>>>Sorry. The sum purpose of life on Earth is to evolve to the point where
>>>life can leave Earth and live elsewhere as well. And we're it.
>
>> Evolution isn't a directed process and doesn't proceed towards
>>a specific goal.
>
>Darwin's non-directed evolution is just one of twenty or more theories of
>evolution. There are a few theories(no, not creationism) that are based on
>organisms evolving towards a specific end result; even if brainy" humans
>might not know what that goal is.
>
>Boy, this thread that started with Coke commercials on the Moon is
>gettin' fun.
Perhaps you could be more specific: which models did you
have in mind?
James Nicoll
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 May 93 09:58:44 EDT
From: Bob Mills 609-490-3211 <MILLS@kirk.dnet.ge.com>
Subject: Location Devices for RVs, also SARSATs
>
> THe Russian side of the Sarsat system was up
> years before the american side. I don't remember if
> we built the flight packages or if it was just a
> joint co-ordination office.
>
> pat
Well, make that 0.74 years. First Russion Cospas payload was launched on
Cosmos-1383 on June 29, 1982, first American Sarsat payload on
NOAA-8 on March 28, 1983.
Cospas-Sarsat is a joint effort of Canada, France, USA, and
USSR (membership now assumed by Russia). The flight hardware flown
on the US TIROS spacecraft (these are renamed NOAA after launch) is
designed/manufactured by some combination of CNES, Dassault, & Aerospatiale.
The Russian payloads are built in Russia (or other republic?) to the
French design. Recent Russian payloads fly on Nadezhda spacecraft.
-- Bob Mills Mills@Astro.dnet.ge.com Not speaking for past, present, or
future owners of Astro Space Division
------------------------------
Date: 11 May 1993 13:41:13 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <khayash@hsc.usc.edu>
Subject: Over zealous shuttle critics
Newsgroups: sci.space
Recently, I posted a letter defending the space shuttle program, saying:
>Space Shuttle is certainly the most successful spacecraft series in
>the history of mankind...
Due to the volume of traffic generated by this post. I am spliting rebuttals
into several posts, so those of you who aren't interested can pass them by.
This first post is meant to deal with the arguments posted which were
critical of my above comment. Later posts will deal with the issues of
"zero-defects operation", "bizarre flying characteristics", and
my opinion on DC-X.
This post tries to deal with comparisions between shuttle and other space
programs. I find it disappointing that some would detract from the performance
of tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of Canadians in perfecting
the operational abilities of the only reusable space transportation system.
Henry Spencer replied to my original post saying:
>This is very much a matter of opinion. It certainly hasn't met *any*
>of its specifications; that is not normally considered a success.
>I don't deny that it's a useful craft, and that cries to scrap it are
>premature, but illusions about it are counterproductive.
Henry, my statement is not illusion. I am pleased that you understand the
importance of maintaining the shuttle program as is. (or am I misinterpreting
your post?). Yet, I am concerned about your assertion; how can you honestly
say that the shuttle hasn't met "any" of its specifications? What specs
are you talking about?
Rockwell International in Downey, California, in conjunction with the other
shuttle contractors delivered the world's most important and most revolutionary
space vehicle. One cannot argue with the fact that it flies, lands,
and is reusable. In my opinion, these were the only appropriate specifications
for this program. It has been a test program from the start, a logical follow
to the X-15 program and the later X-series lifting bodies. The engineering
specs that the guys in the trenches had were to develop a system which was
man-ratable, could land reliably, and could be reflown. These goals were quite
visionary for the 1970's, and I would argue that they are challenging even
today, including for the DC-X program.
I do not recall a 1 flight/week specification in the final NASA specs for the
space shuttle program. If you have such documents, I would find them most
revealing and interesting. As far as I can tell, the only people touting a
1 flight per week flight rate were people on Capitol Hill or selling books
to the general public. IMHO, political statements in the halls of the US
Congress are not admissable as engineering specs because specs should be
determined by NASA/DOD and contractors, not by Congressmen, Senators, or Presidents. Missions are defined by political leaders, but not the engineering specs.
The shuttle is the only reusable space vehicle. This automatically qualifies
it as an unparalleled engineering success. You could argue about its political
success. But engineering wise, it is clearly the most advanced machine ever
flown. I argue that engineering and technical data for hypersonic flight is
valuable in and of itself. Shuttle should be justified or criticized on the
basis of economics.
I had posted:
>... I hope that the shuttle program receives your
>unwavering support as well.
Henry replied:
>Sorry, support that I can arrange for launchers all goes to launchers
>that I have some hope of riding some day. At the moment, that's
>DC-X's hoped-for successors.
I was disappointed by this and other similar statements from those vocal in
support of the DC-X program . Your support of DC-X is based on hopes.
My support for the shuttle program is based on record. I think that it is
also important to note that I do not object to DC-X. It is visionary.
I originally posted:
> I like the DC-X idea... and I am really hopeful that it'll be a stunning success
Unfortunately, DC-X'ers are not willing to return that support the proven Shuttle program. Explain why you folks criticize shuttle when shuttle is exactly
what you guys need in order to learn how to operate DC-X on-orbit.
Pawel Moskalik replied to my original post
>?????? that is a matter of opinion. Compare today's launch schedule
>with the schedule given in, say, 1984. Compare them both with the schedule
>evisioned in 1978.
I enjoyed your later postings regarding the comparisons between the shuttle
and the Soyuz project. Although, I may disagree with your method
of analysis. You probably will disagree with mine. 8-) I think that
the total impact of the shuttle program must be judged on the scientific and
technical merit, not on timelines and schedules (do you agree?)
Dan Newman replied:
>Presumably you are restricting this argument to manned USA space vehicles.
>If not, a brief review of AW&ST 's annual summaries of USSR/Russian
>launch activity over the last decade might modify the above.
>I'm all in favour of both STS and DC-X, but neither should be treated as
>a holy grail, which is how it reads from here. Both systems are only
>steps along the way.
I agree Dan. Let's hope those space advocates will enjoy the capabilities and
the triumphs of all parties.
The comparison to the Soyuz project was something that was interesting, as
I have never seen anyone attempt to compare the scientific and engineering
results from the two projects.
I am full of admiration and a bit of envy of those Russian M.D.'s involved with
their program, and I would love to talk with them. It is clear that their data
concerning the long duration effects of spaceflight (beyond 2 weeks) is
superior to the US dataset. I hope that with the upcoming joint flights,
better comparisons will be drawn between Russian and shuttle data.
As for now, we need to stop thinking of DC-X and shuttle as mutually exclusive.
Thanks for your time.
------------------------------
Date: 11 May 1993 14:15:15 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <khayash@hsc.usc.edu>
Subject: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
Newsgroups: sci.space
This post is to discuss the idea that the shuttle is unique in its
"zero-defects operation" and "bizarre flight characteristics" when compared
to other systems.
Henry Spencer writes:
>... makes the landing a zero-defects operation, with no ability to go around
>for another try if the first approach isn't right. This in itself is a
>big black mark against anything that tries to be an operational transport
>system, although it is acceptable for low-duty-cycle research aircraft like
>the X-15.
>The bizarre flying characteristics are well known. Even experienced pilots,
>trying the shuttle landing simulator for the first time,
> "invariably" crash it.
Well, Spenz...what can I say? 8-)
You've attacked my beloved vehicle! ;-)
Actually, I'm not sure what all the hoopla has been regarding the shuttle's
"zero-defects operation."
We see "zero-defects operation" in many area|s of life.
Calling shuttle flight characteristics *bizarre* in the same post
as touting DC-X is interesting.
Just because an untrained pilot crashes a simulator, doesn't mean that the
whole bird is "bizarre." I'm sure that the CDR's and PLT's of the STS
would not call it *bizarre* to fly the orbiter. I think that its pretty
obvious that pilots need a great deal of training to fly any plane.
Do you have different impressions?
DC-X will also have similar "zero-defects" issues (am I wrong?).
I am thinking of how DC-X will deploy a chute or reverse orientation at
supersonic speeds. How much in DC-X is redundant? That's the real question.
Everything we do in life has zero-defects issues at times (agree?).
As a doctor, I can not error in my diagnosis and treatment recommendations.
An error could cause injury or even death. I see each shuttle mission as a
flight with similar inherent risks. DC-X will be no different
(agree? probably not 8-) ).
In medicine, relative risks are always weighed when deciding on diagnostic
tests and treatments. So, the main issue in medicine is the person making
the decision. The inherent characteristics of the drug or test need to be
understood by the physician, but its really up to the user to know how to
use the technology.
I argue that in spaceflight, the central issue is the person making the
decision. In fact, this is the whole lesson of the Rogers Commission report
on the Challenger accident.
The risk of loss of shuttle is dependent on the failure mode, dependent on
the administrators making flight readiness decisions, dependent on the
engineers and technicians working on each mission, and dependent on the
highly trained astronauts who fly the vehicle.
(I'm not counting passenger-astronauts). If all is good, then no problem.
If someone messes up, oops! DC-X will be the same, just as subject to
human frailties as the orbiter is.
I encourage NASA personnel or contractors to pipe up in this discussion!
While DC-X's R&D program makes good sense, I am less optimistic about DC-X
as you (and apparently others) are. I understand your enthusiasm and I share
that hope. But, DC-X will still have failures. It is the nature of aerospace
R&D.
It's successors are not slated to be passenger carrying. The impression I had
when I visited MacDac Huntington Beach's Open House was that the payload space
was limited and the man-ratable version was decades away.
Shuttle is the only method in the free world of orbiting large life sciences
and medical related packages. As for now, it is our only ticket into space
and has my support.
I am hopeful that DC-X, or whatever the follow-on is eventually called,
will perform as you state. But right now, I must admit that I am more
skeptical than ever. This is due to discussions with engineers who are
skeptical about the developmental timeline, and they work at MacDac.
DC-X has my support, but it is checked by the same realities that confront
the shuttle program.
You could change my view on DC-X if you could prove the following:
1 the number failures projected for DC-X are less than the current number of
failures or potential failures in the shuttle program.
2 that the payload delivery and return will surpass orbiter operations in
terms of cost per pound
3 that the shuttle need not go on hiatus to allow development of a man-ratable
DC-X successor
4 Most importantly, that the DC-X will open up LEO to more scientific and
technical payloads.
Please keep this discussion technical, not based on wishful thinking (like
what some engaged in during the beginning of the shuttle program).
Thanks for reading. I'll be looking forward to more comment!
This completes this long-winded reply, sorry about the bandwidth folks!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 20:00:39 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Subject: Space Manuevering Tug (was HST servicing mission_)
Newsgroups: sci.space
In <1seuk9$6ta@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
