the DC-1
>at $1.5 billion.  I don't recall exactly how much money has been spent
>on DC-X, but it's in the range of a couple hundred million.  NASA spends
>over a billion dollars on each Space Shuttle flight.  I think you've
>indulged in some creative accounting.
>

 The Space Transportation budget this year was about $5 billion, if
 memory serves. NASA flew 8 Shuttle missions this year. You have done
 the 'creative accounting' here, I'd say.

 -Brian


------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 92 04:10:25 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>Ever hear of the "Manned Orbiting Laboratory"? A Gemini with a very
>>Spacelab-like module launched together by Titan III.
>
>Yeah, I've heard of it.  I've also heard that it was cancelled about 25 years
>ago, and that none of them ever flew.
>
>Spacelab is very dependent on the Shuttle for life support, power, and heat
>rejection.  You couldn't fly it on a Titan IV (which was my point).
>
>Mike

 My point was that we could do more or less the same thing without
 Shuttle. MOL was cancelled without a manned flight (a boilerplate
 flew, though) basically because NASA was already spending billions
 on SkyLab and the Congress said 'No.'

 -Brian


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:21:39 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>One Shuttle flight is a bit less than half the projected cost of DCX
>>development to flight test. It doesn't even begin to cover costs for
>>the development of DCY which requires different structures and engines,
>>or of DC-1.

>McDonnell Douglas has estimated the total development costs of the DC-1
>at $1.5 billion.  I don't recall exactly how much money has been spent
>on DC-X, but it's in the range of a couple hundred million.  NASA spends
>over a billion dollars on each Space Shuttle flight.  I think you've
>indulged in some creative accounting.

HE indulged in creative accounting?  I think the contract for DC-X was $58
million, not a "couple hundred million."  The average total cost of a shuttle
mission is a little over $500 million not a billion+.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
                        Ho^3     !=L

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 562
------------------------------