Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO586.TXT

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

Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 05:08:36
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #586
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 23 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 586

Today's Topics:
                             Acceleration
             ASTM, Saturn and MOL (Was Re: MOL) (2 msgs)
                 DC vs Shuttle capabilities (3 msgs)
             Justification for the Space Program (5 msgs)
 Lunar Resource Mapper Status (Was Re: funding for Lunar Prospector)
                        Shuttle thermal tiles
       Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) (3 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: 22 Dec 92 22:04:05 GMT
From: _Floor_ <[e-mail]>
Subject: Acceleration
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
] That applies to things that are somewhat resiliant (like humans with their
] limbs not locked), because if deformation continues throughout the period
] of acceleration, then the entire body is not really subjected to the full
] acceleration. (For another example, putting rubber feet or a springy internal
] suspension in a piece of equipment can greatly reduce the maximum shock if
] you drop it.)

Hmmm...you think maybe rigidity has something to do with this?
If something is rigid, it is much more likely to break than something
flimsy, which will bend.  Electronics certainly canot be built in
a manner that will bend. Any flexing of the probe would have to
be somehow accounted for in the design.

] But other than that, and factors such as prolonged stress on human hydraulic
] systems, the greater problem can be with rapid changes in acceleration, which
] are of course associated with short bursts of acceleration. (I believe the
] usual term for the time derivative of acceleration is "jerk".) These rapid
] changes can cause very high internal stresses that are not found with slow,
] steady increases in acceleration.
]
] Just as an example, compare your body lying in a bed with a downward
] acceleration of one gravity, or being clamped in a device that repeatedly
] shakes your body back and forth, with a maximum acceleration of half a gravity.
] Which do you think would be likely to place more stress on your body, and
] which would be quicker to cause discomfort? :-)
]
] John Roberts

You're joking me if you think the Galileo probe will experience constant
deceleration. There's going to be buffeting worse than we could imagine,
I imagine (:-). Especially at speeds many times that of sound (which I'm
sure will be different for the Jovian atmosphere)! So you're point is
very applicable. Experiencing this jolting for milliseconds (as per
a dropping watch) may not cause any damage. But if you dangled the watch
from the ceiling and proceeded to place a jackhammer at its face,
slamming into its face for a couple of minutes, liklihood is that
the watch will no longer function! Ditto for an atmospheric probe.
That thing is going to get one whale of a beating. You've helped me
emphasize my point even more! Thanks :-)


  _____    "But you can't really call that a dance. It's a walk." - Tony Banks
 /  ___\  ___  __ ___   ___      _____________   [e-mail]
 | / __  / _ \ | /   \ / _ \     |  physics  |   [e-mail]
 | \_\ \ | __/ |  /\ | | __/     |racquetball|   [e-mail]
 \_____/ \___/ |_| |_| \___/     | volleyball|   [e-mail]
 Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball

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

Date: 22 Dec 1992 14:15 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ASTM, Saturn and MOL (Was Re: MOL)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>>>You heard wrong.  One MOL flew (unmanned).
>>>Could somebody provide data ?
>>
>>According to a friend of mine who was a MOL engineer.  One MOL flew
>>Manned.  only it was called ASTP.
>
>He's pulling your leg.  ASTP involved one Apollo, one Soyuz, and a docking
>module.  The docking module might perhaps have inherited a bit of technology
>from MOL, but no way was it a MOL.  For one thing, it was a fraction of the
>size.
>--

I think the poster is talking about  the ASTM (Apollo Space Telescope Mount)
From what I remember reading about the Skylab construction, some MOL elements
were used for the ASTM.

Also I have been doing some sleuthing and have found a few details abou the
Saturn I series. There is actually three distinct vehicles in the Saturn I
series. The Saturn C-1 was basically a 2 stage vehicle that used the Centaur
first generation as its second stage. I do not know yet whether this is the
six engine configuration Henry talked about or not.

Then there is the Saturn 1. This beast had several changes relative to the C-1.
This including adding the fins that you see on the televised Saturn 1 launches.
This vehicle had the stage mentioned before, whether a six engine centaur or
whatever, and the Command and service module as the payload to to a suborbital
trajectory. This combination was unable to boost the 45,000 lbs CSM to orbit.

Finally there is the famous Saturn 1B that carried the manned Apollo CSM/LM to
orbit. This configuration also carried the Saturn V, SIVB stage, which is the
third stage of full up Saturn V. This combination was able to boost the
full Saturn V payload to LEO altitude of 105 nautical miles. This is the booster
that was used for the Apollo 7 mission. I forget whether it was used for
Apollo 9 or whether that was a full up Saturn V. All of the Skylab Apollo manned
craft and the Apollo Soyuz Test Project used the Full up Saturn 1B. Remember
that the ASTP mission carried a Apollo CSM (45,000 lbs), the docking module
(15,000 lbs?) into the 51 degree Soyuz orbit. Not bad, Titan IV today could not
do that. Environmentally friendly too, relative to the Titan SRB's.

I will post more information as I get it or dig it up

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville.

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:52:56 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ASTM, Saturn and MOL (Was Re: MOL)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>craft and the Apollo Soyuz Test Project used the Full up Saturn 1B. Remember
>that the ASTP mission carried a Apollo CSM (45,000 lbs), the docking module
>(15,000 lbs?) into the 51 degree Soyuz orbit. Not bad, Titan IV today could not
>do that. Environmentally friendly too, relative to the Titan SRB's.

Another fun fact: Saturn 1B development was only $3.4 billion 1986 dollars
compared to the Shuttle which cost over ten times as much to develop ($34.7
1986 dollars).

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:26:00 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[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."

From a technical point of view I am saying that a fully reusable SSTO

vehicle carrying a reasonable payload (10 to 20 K pounds) and operational
costs of $10 to $29 million per flight *CAN* be built with available
technology. I also believe that operational costs can drop to $1 to $5
million range if utilization is high enough.

I believe this partly from my own assessment and the fact that every
assessment done has concluded that it is possible. Even the internal
NASA assessment say it can be done and that it could save billions.

Now this doesn't mean that DC-Y WILL work. The biggest problems however
are managerial, not technical. Using conventional government procurement,
it will be impossible to build SSTO. Using a commercial like process however
should work.

>I think that is the attitude that bothers me the most.  That is the
>exact same thign that was said with the Shuttle.

That is a point well taken. It should tell people that we need to be
very careful and make sure we learn from the mistakes of the Shuttle.

There is every indication that the DC development team is doing exactly
that. Shuttle pushed technology everywhere from engines to tiles; DC
emphasises existing technology. Shuttle was designed as a complex
vehicle; DC is designed to be simple. Shuttle was to be *THE* spaceship
forever and ever; DC is A spaceship, first of many. Shuttle has four
sets of engines using three different fuels; DC has two sets of engines
using the same fuel (even the same tank).

If your going to say it can't be done just because Shuttle failed is
to fail to learn from history. It also condems us to sacrificing the
final frontier to protect government pork.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 22 Dec 92 22:12:52 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>The key words in your rebuttal are "...neither one is in contact
>with the Earth."  Exactly.  I can't just "walk" from a DC-10 in
>flight to a 747.  I can't just "walk" from a DC-1 to another
>DC-1 in flight either.

You can walk from one place to another carrying a four-ton
cargo container?  On Earth?  I doubt it.


>Ever note how careful NASA is when it sends astronauts on EVA.

About as careful as divers probably were when logging
the first hundred man-hours on the first aqualungs.

Ever note how many recreational divers there are today?


>They make sure they are somehow securred to the shuttle
>or the RMS so that they don't accidently drift off.

Divers can drift off, too.  And they have to worry
a *lot* more about sharks. :-)

The difference is, we've spent, probably, millions
of hours perfecting SCUBA techniques and hundreds
of hours on EVA.


>And as for tranfering fuel while under way, my naval
>knowledge is less, but I don't know too many groups of people
>other than the military that do fuel transfers while in
>motion.  It's generally a whole lot easier to come to a
>dock, or at least anchor in calm water.

So why do you assume that anyone who does inspace refueling
will try to do it "under weigh" instead of docking first?

Oh, I forgot, we're assuming that the pilots are stupid. :-)


>>We aren't talking air-to-air refueling either.  In-space refueling
>>does not require split-second timing, only hooking up the hoses
>>properly.

>    Only.  Given the current understanding I have of DC-1,
>(and please, correct me wrong if I am) there is no mechanism
>for a drogue or probe.

And the C-130's design didn't include cabbages.  That doesn't
mean that if you needed cabbages someplace, you couldn't use
the Herky bird to haul 'em there.

Cargo planes are versatile.


>    Now, one way I see around this is to redesign the DC-1
>so that two can accomplish a hard-docking of some sort.

What makes you think a DC-1 can't accomplish a hard docking.

McDAC has artist's conceptions showing a DC-1 docked to
space station Freedom.  That should tell you something.



>>>    No, some people are telling me, DC-1 will do this, do that, and
>>>hey, we can add this, we can add that... it's all going to be easy.
>>>I'ms aying, "sounds good, but prove it."
>>
>>Again, I thought that was what we are doing.
>>
>    Sorry, but to me, and some others, it sounds like some
>people ahere are trying to skip the prove it step and say, "take
>our word for granted."

No, we're being misquoted.  What we actually said was, "Lead,
follow, or get the hell out of the way."

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:08:31 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>    Let's handle baggage transfer.  On the ground, you have gravity
>and the surface.  You can walk/carry/drive between two planes... But in
>space, you don't have something nice like the ground to use.

So, you think that gravity makes bagger transfer easier?  Would you
like to carry my suitcases next time I'm at the airport?


>    As for manevouring the 3 craft in close proximity, I partly
>agree with you.  It is easier than doing it in the air.  However,
>you do have three craft now all with somewhat different velocity
>vectors.

Only if you assume that the pilots are *stupid*.  Otherwise, they'll
match velocity vectors and soft- or hard-dock first.


>    I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it won't be done.
>Simply that some thought and PRACTICE will have to go into it.

You think God told Adam and Eve how to refuel a 747?

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 19:23:37 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Toland) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>We WILL end up off-planet. However, this process will be a series of small
>>evolutionary steps, rather than Absolutely-Positively-Overnight URGENCY
>>which Dennis insists IS necessary.
>>
>>Let's cut the crap here, and speak frankly. IF we needed to run out to the
>>Great Beyond to save our butts, we COULD do it.
>
>Do you *really* believe this?  If we had 12 months notice, we could
>remove enough people for a self-sustaining colony to another body,
>even the moon, before a comet-earth collision?

If we had 12 months notice, we'd nuke the friggin' comet to little pieces.
And have time left over to enjoy the cosmic fireworks.

Of course, the astronomers won't be too happy with the disruption, but you
can't keep everyone happy :-)

I can give you three examples of what we CAN do if we NEED to do it:

    1) From basic physics to a nuclear weapon in under 5 years

        (Manhattan Project, United States, $1 billion est. cost)

    2) "To land a man on the moon, and return him ... safely to the earth"

        Apollo. And this was working on a budget which had to fight
        with Great Society programs and the Vietnam war expenditures.

    3) The elimination of smallpox from the face of the earth.

        Many nations, a shoestring budget, fighting various
        social and political battles.

Anything which collectively threatened the safety of the planet would result
in a collective response.

Start a war or declare any other "real" emergency and see what happens when you
let people get the job down.

>>We don't NEED to do it. And we can do a whole hell of a lot more in improving
>>the quality of life for all mankind in our own backyards before we step up and
>>off the planet.
>
>Do you have 20-20 premonition?  I'm not going to claim that we have 50
>years, no more and no less, or lose the chance forever.  But there are
>large chunks of matter flying through the solar system.  Not all of them
>have been mapped yet.  And from time to time, big pieces do hit other
>big pieces, including the earth.  It could be a million years or more
>until we get hit by one large enough to send civilization back to cave
>dwellers or worse, or it could happen next year.  Our sun could produce
>a major killing flare, or a star in this section of the galaxy may have
>already gone supernova,and we're just waiting for the wavefront.

You could also get into a major pileup on the highway and die tomorrow!!!

If the sun or some other star goes supernova, we're screwed regardless, no
matter how hard we try. It's called "Unwinnable scenario." You're supposed to
yell "The sky is falling!!!" after you say that.

>Now we could sit on our collective butts and wait for a crisis (maybe
>even create one ourselves), or we could struggle to spread our species
>far enough that no one disaster will eliminate us.  I for one dislike
>gambling, and the stakes in this case are terrifying.  The sooner
>we start, the better our chances.

You left out the phrase "Cosmic Jihad" cuz that's what it sounds like. A
religious belief which ain't going to get the job done for Joe Six-pack to
support you.

>I also maintain that a working space program would introduce new
>technologies and generally stimulate a lackluster economy, to the
>benefit of all.

I maintain that we could get a lot more research done if we killed the
super-dooper collider in Texas and put the $8-10 billion into basic research
grants into materials science, biotechnology, superconducters, and alternate
energy sources. To the benefit of all.

*yawn* Next zealot?

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:20:44 GMT
From: Brad Whitehurst <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Toland) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>We WILL end up off-planet. However, this process will be a series of small
>>evolutionary steps, rather than Absolutely-Positively-Overnight URGENCY
>>which Dennis insists IS necessary.
>>
>>Let's cut the crap here, and speak frankly. IF we needed to run out to the
>>Great Beyond to save our butts, we COULD do it.
>
>Do you *really* believe this?  If we had 12 months notice, we could
>remove enough people for a self-sustaining colony to another body,
>even the moon, before a comet-earth collision?
>
>>We don't NEED to do it. And we can do a whole hell of a lot more in improving
>>the quality of life for all mankind in our own backyards before we step up and
>>off the planet.
>
    Actually, I think my original point, to which Doug (first
respondee) was responding can still stand.  I wasn't talking about
space mining, or asteroid watches, or power stations.  Simply having
people "go where no man has gone before," while hackneyed to some, is
very valuable in my eyes.  Very little immediate material benefit
comes from frontiersmen (relative to the society as a whole), and
almost never have they found exactly what they expected, but it gives
both immediate social benefit (IMO) and, before long, material benefit
has always streamed from the frontier, in one form or another.  I
don't see exploration as an emergency necessity, nor do I think we can
postpone it until we have "taken care of things on Earth" first.
Asteroidal or supernova catastrophes would be nearly impossible to
prevent (at least in the near future), and I submit that "improving
the quality of life" here is a continuous struggle that will never,
practically speaking, be fully achieved.  Plus, I see no reason why
the struggle here precludes exploration.  However, the ardent
advocates of exploration, and even the occasional fanatic, are needed
to help galvanize the effort against social inertia, both from the
flat-earthers and general apathy.  Otherwise, sooner or later, we'll
likely just smother ourselves (and the planet) in our own stink.
Then, maybe the next species (whatever it be) will get a shot!
    N.B.: this is all my own opinion, so if netheads want
"proof"...screw'em!
--

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
[e-mail] |   We like it hot...and fast.

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

Date: 22 Dec 1992 14:41 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes...
>
[ Pauls's beliefs delted]

>    Paul F. Dietz
>    [e-mail]

I will no longer debate you on this subject. You have your "opinions", which
is all your responses to date have been, and I have mine. You work for your
worldview and we will work for ours.

You speak of quasi-religiousness when the exact same thing can be said of your
asserations. Any statment based not upon fact is faith. It is interesting that
I just an hour ago listened to a tape of Dr. Ernst Sthulinger (Chief Scientist
of the Von Braun team say about the Apollo moon missions. He said that
many did not believe that a trip to the moon was possible. The triump of Apollo
for the team is that what they always for decades had faith and believed were
possible, was accomplished.

I happen to see the future in the same light. It is a faith, I freely admit that
faith in the positive aspects of the future has driven most of the advance
of our civilization. If you do not see this or cannot understand that, this is
your right. Do not simply disparage what you do not see or refuse to understand.

I have work to do. I live in the real world. If you actually think things are
getting better from a world perspective then you are truly blind. This is
a simple fact, not a flame.

Good day, good luck, and let us all work for our future.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

>

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

Date: 22 Dec 1992 14:49 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George Coleman) writes...
>>for every dollar spent in space there is an estimated 7 dollar return in
>> space spin offs.
>
>I have read this many times in nasa releases and every time it struck a sour
>chord.  If there is that much return on technical research than it sounds like
>the market is in great demand.  Simple supply and demand would then dictate
>that many firms would try to fill this demand.  Call me strange but I trust the
>market more than I trust press release from a government agency.  If this were
>realy true than there should be a *private* firm raking in a bundle of money.
>To save so time and net space I will knock down the obvious straw man.

[stuff deleted]

>Ed Colmeman

Ed this is not NASA propaganda but from the Wall Street Times somtime in 1989.
This has also been repeated in studies by Forbes magazine. These are hardly
government propaganda arms. This is measured by the total effect of the
technology in question to the national economy, not simply the profit margin
on a particular project or product. So save your time and don't set up a
straw man to overthrow a single statment by someone on the net here. The
activities of the space program effect you every single day in more ways than
any of us realize. In previous centuries it was always military confilict and
the advance of military technology that moved civilization forward. Steel
ships from the American civil war, gunpowder, transportation in the form
of roads form Roman armies also opened up Roman trade. This is called the
multiplier effect, and is just as effective when applied to the space program
as it is to military expenditures. The positive aspect of this is that we
don't have to fight a war to get the benefits.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 22 Dec 92 21:55:53 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>I have read this many times in nasa releases and every time it struck a sour
>>chord. [spinoffs]

>Ed this is not NASA propaganda but from the Wall Street Times somtime in 1989.

So what? The same can be said for any research. A huge research program to
genetically engineer human intestinal bacteria to make flatulence smell
like spearmint would have a similar effect. Spinnoffs sells research in
general, not space research.

BTW, the Annenberg foundation did some focus group studies on the population
attitudes to space. They found people totally unimpressed with the spin-
off arguement. What DID strike a chord was the idea that they as individuals
may be able to participate and even go. My own experience backs this up.
We need to quit selling spinnoffs and sell space for all of us.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------153 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 22 Dec 1992 14:28 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Lunar Resource Mapper Status (Was Re: funding for Lunar Prospector)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

>>So what happens if the government breaks what you consider to be a promise
>>and decides a lunar resource mapper is a good idea? Given this "approval",
>>is it possible that they would be willing to involve these guys?
>
>Hard to call -- much depends on just how you assume the change would
>happen -- but it seems possible.
>
>There is no promise that the government won't pursue a lunar resource
>mapper, but it seems unlikely at the moment.  Congress wouldn't give Goldin
>a measly $30M to get one started.
>--

Lunar Resource Mapper is not dead as of this time. Work is still progressing
at the two contractors selected for the Phase A study. (Martin & Boeing)
This at present is unfunded by NASA but indications are that money will be
available for the studies in the spring. So don't count LRM dead yet.

Also the 32 million requested was not to "get started". It was for the entire
satellite. This did not of course cover the other costs such as the launch
or operations.

Also there are other Lunar missions that are NASA supported and under
consideration. One is the Lunar Geophysical Explorer sponsored by JPL.  There is
also another private effort waiting in the wings if these NASA supported
mission do not come off. No I won't give any information on the private effort
yet. It will not go forward unless the NASA efforts clearly are not going to
be funded. This effort is not in any way connected to Lunar Prospector however
and is guaranteed to cost less and already has significant aerospace support.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville.

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:20:21 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle thermal tiles
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Anybody know if anything's been released on Buran's tile technology?
>Allegedly the Buran tiles are not as long-lasting, but they're tougher.

Russian articles have said the tiles were designed to last at least
10 missions. Buran has about 38000 tiles, and 4 were lost during its mission.
A critical article claimed that thousands were damaged during Buran
launch preparations and over 10,000 had to be rebonded also. Tile weight
was 9000 kg. for Buran in 1988, and there are claims that new orbiters would
use more advanced and lighter TPS material.

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

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

Date: 22 Dec 92 21:40:24 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:

>I hope the DC program all works and we get cheap and frequent access
>to LEO, but I don't think it'll operate at airliner costs or schedules,

Gary, 50 years ago you would've been telling us that jet aircraft
will never at what you now blithely dismiss as "airliner costs and
schedules."  Hundreds of flights a day in and out of Dallas-Fort
Worth?  Planes carrying hundreds of passengers each?  Ridiculous!
Do you know how much it would cost to build just one runway for a
plane like that?  A single airport would cost billions of dollars.
There just isn't that much money in aviation -- not in the whole
country.

>It'll still be more cost effective to assemble and test
>the bulk of space payloads on the ground and boost them to orbit
>on larger capacity launchers, especially if some effort is put into
>designing a heavy lifter for low labor costs.

Just as it's more cost-effective to assemble and test
office buildings at a central factory, then ship them
to the worksite.  Especially if some effort is put into
designing a heavy freighter for low costs. ;-)

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:50:35 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>No, it's NASA who is being creative by ignoring billions in cost. BTW,
>if a private company ran their books the way NASA does they would be
>thrown in jail for fraud.

Private companies are also bound by their own charters.  NASA's
charter restricts it to research and development.  Running an
operational space transportation system is patently illegal.
(Even NASA Administrator James Beggs admitted this, back in
the days when NASA was still talking about selling the Shuttle
to Boeing.)

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

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:54:52 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:

>Like Air France and British Airways?  Writing off the development
>costs of the Concorde so that they could show a profit?

It wasn't the French and British airlines that wrote off the
development costs, but the manufacturers.  Of course, all
the airlines and manufacturers involved were owned by the
French and British governments, so his point stands.  If
any private company tried such shennanigans, the officers
would answer to the stockholders, if not the courts.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 586
------------------------------