Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO563.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 05:02:27
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #563
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 18 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 563

Today's Topics:
                                Aurora
        Chicken Guns (was Re: "trivial engineering") (2 msgs)
                      DoD launcher use (2 msgs)
                     fast-track failures (2 msgs)
                     Galileo's atmospheric probe
                       Mars Needs Explanation!2
                            Space Tourism
                      SSTO Concepts FAQ (2 msgs)
       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 1992 10:16:13 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Aurora
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:
>   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Colin Tinto) writes:
>
>      [Aurora sightings off Scottish Western Isles, speculated Aurora
>       range of 5000 miles]
>
>      Hang on - 5000 miles - that means it can just reach Scotland from the East
>      Coast USA before having to turn back ?   Something not quite right...
>
>   Assuming that it's launching from the continental USA. Seems much more
>   likely to me (given the sightings over the Netherlands as well) that
>   one of the long-runway US bases in the UK or Germany is `home' to an
>   Aurora.
>
>Nah, not isolated enough, rumour seems to be that the forward
>base is a US NATO base in Scotland.

How about Greenland? The USAF "says" they recently closed three
forward bases, but who's going to go look?

Gary

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 19:30:42 PST
From: Mark Robert Thorson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chicken Guns (was Re: "trivial engineering")
Newsgroups: sci.space

A long time ago I read a story in _New_Scientist_ about a British aerospace
company who was performing the chicken test on a new aircraft cockpit.
On the first shot, the windshield was smashed and the pilot's chair was
ripped out and thrown backward.  It turned out they were supposed to
thaw the chicken first.

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

Date: 17 Dec 92 15:10:35 GMT
From: "J. D. McDonald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chicken Guns (was Re: "trivial engineering")
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:

>A long time ago I read a story in _New_Scientist_ about a British aerospace
>company who was performing the chicken test on a new aircraft cockpit.
>On the first shot, the windshield was smashed and the pilot's chair was
>ripped out and thrown backward.  It turned out they were supposed to
>thaw the chicken first.

Oh My.

What about the Overflown 747 Potty Residue Gun Test?

Isn't that SUPPOSED to be frozen?

Doug McDonald

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:23:23 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: DoD launcher use
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>We're talking about Iraq right? No air opposition right? Complete Coalition
>>domination of the airspace right? SR71s and U2s that can fly above anything
>>Iraq had right? After 28 years of trying, the SU never managed to down a
>>SR71 right? Why think Iraq could? What can a satellite do for tactical
>>recon that a SR71 can't?
>>
>
>To the best of my knowledge,  and i am sure henry knows more on this subject,
>NO SR-71  ever flew within Russian borders (or Air Space).  i suspect
>they also stayed out of Warsaw Pact areas and china.

They've certainly overflown Cuba. That's public record. Whether they've
overflown the SU or China is unconfirmed though it's known that China
downed U2s. Over in Sci.Military a Swedish poster says their air forces
have tried to do intercepts on SR71s coming from the East without any
success for several years.

>Satellites also have one big advantage no Plane ever will.  Infinite hang time.
>
>With cheap space access,  we could in an emergency,  put 4 sats in Molniya
>orbit over an emergency area  or we could put a few birds in
>90 minute orbits inclined over an area,  and just watch the video.

Molniya orbits require fantastic optics, and it would take more than
a few LEOs to give coverage, 10 minute footprint over any given area
twice a day. If launch costs were free, this still isn't cheap.

>Satellites also have a big legal advantage.  THey are called "National
>Technical Means"  and protected by treaty.  SR-71's are called spy planes
>and when they enter someones air space,  That is an act of war.

If spying, by any means, is an act of war, then we're at war with
everyone in the world. I know of no instance where an overflight
triggered a war. Besides this thread is about tactical recon over
a battlefield, not strategic recon over countries that aren't
already engaged in hostilities. Our NTM are sufficient for most
strategic recon now. Recon over a battlefield can't start a war
because the war is already in progress. Remember it was Space
Command who wanted sats for Desert Storm that started this whole
thing. My point was that that request was a case of turf battle
and not a military necessity.

Gary

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:04:26 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: DoD launcher use
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>aircraft is low and the cost is much less. The military, like everyone
>>else has to pay attention to costs, even if their threshold is higher
>>than most other users. Wars can be lost by simply running out of money
>>as surely as losing on the battlefield
>
>Then, gary goes on to say...
>
>>. With a serious opponent, your space assets would be priority targets.
>
>So, uh, gary, where are the serious opponents supposed to afford A-SATs? hmm?

The ex-Soviets have a system. Getting into a fight with them would still
be dealing with a serious opponent in my book.

>If you can kill recon planes, it's damn sight harder to kill sats.

In principle no, the sats are predictable, the planes aren't. Putting
some "buckshot" in their orbital path is sufficient to knock them down.
In practice planes probably are easier to down because few countries
have space launch capability while they do have AAA, but most planes
in combat zones aren't shot down, and planes are cheaper than spysats too.

>Furthermore, you assumed that the KH-11 is the benchmark (also known as
>the Szabo yardstick) without the resultant drop in costs which would occur if
>you could rapidly deliver sats to orbit.

Launch costs don't dominate a spysat's cost, at least not one capable of
doing tactical damage assessment. The cost is dominated by the superior
optics required for a orbital spy versus the optics required for an aircraft,
and by the flight control systems required to point the thing at the right
place and compensate for orbital motion and downlink the data. An aircraft's
photorecon equipment is much cheaper because the optics don't have to be as
good because of the lower altitude, the pilot takes care of pointing chores,
and the data is physically returned at the end of the mission.

Gary

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:48:18 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: fast-track failures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Yeah, bad line of argument, most of the systems that made it as far
>>as being assigned a number weren't technical failures even if they
>>were market failures. Actually I was thinking of the P-39 when I
>>wrote that. That aircraft made it into production, but was a dismal
>>failure... This was an example of
>>fast tracking from a prototype to production without working out
>>all the bugs required to make it a practical fighter.
>
>And how long did it take before the P-39 was succeeded by a fast-track
>replacement? And how many generations of fighters did the US go through
>in the next 15 years (the time it takes to develop one fighter today)?
>
>There's a moral here.  Do it fast, do it quick, do it cheap.  Take
>risks and being willing to *accept* an occassional failure.  If a
>project does fail, forget the finger pointing, the blame casting,
>and the Congressional investigations, just get on with the next one.
>Don't put all your eggs in one basket.  And staff your projects with
>competent people motivated by *success*, not failure-oriented "engineers"
>who spend all their time generating cover-your-butt paperwork.

When fighter development from concept to flying prototype cost less
than $100,000, normally funded internally by the company, and took
less than a year, planes were simpler then, that was an acceptable
approach. Now with development costs running into the billions, and
usually taxpayer funded, the financial risks of a failed project have
become too high to take such a cavalier approach.

The P-39 was a dismal failure, but they were able to sell it anyway
in the desperation of the early war years, but Bell wasn't a major
fighter company anymore after that experience. Republic and Lockheed
became the dominant fighter builders for the rest of the war. Giving
your customer a lemon doesn't make him think of lemonaide.

You wouldn't do a cheap and dirty Hoover Dam or Golden Gate bridge
saying that if it failed you'd just shrug and go on to the next
project. Aerospace has become like civil engineering. The costs
of projects, and the effects of failure, have become high enough
that you have to test extensively and have contingency options
when subsystems don't meet their test requirements. You can't
just say "oops" and drop the project if your cables are too thin
to support the weight, or you get a galloping gertie in a breeze.

Gary

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

Date: 17 Dec 92 16:41:37 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: fast-track failures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>You wouldn't do a cheap and dirty Hoover Dam or Golden Gate bridge
>saying that if it failed you'd just shrug and go on to the next
>project. Aerospace has become like civil engineering. The costs
>of projects, and the effects of failure, have become high enough
>that you have to test extensively and have contingency options
>when subsystems don't meet their test requirements. You can't
>just say "oops" and drop the project if your cables are too thin
>to support the weight, or you get a galloping gertie in a breeze.
>
    A quote my dad learned in grad school comes to mind:
"Engineering is built upon the last failure."  Galloping Gertie
is an example of this.  Bridges built since have learned from that
failure.

>Gary

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

Date: 16 Dec 92 18:24:05
From: Craig Powderkeg DeForest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo's atmospheric probe
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <foo> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
   -How does NASA and JPL expect the probe to survive the deceleration? It must
   -be pretty close to slamming into a piece of boilerplate!

   "Smart" artillery shells experience accelerations *much* greater than 350G -
   tens of thousands of gravities might be considered typical.

   Striking an immovable object at even modest velocity also results in
   acceleration greater than 350G.

Agree agree.

If you drop a Timex watch (``takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'\ '') from
a height of 1m onto a cement floor, carefully holding it so it falls flat,
and it stops in 1mm, then it underwent 1000G's of acceleration!


And, being a Timex, it (usually) still works!

We talked about this about a year ago on sci.physics.  Everyday things
undergo a lot more acceleration than we give 'em credit for.

Other examples:  a light aluminum hunting arrow experiences 1000G's on
release from a good compound bow; a car piston with a 10cm stroke
undergoes 900G's at the top and bottom of its stroke, at 3000rpm (and
a whopping 3600 at 6000 rpm!); and dropped personal stereos routinely
take >300 G's and survive.
--
DON'T DRINK SOAP! DILUTE DILUTE! OK!

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

Date: 17 Dec 92 04:30:01 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mars Needs Explanation!2
Newsgroups: sci.space

          Could anyone be so kind as to tell me if there is any literature
          on the morphology of the caldera of the Martian volcano Olympus
          Mons?  A geology student netfriend and I have been trying to find
          some theory for the "wrinkle ridges" on the floor of the oldest
          crater that conform to the shape of the outside scarp.  The same
          sort of thing does not seemed to have evolved in the subsequent
          craters and we were wondering why?

          He has come up with some good explanations (and mercifully
          dispatched a couple of mine,) but we would like to find out what
          the best scientific thought is on the subject (if there is
          _any_.)

          I would have liked to post this to alt.planetary but we here
          at IUPUI have been deemed too delicate for the alt.
          newsgroups.  We might sneak into alt.sex and get the vapors.
          Thomas Freebairn
          p.s. sorry if this has already shown up.  For some reason
          I could not read the text of my first posting where I am.

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

Date: 17 Dec 92 14:31:52 GMT
From: Del Cotter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Tourism
Newsgroups: sci.space

I've dug up a paper by Patrick Collins on this subject.

Author:  Patrick Q. Collins

Title:   STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOW EARTH ORBIT TOURISM

Journal: Space Technology Vol. 9 No. 3 pp. 315-323 1989

Abstract - It is known that the popular demand for
short passenger flights into low Earth orbit would
be significant even at very high prices, and market
research suggests that as the price of such a service
fell towards $10,000, the number of passengers might
grow as high as one million per year.  Such a level
of activity would be very significant for the develop-
ment of the space industry, requiring much higher
launch rates and lower costs than currently envisaged
for other purposes.  If such a service is initiated,
the range of services offered to passengers will develop
progressively through a number of stages as traffic
increases.  The paper considers the sequence of develop-
ments that can be foreseen - from short sub-orbital
space-flights in the early stages, to extended visits to
large-scale orbiting facilities, such as hotels and even
theme parks, some decades later - and discusses certain
features of each stage, as well as some of their
implications for the growth of a commercial space industry.
--
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       [e-mail]      |    ', ,','
     ','      |                                                  |      ','

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

Date: 17 Dec 92 14:18:05 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SSTO Concepts FAQ
Newsgroups: sci.space

 THE SPACE FRONTIER FOUNDATION
ANSWERS 20 QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE DC-X SSTO PROJECT


1. What is the Single-Stage-to-Orbit (SSTO) program?
The goal of the SSTO program is to build a new spaceship that will take off
straight up, fly to orbit without dropping anything off, & that will then land
on its tail on a pillar of fire, not gliding but under power, much like the
rocketships of 1950s science fiction movies.  Because of its improved engines,
high-tech lightweight materials, & airplane-like servicing, a reusable SSTO
could reduce the cost of getting to space by 90% or greater.  Because it will
be certified for flight like an aircraft, it will be able to operate from
spaceports located in any state.

2. What will it look like?
The production model operational SSTO will probably be cone-shaped,
approximately 130 feet high & 40 feet across the base.  It will have 8 or more
rocket engines, providing a safe return if an engine fails, again just like an
airliner.  SSTO will not have wings like Shuttle but will use small movable
flaps to help maneuver.  It will not require strap-on external tanks or
boosters.

3. When will it be flying?
A 1/3rd sized experimental vehicle, the DC-X, is on schedule for its first test
launch in late April, 1993.  A full sized demonstrator capable of reaching
orbit could be ready to fly in the summer of 1997.

4. Where will it fly from?
Test flights will be from White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, but once
production of actual operational SSTO vehicles begins any state in the Union
will be able to have its own spaceport.  Unlike Shuttle, SSTO won't need a long
runway, a huge Vehicle Assembly Building, or a Mission Control building; but
only a 200 foot diameter concrete pad, a maintenance hanger, & a
hydrogen/oxygen propellant facility.  SSTO will navigate using the satellite
signals from the existing Global Positioning System.

5. What will it cost to design & build a full-size SSTO?
The total cost of developing the first SSTO orbital demonstration vehicle will
be about the same as the development cost of a new commercial airliner such as
the Boeing 777 or McDonnell-Douglas MD-12.

6. What will I have to pay to fly on an SSTO?
An orbital tourist trip should cost roughly the same as the cost of a round the
world trip on a cruise ship.

7. How dangerous will it be?
Once fully operational a reusable SSTO will be as safe as flying on a typical
commercial airliner.  In fact, the operational SSTO vehicles that are to be
derived from the orbital demonstrator will be certified by the U.S. Department
of Transportation's Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

8. What about air pollution, especially near the ozone layer?
Unlike Shuttle, SSTO will burn only hydrogen & oxygen.  Its exhaust will
consist primarily of hot but pure water vapor -- the combustion product of
hydrogen & oxygen.

9. What about sonic booms & noise when launching or landing?
When an airplane flies faster than sound it generates a shock wave which we
experience as a sonic boom.  For this reason the Concorde jet is not allowed to
fly supersonically to inland airports in the U.S.  But since SSTO vehicles will
launch straight up, the sonic boom will be limited to the spaceport area.  When
landing an SSTO will slow down to subsonic speed at about 70,000 feet altitude.

10. Who's building SSTO?
Under a Defense Department contact McDonnell-Douglas is leading a team to build
the DC-X, a subscale experimental vehicle which will be flown to validate &
verify some elements of the technology & operations of single stage rockets for
supporting orbital flights.  Based on successful tests of the DC-X during the
spring & summer of 1993, the designs & concept will be available to other
government agencies -- such as NASA -- to develop & demonstrate an SSTO orbital
demonstration vehicle.

11. How much will the SSTO be able to carry?
Two crew members & 10 tons of cargo and/or passengers into low Earth orbit, or
2 crew members & 5 tons of cargo and/or passengers into polar orbit.

12. Will an SSTO be able to fly to the Moon?
An SSTO derivative vehicle, refueled in low Earth orbit, would be able to fly
to the Moon, land there, & return to Earth orbit.

13. How often will the SSTO be able to fly?
The anticipated turn-around will be about 1 day.

14. What if something goes wrong during a flight?
Commercial airplanes don't need all their engines to fly safely; they're
designed that way.  The same principle will be used to design the SSTO.  If
there is an engine malfunction during ascent, an SSTO would be capable of
either continuing on to orbit or returning to base.  If the ship needs to
return from orbit sooner than expected, it will be able to maneuver to spots
over 1200 miles to either side of its landing orbit trajectory.  Unlike
Shuttle, which requires a 3 mile long landing strip, an SSTO will be able to
land on any reasonably flat spot.

15. Why haven't we built a single-stage rocket before?
The reason most rockets, including Shuttle, have parts that drop off (stages)
is this: Every additional pound of vehicle that we lift all the way to orbit
requires additional pounds of fuel.  The additional fuel requires a larger, &
heavier, fuel tank, which then requires even more fuel to carry, & so on.

There are 3 ways to address this problem: 1) Make the rocket so huge (keep in
mind that size correlates to cost) that it can carry enough fuel to lift itself
all the way to orbit; or 2) Toss off empty tanks as you go (the traditional
multi-stage method); or 3) Make your engines so efficient & the vehicle
structure so lightweight that you don't need to carry huge amounts of fuel
and/or you won't need to throw away any pieces of your ship.

The underlying design principle of the SSTO program is to make a structure
lightweight enough to fly single stage to orbit.  Because of the National
AeroSpace Plane program (NASP) & military airplane development programs of the
1980s, we now have industrially available the strong, lightweight materials
that will enable the SSTO concept to work.  (These materials have been
demonstrated in actual use, too.)

16. Why should I believe all these claims for SSTO when similar ones were made
for Shuttle?
The Shuttle's design was "frozen" in the early 1970s.  If we had built a
vehicle like the SSTO's design back then, it could have taken off from New
Mexico & gotten to Greenland, but it would not have been able to reach orbit
(too heavy).  In the 20 years since we have learned a lot about design,
lightweight materials, trajectory optimization, avionics, computers, & engine
design.  (The Shuttle is a multi-stage rocket.)

In addition, SSTO is being designed with supportability & operability as
priority design considerations.  For example, the engines on the SSTO won't be
run at 110% of their design capacity, as the Shuttle's do (only about 80% -- by
design), so unlike the Shuttle's engines, the SSTO's engines won't have to be
torn down & rebuilt before each flight.  If on-board diagnostic instruments
indicate a problem with an SSTO engine or any other component, it is designed
so components (called line replaceable units) can be pulled & replaced quickly
after landing.

17. Why isn't NASA building an SSTO?
In recent years NASA has been mostly focussed on flying the Shuttle & building
Space Station Freedom.  In the meantime, the Defense Department saw an urgent
need to prove the technologies required for SSTO vehicles.  Because SDIO, with
its streamlined management style, is an excellent agency for developing &
demonstrating new technology initiatives, it was given the job of building the
DC-X.  Once the technology demonstration phase is completed, the concept will
be available for either the DoD or NASA to develop, build, & fly an SSTO
orbital demonstration vehicle.

18. Does private industry have a role?
Yes.  McDonnell-Douglas & its SSTO teammates have already made a significant
investment in the basic technologies & the skills & facilities necessary to
develop an SSTO.  Once the orbital demonstration vehicle has been built, these
& other private companies will be able to build & operate commercial-grade SSTO
vehicles so that finally you, the citizen, can buy a ticket into space.

19. What could threaten the success of the SSTO program?
Two things.  The first is money --  lack of it.  Despite the fact the proposed
SSTO program will save the government & taxpayers money by making it cheaper &
easier to get civil & military payloads to space, it is still in danger from a
budget conscious (or unconscious!) Congress.

Most legislators have never even heard of the currently-funded DC-X project,
let alone the benefits of a full-scale SSTO orbital demonstrator & its
follow-on operational vehicles.  Because the program hasn't (yet) been very
visible in the media, some in Congress may feel the program has no real
constituency.

The 2nd threat to SSTO is turf protection.  There are many very powerful
interests involved in the development of old style multi-stage vehicles, such
as Shuttle & the National Launch System.  While these systems do nothing to
accelerate the opening of space, they do keep a lot of people employed & have
friends in Congress who see those jobs as votes & money for the folks back
home.  It's sad that such a revolutionary & common sense idea as SSTO should be
attacked (as it has) by those favoring the old & costly dinosaurs of the past.

We in the Space Frontier Foundation have already helped to save the SSTO
project from such attacks, but we need your help now, for as the project grows
& becomes more visible these entrenched interests will attack again.  If they
succeed your chance of ever entering space will remain science fiction.

20. OK, you've convinced me.  What can I do to help?
The Space Frontier Foundation is committed to opening the space frontier as
quickly as possible.  The SSTO program is one of the best U.S. space projects
to come along in a long time because it offers the possibility of dramatically
lowering the cost of getting people & cargo into space.  Making it possible,
finally, for you to go.

So: Make copies of this flyer & hand 'em out to your friends who want to go,
too.

Second, get on the Foundation mailing list (send us a few bucks to help pay our
costs) & be willing to write letters and/or make calls & faxes to Congress
and/or your newspaper when asked.

Third, if you're a public speaker, published writer, or can help us develop
materials (artwork, graphics, printing) or take on other volunteer projects,
tell us & we'll help you do it.

 JOIN THE SPACE FRONTIER FOUNDATION'S FIGHT FOR CHEAP ACCESS TO SPACE!
Call us at 1-800-78SPACE & leave your address, or write us at the address
below.

SPACE FRONTIER FOUNDATION  1110 NASA Road 1, Suite 103 Houston TX 77058

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

Date: 17 Dec 92 16:00:48 GMT
From: John Thompson Reynolds <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO Concepts FAQ
Newsgroups: sci.space

Just a nit, but SSTO stands for Single Stage To Orbit, and what everybody
has been proposing is Single Stage To Orbit AND return to the ground in
a non-destructive manner.

I suspect that SSTO is considerably easier.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:37:33 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>>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.
>
>Also, for purposes of this discussion, the difference between cost and
>price is relevant.  It's not as if they had any competition; they can,
>and probably do, set prices far above their costs.

    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.

    However, they can only charge what the market will bear, even
if they are the only game in town.  I'f I have to pay $5 Million an
hour, I just might wait for a cheaper way to come along.

>--
>"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:40:49 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>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.
>
    Gee, they must be investing their moeny pretty well then.  The
budget for shuttle operations last year was between $4 and $5 billion.
There were 8 flights.  Hmm, I don't get over $1 Billion a flight.

>
>

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:23:03 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>Also note that the cost of one Shuttle flight is about the same
>>>as the entire DC development program.
>>One Shuttle flight is a bit less than half the projected cost of DCX
>>development to flight test.
>DC-X from concept to end of flight tests costs $60 million. A Shuttle
>flight costs $550 million.
>If you took the cost of a single Shuttle flight, put it in a good
>mutual fund for a year, you would make enough money to pay for the
>entire DC-X and then use the principle to buy the Shuttle flight.

Ok, I remembered you posting a projected SDIO budget figure of $1.2 billion.
So that's not for DCX, but through DCY. According to Wales, the Shuttle
proved in 1985 that it could fly for $170 million with 9 flights a year.
Lower flight rates mean higher per flight costs due to the high fixed
cost, but $550 million would equate to four flights a year. Shuttle is
doing better than that.

Gary

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:47:48 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>No offense but I would like some backing for that.

Oh. Oh. My source is a post by Nick Szabo Sept 19th of last year where
he quotes a Mir Press article on suited time for sale. Since they offered
John Denver a ride for $10 million, this must be out to lunch.

Gary

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:51:48 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>Given that the volumes of fuel to be pumped are nearly the same,
>the low pressure engine will require less powerful pumps.

Ok, that's right. I was assuming a much lower Isp for the low pressure
engine so that much more fuel would be required. Bad assumption.

Gary

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 563
------------------------------