Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_6/V15NO608.TXT

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 05:00:09
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #608
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 30 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 608

Today's Topics:
                   "Moonraker" -- fact or fiction?
                        Acceleration (2 msgs)
                       Aluminum as rocket fuel?
Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments) (2 msgs)
                      DC vs Shuttle capabilities
                         fast-track failures
Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program (3 msgs)
             Justification for the Space Program (4 msgs)
        Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
    Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
           Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)

    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: 29 Dec 92 15:30:20 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: "Moonraker" -- fact or fiction?
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
>
>   In writing his stories, Ian Fleming was drawing upon his own
>secret weapon.  That weapon was knowledge.  Fleming had been a
>high-ranking officer of Britain's crack Intelligence agency
>called MI-5.

    This is, in fact, nonsense.  Flemings contribution to
    intelligence was to act as a paper-pusher for Stephensons'
    BSC in New York.  He had no training in, and never was, an
    intelligence officer of any form.  He was, by all accounts,
    an irritating little intel.-groupie.

    The rest of this post is nonsense that even Munchhausen would
    be ashamed to come up with.

    Alec Chambers

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

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 08:34:30 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Acceleration

-From: [e-mail] (_Floor_)
-Subject: Re: Acceleration
-Date: 28 Dec 92 18:10:24 GMT

-In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
-] A probe has high momentum hitting atmosphere.  it gets  a high acceleration,
-] on a small mass.  not a lot of force,  exerted through several miles of
-] atmosphere,  for a few minutes.

-Small force? I think they said the probe would feel an acceleration of 350 g's.
                                                        ------------
-It's receiving a force 350 times that of Earth's gravity at the surface of
-the Earth. That's quite a bit of force if you ask most people.
                                  -----

- Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball

Acceleration and force are not the same thing. In this case, acceleration
is force *per unit mass*. If you can keep the mass down on any given
component, then the force isn't too great, even under high acceleration.
Just design the system so that each component can support at least 350 times
its own (Earth) weight[1]. Of course you need a safety factor and allowance
for buffeting, so you might want to design the probe to withstand 500 G or
more. This is still far below the requirements of the electronics in artillery
shells.

[1] - Bearing in mind the expected direction of the force, and the influence
that the components have on one another.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 16:22:35 GMT
From: _Floor_ <[e-mail]>
Subject: Acceleration
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
] -Small force? I think they said the probe would feel an acceleration of 350 g's.
]                                                         ------------
] -It's receiving a force 350 times that of Earth's gravity at the surface of
] -the Earth. That's quite a bit of force if you ask most people.
]                                   -----
]
] - Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball
]
] Acceleration and force are not the same thing. In this case, acceleration
] is force *per unit mass*. If you can keep the mass down on any given
] component, then the force isn't too great, even under high acceleration.
]

F=ma, right? So if the mass is the same, then an acceleration 350 times
that experienced on earth is due to a force 350 times that on earth, right?
Or does the mass somehow change around Jupiter? :-)

] Just design the system so that each component can support at least 350 times
] its own (Earth) weight[1]. Of course you need a safety factor and allowance
] for buffeting, so you might want to design the probe to withstand 500 G or
] more. This is still far below the requirements of the electronics in artillery
] shells.
]
] [1] - Bearing in mind the expected direction of the force, and the influence
] that the components have on one another.
] John Roberts

They're doing some pretty impressive stuff with durable electronics these days.

  _____    "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: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:40:16 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Another source of information is the External Tank Study published
by the Space Studies Institute. Cutting up ETs for their aluminum
was listed as an option. Impulse of such an engine would be in the
330 second range. Very viable as a Lunar based fuel source.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------116 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 15:37:14 GMT
From: "John S. Neff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>From: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments)
>Date: 28 Dec 92  15:44:58
>David Anderman writes:
>>The Space Shuttle is simply the highest cost (per pound) launch
>>vehicle ever operated.
>
>    ** Sigh **  This seems to have become a net legend --
>unfortunately it does not seem to be supported by fact.  I've seen
>this statement made numerous times over the past year or so in
>sci.space, but based upon a little bit of research, it seems to be
>wrong.
>   To repeat what I posted about a month ago....
>
>    David could you provide some data to support this statement?
>For example, Pegasus costs about $14.5 M to put about 950 lbs in 150
>nmi circular 28.5 deg LEO orbit (Cost from the price for the SCD-1
>launch, planned for 1st quarter 1993, performance from the Pegasus
>Users Manual).  That's about $15,000/lb.
>    In comparison, Shuttle costs (depending on your source) about
>$350-500 M per launch. (As a check on this cost/flight range, the FY
>1992 NASA budget numbers for shuttle operating costs came to about $
>3.2 B, and there were a total of 8 flights flown in 1992, which
>gives about $ 400 M/flt, which is within the cost band I'm using).
>For a 50,000 lb shuttle payload delivered to 150 nmi 28.5 deg
>circular orbit, that's about $7000 -10,000 /lb.  (Note: shuttle
>fleet average performance to 150 nmi, 28.5 deg circ orbit is
>actually about 56,000 lbs -- so, again I'm being conservative about
>shuttle cost $/lb)
>   Titan IV, capable of putting about 32,000 lbs to the same orbit
>(note the T-IV performance is corrected to put payloads into 150 nmi
>28.5 deg circular orbits) is currently running about $360 M per unit
>(Cost data from the Oct 92 DoD Selected Acquisition Reports), which
>yields about $11,200 /lb.
>   From these data points, I think the statement "the most expensive
>per pound in orbit of all current launch vehicles" is incorrect.
>
>   If you have better data, I would greatly appreciate it if you
>could post it.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor
>
>
>--- Maximus 2.01wb
It is common for the shuttle to fly without a full cargo. In your calculation
you assumed that the payload was the maximum for the orbit. You figures are
the lower limit to the cost per pound for the shuttle.

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 17:11:40 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>    In comparison, Shuttle costs (depending on your source) about
>$350-500 M per launch. (As a check on this cost/flight range, the FY
>1992 NASA budget numbers for shuttle operating costs came to about $
>3.2 B, and there were a total of 8 flights flown in 1992, which
>gives about $ 400 M/flt, which is within the cost band I'm using).

Of course, in addition to "Shuttle operating costs," there are
ongoing Shuttle product-improvement/development costs.  Eight
flights per year is more than NASA's been able to manage most
years.  And you've conveniently ignored depreciation on the
orbiter and the $32 billion in Shuttle development costs (not
to mention interest on same).

That said, there are some launchers that cost more, per pound
of payload on orbit, than the Shuttle.  But they are very small
launchers that don't have many pounds of payload to spread
their cost across.

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 16:53:49 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Finally, an intelligent position on SSTO from Allen. I would quibble,
>however, that while there are no known *theoretical* technical issues
>unresolved, there remain numerous practical technical problems to
>solve in the DC program.

Gary, numerous practical technical problems arise in *every* engineering
program.  There is no reason to believe that there will be more practical
technical problems involved in building DC than in building the B-777,
except that you *want* to believe that is true.


>That's the type of contingency for which less optimistic management
>systems provide alternative actions and funding.

History has shown that the only thing your "less optimistic management
systems" provide is a string of excuses for why a project failed.

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 16:42:56 GMT
From: Brad Whitehurst <[e-mail]>
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:
>
>>Today's overhead is horrible, but $100,000 1940s dollars is only about
>>$2 million 1992 dollarettes.... That's about 20 engineers in a Motel 6
>>for six months, no machine shops, hangers, mechanics, flight test equipment,
>>nada.
>
>You think a typical engineer earns $100,000 a year?
>
>I want to work for your company!
>
    By the time you also pay for FICA, pension, benefits, and
overhead, a $50,000 engineer can easily cost a company double his base
pay!  BTW, Ed, I ALSO help do the budgeting for my lab, so before you
ask, yes, I have some experience in this!

--

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

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

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:30:42 GMT
From: Herman Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <[e-mail]> writes:

>> My arguement has the benefit of centuries of historical precedent
>> which is more than your "There will never be benefits worth the
>> expense" arguement you are spouting which can be
>> easily argued against using the same historical
>> information. Can I prove my assertion?
>> No. However, neither can you prove the contrary.

            ........................

>The track record so far in space is that some limited automated
>applications are useful, or profitable (comsats are profitable, at
>least for the moment; the others are government-run, so we don't know
>if they really would be profitable.)  Space resources?  We went
>to the moon and found... very little of practical value.  Space
>manufacturing?  Endlessly hyped with little to show for it.
>Microgravity research?  Impartial scientific review says it isn't
>worth much.

>You advance the straw man argument that I am arguing that there will
>never be any benefits.  As you say, we can't know that.  But lack of
>certainty doesn't mean we are absolved from the need to make decisions
>on how scarce funds are expended.  You can't just say "you can't prove
>me wrong, so gimme."  At least, not with a straight face.

Your argument is extremely similar to that of Marx that innovation will
be made when it should be by governments.  Right now the government has
an essential monopoly on space activities, and has also obtained almost
this position in many branches of scientific research.  THIS is the
problem; as Lee Iacocca stated, "In this business, you lead, follow,
or get out of the way."  Governments have amply shown that they cannot
lead or follow.  And unfortunately, they refuse to get out of the way.

Progress cannot be made when the Luddites are running the show.  It is
only perceived threats to the country which can get reasonable action
by any government.  Where would astronomy be if the attitude of such as
Paul Dietz prevailed?  Our benefits from astronomy are very few indeed.
Any society which tries to prevent people from climbing mountains is
oppressive, and the same goes for space exploration.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:55:37 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:

> Progress cannot be made when the Luddites are running the show.  It is
> only perceived threats to the country which can get reasonable action
> by any government.  Where would astronomy be if the attitude of such as
> Paul Dietz prevailed?  Our benefits from astronomy are very few indeed.
> Any society which tries to prevent people from climbing mountains is
> oppressive, and the same goes for space exploration.


A masterful example of doublespeak.  Bleah.

Listen, astronomers don't have any right to a blank check of the
treasury.  Nor do space fans, or aerospace companies.  And questioning
government priorities is not the same as proposing that people be
prevented from some action.  The government doesn't subsidize mountain
climbing; why should it subsidize much more expensive space escapism?

Astronomy, in the absence of government funds, would be supported by
private funds, as it was before the government horned in.  Comparing
the cost/scientific benefit of Keck vs. HST, this would, I think, not
be a bad idea.  No doubt funding would be lower, and no doubt Herman
thinks this is an incredibly bad thing, with no further reasoning
necessary.

This doesn't belong in sci.space, so I've directed followups
to talk.politics.space.

    Paul

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

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 15:50:19 GMT
From: Russ Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>>> My arguement has the benefit of centuries of historical precedent
>>> which is more than your "There will never be benefits worth the
>>> expense" arguement you are spouting which can be
>>> easily argued against using the same historical
>>> information. Can I prove my assertion?
>>> No. However, neither can you prove the contrary.
>
>            ........................
>
>>The track record so far in space is that some limited automated
>>applications are useful, or profitable (comsats are profitable, at
>>least for the moment; the others are government-run, so we don't know
>>if they really would be profitable.)  Space resources?  We went
>>to the moon and found... very little of practical value.  Space
>>manufacturing?  Endlessly hyped with little to show for it.
>>Microgravity research?  Impartial scientific review says it isn't
>>worth much.
>
>>You advance the straw man argument that I am arguing that there will
>>never be any benefits.  As you say, we can't know that.  But lack of
>>certainty doesn't mean we are absolved from the need to make decisions
>>on how scarce funds are expended.  You can't just say "you can't prove
>>me wrong, so gimme."  At least, not with a straight face.
>
>Your argument is extremely similar to that of Marx that innovation will
>be made when it should be by governments.  Right now the government has
>an essential monopoly on space activities, and has also obtained almost
>this position in many branches of scientific research.  THIS is the
>problem; as Lee Iacocca stated, "In this business, you lead, follow,
>or get out of the way."  Governments have amply shown that they cannot
>lead or follow.  And unfortunately, they refuse to get out of the way.
>
>Progress cannot be made when the Luddites are running the show.  It is
>only perceived threats to the country which can get reasonable action
>by any government.  Where would astronomy be if the attitude of such as
>Paul Dietz prevailed?  Our benefits from astronomy are very few indeed.
>Any society which tries to prevent people from climbing mountains is
>oppressive, and the same goes for space exploration.
>--
>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399

Ah, but the real question is not, "should research be done?", but "how
much?" and "to what end?" and "who pays?".

We do get long-term benefits from exploration and research.
We cannot predict all of those benefits.

But would anyone care to provide $10E9 for flat-earth studies?  I
believe that we need to discriminate.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:48:27 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] writes:

> Let me add to the previous post the estimate that the total amount of
> matter humanity has processed in its history is less than 10^12 tons.

Some interesting facts:

Estimated mass of manganese nodules on the ocean floors:  ~ 10^12 tons.

Average concentration of metals in nodules (percent)

    Element        World Average    Pacific Clarion-Clipperton Zone
    --------------------------------------------------------------
      Mn           18.6            25.4
      Fe           12.47         6.66
      Ni             .66         1.27
      Cu             .45         (not listed, > .45)
      Co             .27         1.02


World-wide, nodules are estimated to contain billions of tons of
copper and nickel, and enough manganese to supply current mine demand
for that element for roughly 10,000 years.  Additional sources of
metals (such as copper and cobalt) are available as crusts on the sea
floor, and in massive sulfides deposited at mid-ocean ridges and then
carried away by plate motion.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 15:23:28 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

John McCarthy ([e-mail]) wrote:
> Let me add to the previous post the estimate that the total amount of
> matter humanity has processed in its history is less than 10^12 tons.
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> *
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>
So let's do arithmetic: assume 5e10 people have lived to date.  That's
20 tons per person across all of human history.  Divide by a human life:
0.5 to 0.3 tons per year.  Say a few pounds a day.  Well, I think we know
what kind of processing this number figures to represent.  Alimentary, my
dear Watson.

--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones ([e-mail])|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 17:13:56 GMT
From: Barbara Trumpinski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In <[e-mail]> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <[e-mail]> writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> Paul Dietz,
>[e-mail] writes:
>>Perhaps after remarks like this, Herman will be less strident in his
>>criticisms of the innumerate.

>I hope Paul that this isn't your idea of a substantive rebuttal.

>Herman's posting was right on the money. All you have to do is
>apply historical precedence to the arguement to see the importance
>of the "exploration of the unknown" to the health of a society.
[    ]
>Indeed the decline of these societies has come on the heal of
>their complacency.

>Forget about spin-offs...any spin-offs that result are "icing on the
>cake". Forget about mining and solar power satellites....this is just
>what we can concieve of at present. History teaches
>us that the true gains in cutting-edge science and space and ocean
>exploration have yet to be discovered.

>Norman

maybe i will have to start paying attention to this group :)...between
this and the discussion about dropping cats i am facinated...

norman...you are right on.  we need to quit being complacent, quit
sitting on our butts, quit being into "big bucks" and get back some of
the spirit of adventure for the love of the unknown...

barbara

--
***************************************************************************
conan the librarian a.k.a. kitten           /\ /\  barbara ann
"my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"      {=.=}
                                              ~   [e-mail]
"love is the wild card of existance"
                          rita mae brown

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 17:04:40 GMT
From: Barbara Trumpinski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Blum) writes:

>Yes, I believe in space exploration.  I don'T subscribe to the belief that
>it is absolutely necessary for survival...I do think that it serves a
>purpose, and should be continued.

>I believe that there are some amazing possibilities out there, beyond
>Earth'S orbit.
>I've noticed that many people consider "dreaming" about such things and
>working towards it with all we can bring to bear too overzealous.
>May I remind some of the skeptics that the Internet itself was the product
>of a bunch of people who's sole puropose was to ensure a network by which
>NORAD could communicate.   Zealotry pays off in ways you can't imagine in
>the short term.


[    ]

>It is a FACT that the future is uncertain.
>(_Introduction to Nuclear Engineering_, 2nd Edition, John Lamarsh)
>-begin quote-
>    Whether sufficient uranium will be available to fuel expanding
>world nuclear capacity is an issue of continuing controversy even among
>experts.  Uranium itself is not an especially rare element.  It is present
>in the earth's crust at a concentration by weight of about four parts per
>million, which makes uranium more abundant than such common substances as
>silver, mercury, and iodine.  There are an estimated 10^14 tons of uranium
>located at a depth of less than 12 or 13 miles, but most of this is at such
>low concentrations it WILL PROBABLY NEVER BE RECOVERED, (boldface added by
>me)
>-end quote-

>Yes, Mr Dietz, there are abundant supplies of some materials on Earth.
>But be nice to the zealots...they occassionally come up with some brillant
>ideas which influence a lot of people.  Like the Internet.

>Often, zealots lose sight of reality.  YEt just as often, skeptics lose
>their clues.

i am probably going to regret this....

i don't usually read this group and haven't really followed the debate
between mr. dietz and mr. blum...

however, people have mentioned steve jobs...and garage industry.  and
people have mentioned (repeatedly) the internet...how it happened
because of zealotry, etc.

y'all ought to stop and think...those of us who have access to the
internet (i am one, thank the gods...) are really a very small, select
group... there are millions of people out there...even very well
educated people...who not only do not have access but have never heard
of the 'net.  there are lots of folks who do not UNDERSTAND the
importance of the net...and who could care even less....who think that
it is silly...from "religious" wars about the importance of the space
program to the importance of tad martin's return to 'all my children'
(r.a.t.s.) .... and the bigots aren't only in the non-technical world.
after all, i am sure some of you would scream if anyone questioned
your access to the net....but would you care so much about your
secretary's access...

this is a ramble...and i fully expect to be flamed (i will probably
ignore flames :)  )...there's nothing wrong with your
discussion....but you should count your blessings....

barbara

--
***************************************************************************
conan the librarian a.k.a. kitten           /\ /\  barbara ann
"my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"      {=.=}
                                              ~   [e-mail]
"love is the wild card of existance"
                          rita mae brown

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 16:59:26 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>  Space Shuttle is also the only system designed to be used repeatedly,
>  is the only system capable of returning very heavy payloads to Earth,
>  and is the second most-powerful booster every made in the U.S. It is
>  also one of only two man-rated systems presently in use.

All of which is irrelevent.  The Shuttle's design goal was to reduce
the cost of space transportation.  Its size, reuseability, etc. were
features decided on to meet that goal.  But instead of reducing costs,
the Shuttle increased them.

It is a failure.

>  Shuttle is also as much a technology demonstrator as it is a launch
>  system.

I see you've graduated from the Gary Coffman School of Historical
Revisionism. :-)  The Shuttle was not designed as a technological
demonstrator, but an operational vehicle.  If there was a technology
demonstrator for the Shuttle program, it would be the X-15 or X-24.

>  That the technology proved to costly to replace the expendable
>  market is beside the point.

Yes, to "failure-oriented" managers, the fact that a project failed
is always beside the point.  (After all, don't we expect every
project to fail?)

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 16:40:30 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Shuttle's costs were all accounted for too. The customer, the US
>taxpayer, wanted R&D done to develop a reusable spacecraft. NASA
>did it, and that public domain database of technologies is what
>the taxpayer got for his money, not bent metal.

Yeah.  That's the trouble with your approach, Gary.  All the
public ever gets for its money is databases, not "bent metal."
People like you always want to do research, but never want to
do development.  Listen to you, and 500 years from now, we'll
have a lovely database on how to build a cheap, reliable,
reuseable launch vehicle -- and we still won't have one flying!

Furthermore, you are wrong in stating that the information is
in the public domain.  It is the property of the United States
Government.  Any taxpayer who wants to use this information has
to pay (again) for the privilege.

>NASA's prime mission is R&D. The customer wanted an operational vehicle,
>and NASA contracted to have them built.

Phui!  Stuff and nonsense!  NASA *was* and *is* the customer, as
well as the supplier.

>NASA is not supposed to be in the fabrication business.

You're right.  So why do you support NASA being in a business
that it is illegal for them to be in?

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

Date: 29 Dec 92 16:50:24 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:

>Nonsense. The Russians have built no space stations and are having
>trouble raising the funds to operate the one they inherited from
>the Soviet Union. Comparing what was done by a command economy using
>what amounts to slave labor to what's done in an open society where
>people expect to get paid fairly for their work is meaningless accounting.

Well, Gary, some of us have the theory that free societies are
more efficient than "command economies."

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 608
------------------------------