Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO569.TXT

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

Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 05:01:43
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #569
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 19 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 569

Today's Topics:
                          Apollo laser disk
                                Aurora
         DC-X cost figures (was : Terminal Velocity of DCX?)
                 DC vs Shuttle capabilities (3 msgs)
      Did HGA suffer from heat? (Re: : Relay to Follow Galileo?)
                              EVA costs
              First space hotel (was Re: Space Tourism)
             Justification for the Space Program (2 msgs)
                           MOL (and Almaz)
                    Moral argument for exploration
                           Orbit Question?
                          SSTO Concepts FAQ
       Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) (2 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: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:44:53 GMT
From: Bob Niland <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apollo laser disk
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ralph Buttigieg ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Can anyone help on the location of a NTSC CAV format laser disk called
> "Apollo".  Its supposed to cantain just about every moment of the Apollo
> lunar space walks and other stuff.  If you have a suppliers address I
> greatly appreciate it.

I could probably answer questions about the following discs, but except
for "For All Mankind (Rienert, 1989), they are apparently out of print.

For All Mankind (CAV) Voyager V1019L
For All Mankind (CLV) Voyager V1018L

  Both have the complete 78 minute documentary assembled from NASA archives,
  digital surround sound, dual-analog sound (commentary by Reinert).  The
  CAV also has still-frame supplements.

Space Archives:
Vol.1: Space Shuttle STS 5,6,7        (CAV,dual analog) 1983 two sides
Vol.2: Apollo 17                      (CAV,dual analog) 1984 two sides
Vol.3: Mars and Beyond        (CAV,dual analog,Some 3D) 1985 two sides
Shuttle Downlink                      (CAV,dual analog) 1984 two sides
Vol.5: Greetings from Earth  (CAV,stereo & dual analog) 1985 one side
Vol.6: Encounters                          (CAV,stereo) 1986 two sides

  The Space Archive discs were produced by Video Vision Associates (now
  Optical Data Corp) and bear no catalog numbers.  They are rudimentary
  multi-media, containing alternating motion and still sequences.  These
  discs are apparently out of print.  Used copies are worthwhile, as they
  were all manufactured by 3M.

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland      Internet: [e-mail]               3404 East Harmony Road
                CompuServe:  71044,2124               Ft Collins CO 80525-9599

This article represents only the opinion[s] of its author, and is not an
official or unofficial position of, or statement by, the Hewlett-Packard
Company.  The text is provided for informational purposes only.  It is
supplied without warranty of any kind.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:54:33 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Aurora
Newsgroups: sci.space

I think I may have just solved the Aurora question. Attend the following
press release.

Gary
_________________________________________________________________________
Alice Ann Toole
Aurora Flight Sciences Corp., Manassas, Va.
^^^^^^
(Phone:  [phone])


RELEASE:  92-227

HIGH-FLYING PERSEUS RESEARCH AIRCRAFT READY FOR ROLLOUT


    NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin will make the keynote speech
when a high-flying, unpiloted NASA atmospheric research aircraft called
Perseus is unveiled in Manassas, Va., on Dec. 18.

    When Perseus starts to fly science missions in 1994, it will gather
data to improve knowledge on the atmosphere at very high altitudes, including
the possible effect of exhaust emissions from next-generation supersonic
airliners.

    "Perseus is going to be a valuable new tool for many areas of
atmospheric research, especially understanding the processes that control
stratospheric ozone levels, so NASA and industry can produce future supersonic
transports that are both environmentally safe and economically competitive."

    Perseus, designed and built for NASA by Aurora Flight Sciences Corp.,
Manassas, Va., is the first aircraft designed specifically for atmospheric
science.  It will carry up to 110 pounds (50 kilograms) of instruments to a
maximum altitude of 82,000 feet (25 kilometers).

    Much of Perseus' technology derives from sport aviation and the record-
breaking Daedalus human-powered aircmodeled on the Daedalus design, which had
excellent aerodynamic performance.  The plane is made of lightweight composite
materials, much like sailplanes or gliders.

    Perseus' engine is based on the 4-cycle, 4-cylinder Rotax engine that
powers ultralight aircraft around the world, but is highly modified to burn a
mixture of gasoline and oxygen diluted by recirculated exhaust gas.  Aurora
developed the engine under a $500,000 NASA Small Business Innovation
Research grant.

    Perseus also is breaking new ground in other technologies like the
onboard computer which will guide many of its flights using preprogrammed
flight plans. The autopilot will keep track of the plane's location via signals
from the Global Positioning System constellation of navigation satellites.

    NASA has ordered two Perseus aircraft from Aurora Flight Sciences.
Successful research missions by the planes could lead to more general use of
advanced unpiloted aircraft for Earth science studies.

    "Perseus is not only going to do science to improve the environment,
but also is building an important new industry for the future," said Aurora
Flight Sciences President John Langford.  "It is key to a new generation of in
situ measurement platforms that will lead to discoveries in areas such as
atmospheric science, global warming and the forecasting of severe storms."

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:07:41 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X cost figures (was : Terminal Velocity of DCX?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> pgf@.cacs.usl.edu.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:

>Sooner or later someone is bound to try to use CAD/CAM and sophisticated
>materials to lower costs instead of to increace them.

The problem is, the same computer technology that allows you to
do CAD/CAM also allows you to run massive COBOL applications to
micromanage the entire project from Washington, DC.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:21:04 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:


>    I think we differ big-time when it comes to DC-1.  Allen seems
>to me to be saying, "Things will work out, and this is how it will be."
>I think that is the attitude that bothers me the most.  That is the
>exact same thign that was said with the Shuttle.

What bothers me is the attitude that, "If NASA couldn't do it,
nobody can."

Okay, NASA built one airplane, the Shuttle, that doesn't work
very well.

Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, and other companies quite
regularly build airplanes as advanced and complex as the Space
Shuttle (the Shuttle has 6 main computers, the B-757 has over
200) that work quite well.

This does not suggest, to me, that NASA is so all-efficient
and omnicompetent that if they can't do it, no one can.

If anything, it suggests the project will work as long as
you keep NASA the hell away from it.


>Also, I believe that Henry pointed out
>that it ieasier to do a direct re-entry than a return to orbit.  (I can't
>recall why, and wasn't clear at the time I read it, so I may be wrong.)
>If so, will you have enough fuel to do this.

"Easier," in this context, means more economical in terms of fuel.
If you have enough fuel to return to orbit, you have more than
enough for direct reentry.

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

Date: 18 Dec 1992 18:05:06 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>the availability of lunar oxygen and perhaps hydrogen will greatly reduce
>>that cost.
>Oxygen, definitely.  But even if discover water ice on the Moon,
>I don't think hydrogen will be plentiful enough that you'd want
>to throw it away at the rate rocket engines do.



Given that the current alternative is to haul hydrogen up from earth,
we dont seem to have much choice.  either someone needs to develope
really good ion thrusters or we are gonna have to lasso a comet
in to LEO  or pay through the nose everytime someone needs a drink
in space.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:02:04 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:

>    Gee, thanks for the snide answer.  Now, my original point was
>on rendezvous and repair.  So, now we have to get 3 objects in close
>proximity to each other.  You've just made the problem at least 50%
>tougher.  And now you have to transfer between craft.  More
>difficuly.

Last time I flew back into DFW, I saw more than three planes on
the ground, in close proximity to one another.  I saw people and
baggage being transferred between flights.   Looks do-able.


>>That's what tankers are for.

>    Again, another craft.

I saw a *lot* of airplanes at DFW.


>    Hint, they are flying.  You are talking about a paper=airplane
>and saying it will do all this and more.  I'm saying, build it, fly it,
>and see what happens.

I thought that was what we were doing.


>    Right, that works fine once you've built your power-plant
>on the moon.  I'm talking at first.  It seems to me that someone
>here is forgetting the middle step of testing and flying the thing.

See above.

There's a difference between "testing and flying the thing"
and standing on the sidelines hurling spitballs.

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

Date: 18 Dec 92 11:14:01 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Did HGA suffer from heat? (Re: : Relay to Follow Galileo?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <roelle.724695444@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
> Is there a possiblity that, despite Galileo's HGA parasol, solar heat
> could have still been a factor in its failure to deploy?  Especially
> when one considers that for the nine successful deployments out of
> ten, cited above, every corresponding spacecraft never left earth
> orbit, while Galileo got as close to the sun as the planet Venus.

My guess: No.  Good question, but also a very obvious one (launch was
in October 1989, Venus encounter February 1990, HGA attempt April
1991).  I would presume that the Galileo people investigated this idea
very thoroughly, although I don't have first-hand knowledge about
their inquiries.

They've never publicly suggested that solar heat was involved in the
problem, so I presume they have reason to be satisfied that the cause
lies elsewhere.  Their best guess is loss of lubricant between the
alignment pins on the ribs and the sockets on the central mast,
possibly due to excessive vibration as Galileo was trucked  to
California from the Cape and back again after modifications.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
Fermilab                          | until I write the song
Bitnet:      [e-mail]  | that makes the guys in Detroit
Internet:  [e-mail]  | who draw the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:35:25 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: EVA costs
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) 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.
>
>-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.
>
>per hour. Don't the EVA suits have a certain maximum number of hours they
>can be used per flight?

Some Russian suits have been limited to about 10 EVA's (with suited up
time about 7-8 hours maximum each). When Artsebarski(sp?) had his
problem with fogging on an EVA the press noted that that suit was
on is 14th EVA and no longer considered under 'warranty'. I think
they literally threw out those suits sometime after that, but don't hold
me to that story because I don't have my notes with me to confirm that
sequence of events.

The cost of each Mir guest flight is negotiated individually and can
vary based on the activities. The French have done an EVA and are
the only foreign visitors to do so. I don't believe they paid much more
if any than their previous missions, even though that one lasted a month.
Of course the French were a very valued and trusted customer at that time
as they still are. A visiting mission generally costs about $10-15
million, of course there are exceptions like the Juno flight which
apparently never paid up in full. Also, I expect variations in the
exchange rate might have some unusual effects. So, to determine what
the NPO Energia would charge for an EVA is very difficult without really
being ready to propose a mission plan.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: 18 Dec 92 11:33:38 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: First space hotel (was Re: Space Tourism)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Del Cotter) writes:
>>
>> It wasn't Duncan (though he was there) but Patrick Collins, of the
>> School of Management, Imperial College.
>
> More of interest, Pat is working on *Space Tourism* in Japan.
>
> Guess who'll have the furst space hotel?

It will be owned by Japanese corporations.

But the staff will be British.

(Hey, Dave, if jobs are tight in astronomy, you could get a job as
concierge.  And do astronomy in your off hours, in the hotel's parking
lot...)

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Enough marshmallows
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | will kill you
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | if properly placed."
Internet:       [e-mail]  | --John Alexander, leader of
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | "disabling technologies"
 [*Aviation Week*, 7 Dec 1992, p. 50]  | research, Los Alamos

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:18:37 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Robert Williams) writes:

>I read an article in the British Interplanetary Society Journal about
>a guy named Forrester (or was it Fisher?) at MIT who had done some
>predictive world modelli, tracking several variables like population,
>pollution, natural resource usage, standard of living, etc. Some of
>his assumptions may have been...incorrect, buI didn't see anything
>that looked grossly unreasonable. He projected the world 500 years
>into the future toee what trends we could expect (yeah yeah, I know
>don't trust computer numbers at first glance, especially extrapolations
>that far in the future, but even with that caveat, the numbers are
>scary).
>
>Assuming we do nothing to change our ways, and do not expand into space,
>in about 100 years society will start to decline, as pollution, over-
>population and dwindling natural resources take their toll. In 300
>years we will have entered a new Dark Age from which it is extermely
>unlikely that we will escape. Our resources will be so scant that they
>will not be able to support our technology base, and the environment
>will be so poisoned that we'll have a hard time feeding ourselves.
>Forrester's model projected a world population of just under a billion
>(stable) and a standard of living worse than during the middle ages.
>
>Assuming we recycle everything we can, drastically cut our birth rate,
>conserve natural resources and enact stiff environmental protection
>laws, all we can do is forstall the inevitable. I think, though, that
>we can last another 1500 years or so before The Crash.



This is all *so* ludicrous.  You are refering to results from the
infamous "Limits To Growth" study.  It's been widely disparaged as so
simplified as to be useless (for example, aggregating all "pollution"
into a single variable.)  It's propaganda masquerading behind computer
models.

Much more believable results have been obtained by actually studying
specific resources here on earth.  When you do that, and when you take
into account technological improvements, the idea that things are
going to necessarily go to hell just evaporates.

The 1500 year figure you present is a figment of your imagination.
Come on -- technology is going to be rather different by the time the
year 3500 rolls around, space exploration or not.  You can't possibly
have any idea what technology will be like even 100 years down the
road, let alone 1500.

The fundamental limit to resource exploitation is imposed by
availability of energy, and space exploitation is *not* needed to get
essentially inexhaustible supplies of that.

The argument *against* spending money on unprofitable space activities
is that our descendants would be better off if we spent the money on
capital formation here on earth, so that they will be more prosperous
(and, if they like, go into space).  We are able to launch rockets now
not because the Victorians wanted to go the moon, or because they sent
explorers to Antarctica, but because they had the industrial revolution.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:22:22 GMT
From: Michael Robert Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space

I love being asked this question, especially by people who are
against the space program for reasons like "we have people starving
in the streets..."

I read an article in the British Interplanetary Society Journal about
a guy named Forrester (or was it Fisher?) at MIT who had done some
predictive world modelli, tracking several variables like population,
pollution, natural resource usage, standard of living, etc. Some of
his assumptions may have been...incorrect, buI didn't see anything
that looked grossly unreasonable. He projected the world 500 years
into the future toee what trends we could expect (yeah yeah, I know
don't trust computer numbers at first glance, especially extrapolations
that far in the future, but even with that caveat, the numbers are
scary).

Assuming we do nothing to change our ways, and do not expand into space,
in about 100 years society will start to decline, as pollution, over-
population and dwindling natural resources take their toll. In 300
years we will have entered a new Dark Age from which it is extermely
unlikely that we will escape. Our resources will be so scant that they
will not be able to support our technology base, and the environment
will be so poisoned that we'll have a hard time feeding ourselves.
Forrester's model projected a world population of just under a billion
(stable) and a standard of living worse than during the middle ages.

Assuming we recycle everything we can, drastically cut our birth rate,
conserve natural resources and enact stiff environmental protection
laws, all we can do is forstall the inevitable. I think, though, that
we can last another 1500 years or so before The Crash.

However, if you assume that we behave like our normal selfish selves,
BUT expand into space to a) dump our garbage, b) prospect for resources
c) find someplace to live, and d) house our dirty industries, then in
500 years time, according to the models, we can be living in a golden age
of plenty and wealth, able to support a population roughl5 times
what it is now with a standard of living much higher than it is now.

Now for the bad news. If we delay space utilizatn for 50 years, at
that point we will have passed the point of no return; at that point
we will not be able to afford (in terms oscarce resources, manpower,
industry, etc) to save ourselves, and the Big Crash gets us anyway.

Now, was Forrester a visionary or Malthusian-doomsayer? I d't know,
nor do I care. Much like Descarte's argument for why you should worship
God, even if you don't believe in him, I think we should pay attention
to Forrest, because I would hate to find out the hard way that he
was right.

I'm going to be out of town for the next month; e-mail flames, comments,
etc. and I'll get back to you when I can.

In Real Life:Mike Williams     | Perpetual Grad Student
e-mail      :[e-mail]|   - It's not just a job, it's an indenture
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you ever have a world of your own, plan ahead- don't eat it." ST:TNG

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:18:17 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: MOL (and Almaz)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hartmut Frommert) writes:
>[e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>>You heard wrong.  One MOL flew (unmanned).
>
>Could somebody provide data ?

A mockup station (really just empty Titan tankage somewhat similar in
size to a real station) and the first test capsule (which I believe
was the refitted Gemini 2 capsule (with the new hatch in the heatshield)
were launched around 1970.
Spaceflight magazine did a good history on MOL many years ago.  The flight
was interesting since during launch the second stage first put the Gemini
capsule on a suborbital trajectory to test the heatshield during reentry,
then the second stage continued to place the mockup station in orbit
along with some sub-satellites later ejected from the mockup, or something
like that.

MOL also helped prompt the Russian Almaz military station program which
ran from the late 60's up to the mid 80's.  Almaz was originally to
consist of a station (like eventually flew as Salyut 2,3,5) with a
Star Module (TSK) type reentry capsule.  To launch cosmonauts to
the station Cheif Designer Chemoley also wanted to use his TSK (which
later flew as Kosmos 929,1267,1443,1868). His project was cut down
to using Korolev's Soyuz for transport and removing the large capsule
from the station (leaving just a small film return capsule).  These
stations were flown in the 1970's (Salyut 2,3,5).  The Korolev KB was
able to reuse much of Chelomey's station design in Salyut 1 (DOS) and later
stations. Now, the basic TSK design is reused for Mir modules Kvant 2,
Kristall, etc... The long mysterious Kosmos 881/882, 997/998, 1100/1101
dual launches once associated with space planes are now reported to be
test flights of 2 TSK capsules.

A new larger 35,000 kg. Almaz station was proposed for use
in the 1980's to continue the military program but it was cancelled.
The last military space station missions planned apparently were the
Pion missions where were to use the Kosmos 1686 attached to Salyut 7.

MOL may not be considered a successful program, but it did help prompt
quite a reaction from the Soviets and gave their civilian program
a lot of useful designs to build on.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 17:34:46 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moral argument for exploration

Judy MacMillan asks:
>>|>    Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>>|>    for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>>|>    program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>>|>    pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.

The jobs argument is a fallacy.  The money the government spends, which
eventually creates jobs, could just as easily have been spent by the
people it was taken from, which would have created just as many jobs.
To further erode this argument, consider that the gov., since it gets
it's money from tax-payers, rather than customers, can spend it on things
that don't make any money.  I.E., the money goes up in smoke, instead
of going on to create more wealth, which is better for all, and leads
to even more job creation.

John sez:
>How about, "If we want to avoid the fate of the dinosaurs, at some time in the
>future (never mind that it might not be in OUR lifetimes), then we better
>get something up there that can track every asteroid, and comet.  Better yet,
>we better build something that can deflect one of these at some time in the
>future."

I like this argument.  I'll remeber it for use on child-bearing people.

Jahred sez:
>Sure.  Very easy.  How about, "Where do we go now?"  We've
>been everywhere on this planet, it's time to start exploring
>everything else in the universe.  Let's go see what's on Mars,
>or the moons of Jupiter.

This may be (I think it is) a good reason to go into space, but it is
not a moral justification, simply because there may be some people who
could care less about exploration, and you won't have convinced them
that their tax money is well spent by this endeavor.  It isn't moral
to take another's money to spend on something not in their interests.
(It's even worse to convince them that it's in their interests, when
it might not be.  We called that propaganda, when Soviets did it.)
That's why John's argument is a moral justification, right up there
with police, courts, fire departments, and a military.

Also, if exploration is part of our irrepressible nature, we don't need
to spend gov bucks on it.  It'll happen regardless.  You could argue,
in fact, that if the gov. wasn't hampering private-sector investment
so much, with confiscatory taxation, a tax-code that punishes some
types of investment, and investment in dead-end enterprises, we would
already have a healthy space-infrastructure, due to our exploratory
drive.

One more possible argument, though also not strictly a moral justification,
is that there are potentially limitless resources up there, and we
should risk a little capital to find out if they can be used or not.

-Tommy Mac
------------------------------===========================================
Tom McWilliams               |Is Faith a short '  `      '   *.;     +%
[e-mail]       |cut for attaining    +    .      '
[phone] -or- 353-2986 |  . knowledge? ;"'       ,'    .   '     .
a scrub Astronomy undergrad  |      *     ,    or is it just  .       .
at Michigan State University |   ';   '        * a short-circuit?   ,
------------------------------===========================================

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

Date: 18 Dec 1992 18:32:55 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbit Question?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom A Baker) writes:
>>11 and a half north of it.  Very efficient.  I wonder why the Canadians
>>don't lease time on the CIS's satellites?
>Canada doesn't do much in the far Arctic, where Clarke-orbit satellites
>are impractically low on the horizon, so we don't really have the need
>for the extra complexities of moving satellites.



Also, I believe canada does not do much over the pole telecoms stuff.
The US relatively has more phone circuits to Moscow.  I know
a number of US companies are bidding for Soviet transponders because
there is insufficent bandwidth to the CIS and a number of those birds
are good for comms work to asia.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:13:09 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO Concepts FAQ
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Thompson Reynolds) writes:


>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.

Yes, a single-stage launcher was proposed to place the
first US satellite in orbit, but Vanguard (and, later,
Redstone) were selected instead.

Atlas, which orbited the United States' first manned
spacecraft, was stage-and-a-half.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:04:28 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>HE indulged in creative accounting?  I think the contract for DC-X was $58
>million, not a "couple hundred million."

That sounds right.  McDAC has also spent some of its own money in
addition to what it got from the Air Force.  I believe the contract
required McDAC to spend at least an equal amount, so that puts it
into the hundred-million-dollar range.  *Not* the billion-dollar
range.


>The average total cost of a shuttle mission is a little over $500 million
>not a billion+.

Only if you learned math from the "Hitchhiker's Guide."


Divide the amount of money NASA spends on the Space Shuttle program
every year by six flights per year.

$500 million ain't even close.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:12:44 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>According to Wales, the Shuttle proved in 1985 that it could fly for
>$170 million with 9 flights a year.

Oh?  How did it "prove" that?

a) The total Space Shuttle operating and development budget for 1985
was cut back to $1.53 billion, and the Shuttle managed to fly nine
missions in that year, or

b) Wales did a *lot* of creative accounting?


>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.

Or a lot worse.  The Shuttle program consumes much more than $2.2 billion
per year.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 569
------------------------------