Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO561.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Thu, 13 May 93 05:47:02
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #561
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 13 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 561

Today's Topics:
             ASAN Principles (was: BOEING TSTO) (2 msgs)
                         FAQ and Sky hooks..
             HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
                        Life on Mars. (2 msgs)
                            McElwaine FAQ
                    Philosophy Quest. How Boldly?
             Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre?  DC-X? (2 msgs)
                    Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
         U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment
                      URGENT EMAIL: NASA BUDGET?
                         Vandalizing the sky
White Hats Ride Again (was Re: DC-X and publicity... is there any ?) (2 msgs)
    Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre?  DC-X?)
             Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?)

    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: Wed, 12 May 1993 15:13:25 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ASAN Principles (was: BOEING TSTO)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Dave Stephenson ([e-mail] or
[e-mail]) wrote:
: The most important precident (or is it deja vu) being reestablished by
: the DCX is the X program management style. i.e. Minimum paper work,
: build it, try it, learn a bit, mod it a bit, and try again. Better
: known in academic circles as 'the scientific method':- Observation
: hypothesis, and experiment. (trial and error in a lab coat).
: If Boeing are proposing their own program on the same ASAN (that's
: anti-NASA) principles, more power to them.
: --
: Dave Stephenson
: Geological Survey of Canada
: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
: Internet: [e-mail]

If you think NASA doesn't use that same process (minimum paperwork,
build, try, learn, mod, repeat), you're confusing what you read in the
press with reality.  They aren't the same.  Don't take the words of
the press corp as gospel.  About space issues, the press is wrong
at least as often as they're right.

Contrary to popular belief, we don't invent new paperwork just because
we like it.  There's always a rational reason for paperwork.
Sometimes, however, the cost of doing the paperwork exceeds its
benefit, and the Government isn't good at keeping an eye on
cost/benefit ratios.  We try to fix these situations as they arise, but
NASA is part of the Federal Government, and some of the paperwork is
unavoidably impressed upon us by Congresscritters who have no clue what
the paperwork costs.  Just one run through a typical procurement cycle
will demonstrate that to anybody's satisfaction.  If you want to help
reduce the cost of U.S. Government research into space travel, write
your Congressman and ask him to reduce the amount of paperwork
required.  (Unless, of course, you're not an American.  In that case,
the best you can do is bash NASA on Usenet.  We all know how much good
THAT does.)

Everybody realizes that the Shuttle isn't the best or the last space
transportation system; it's part of our first attempts at conquering
the space environment.  Everybody realizes that the Space Station isn't
the best or the last long-term habitable space platform (nor the
first); it's the next step in what little manned space exploration
Congress will fund.

But these are only the biggest, most visible NASA programs.  There is
more going on at NASA than just Shuttle and Station -- and there is
more going on at NASA than just space.  Don't forget what the second A
stands for.  (I, for one, would like to see NASA's relationship to the
civil space industry evolve into one similar to NASA's relationship to
the civil aviation industry.)

Lastly, there are some people at NASA who desire -- even require -- a
fundamental change in the way we do business.  We've got a good guy at
the helm, right now, and we're all trying to do the right thing.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "Better.  Faster.  Cheaper." -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 15:57:57 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: ASAN Principles (was: BOEING TSTO)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Contrary to popular belief, we don't invent new paperwork just because
>we like it.  There's always a rational reason for paperwork...

Well, there's always a reason for it. :-)  Rationality is more debatable.
Not only is there little attempt to assess the cost/benefit ratio (as Ken
pointed out), but there are often misconceptions about supposed benefits.
Remember that the government's answer to almost anything is more rules and
more paperwork to verify that they've been followed, regardless of whether
this actually *helps*.  If the original workman didn't do a good job,
adding inspectors typically does *not* help.  Certainly it doesn't help
once you go beyond the first inspector and add a second.

When that work-platform support was left inside one of the orbiters
(discovered when there was a loud CLUNK as the orbiter was hoisted to the
vertical in preparation for stacking), there were three signatures saying
it had been removed.  At least two of them represented a complete waste of
time and effort.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 12 May 93 16:09:37 GMT
From: Robert Hearn <[e-mail]>
Subject: FAQ and Sky hooks..
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
wrote:
>
> [e-mail] (Peter Churchyard) writes:
> > Is there are FAQ for this group. Like whats the feasiblilty of an sky hook,
> > elevator to orbit? Are modern materials orders of magnitude to weak? or
> > is it close?
> >
> > Pete(I'd rather walk).
>
> There were some intriguing results in the JBIS(*) about ten years ago; a series
> of three papers on "Jacob's Ladders" - short skyhooks held up by a braided
> aluminium cable going at faster than orbital velocity.  The figures quoted
> were that steel wasn't pacticable for a 300km tower, but kevlar would be OK
> out to >600km.  Only pure carbon-carbon bonding (flawless diamond - or perhaps
> fullerene threads) would do the synchronous elevator.
>
> (*) Unfortunately I don't have the exact references to hand, but scanning thro'
> ~6 mo of the JBIS isn't exactly onerous.

There's a discussion of several skyhook-type devices in Robert Forward's
_Future_Magic_.  It's no longer in print, but libraries should have it.
It references the original papers that detail the various ideas.
I believe that for some of the variants, modern materials _do_ suffice,
but in VERY large quantities.


Bob Hearn
Spartacus Software

Opinions expressed here are those of my employer, since that's me.

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

Date: 12 May 93 03:58:41 GMT
From: Kenneth Ng <sugra!ken>
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]: [e-mail] (Dieter Kreuer) writes:
:In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott
:Stallcup) wrote:
:> Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:
:> : |If it has no propulsion system, how does it maneuver itself?
:> : Gyros.
:>   Reaction Wheels
:Then, how are the Reaction Wheels desaturated?

Don't quote me, but I believe there is an electromagnet inside that allows
one to use the earth's magnetic field as something to dump the reaction
wheel energy onto.

--
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to [e-mail] for now.
"All this might be an elaborate simulation running in a little device sitting
on someone's table" -- J.L. Picard: ST:TNG

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 14:53:47 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Mars.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gord Wait S-MOS Systems Vancouver Design Center) writes:
>
>Here is a potentially dumb question: What prevents the martian landers
>themselves from "polluting" the martian environment with earth based
>critters? Is the long trip in cold radiation bathed space enough to
>completely sterilize the landers?
>
>I could imagine that a few teeny microbes could manage to get all the
>way there unharmed, and then possibly thrive given the right
>circumstances.

This question was also answered at the May 6 JPL Mars symposium.
The landers up to the 1990s were supposed to undergo
heat sterilization before launch.
The regulations have been relaxed to more-easy-to-implement
chemical approaches.

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 15:48:28 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Mars.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (G T Clark) writes:
>...it's at chemical equilibrium for its temperature and pressure. This
>means that there are no significant chemical reactions which involve the
>atmosphere, and therefore earth-type life is either absent or incredibly
>rare.

One of the oldest and commonest types of life on Earth -- the anaerobic
bacteria -- would not be expected to leave any sign in the atmosphere,
as I understand it.  Even if one believes Earth-based measurements (and
all the *good* measurements of what's in the Martian atmosphere are from
the Viking landers), this isn't a crippling blow to hopes for life.

>    This was, incidentally, published before the Viking launch
>(according to the article) but after all the Viking budget had been
>spent.

The Viking missions would have been flown eventually even if everyone
had been absolutely convinced that no life was present (although parts
of their science payloads would have been somewhat different).  Contrary
to the impression the media sometimes conveyed, Viking was *not* entirely
devoted to the search for life.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 12 May 93 10:20:37 GMT
From: Richard Clark x4971 <[e-mail]>
Subject: McElwaine FAQ
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,rec.arts.drwho

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
   stuf deleted
>It's all moot anyway.  He had is net access privileges revoked last week.
>--
>Josh Hopkins                                        [e-mail]

To PARAPHRASE Arnie:

      He'll be back.

Richard Clark
[e-mail]

         May           June          July
        name/amount   name/amount   name/amount
1       _______/___   _______/___   _______/___
2       _______/___   _______/___   _______/___
...
30      _______/___   _______/___   _______/___
31      _______/___   _______/___   _______/___

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

Date: 12 May 93 15:51:40 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philosophy Quest. How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1spqd5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>but  amphibious is more plausible  then pure aquatic.
>we don't seem to have any aquatic creatures  with
>high versatility effectors  and complex nueral systems.
>i suspect,  that the additrional control problems
>in something like a tentacle  may detract from
>intelligence oriented synapses.

    Heh. Maybe we do. One of the less popular models of human evolution
involves having had a period where our ancesters  foraged for food in
shallow waters. This might explain some  oddities  of human build, considered
in the context of how  the rest  of the primates look: our naked  skin,
the layer of fatbeneath  the skin,  our  posture,and so on.

    Octopuses are  prettyb bright  and they can survive exposure  to air.

>but that's  random speculation.

    Strange, it appeared to be designed.

                            James Nicoll

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

Date: 12 May 93 15:56:25 GMT
From: David Becker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre?  DC-X?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1sp513$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>We see "zero-defects operation" in many area|s of life.
>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 attending level MD has earned an undergrad degree, taken 4 years of med
school which included both book learning and on the job experence ranging
through all the major medicals areas, at least 5 years of residency, followed
possibly by fellowships.  A medical doctor has been tested by the school,
rated on the job, and taken boards to earn government approval.  Testing.
Testing.  Testing.

After all that testing, a you can be reasonable expected to "fly" well and
patients will risk your treatments since you have been "man-rated".
A substandard MD-wanna-be would have flunked out of the system.

>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.

The DC-X is the current phase of testing for SSTO.  Most sci.space
readers are hoping like hell it passes (the more daring ones even expect
it to pass -- but one doesn't want to raise expectations :-)  The DC-X
at White Sands will be flown all summer testing that individual craft.

The Enterprise phase of Shuttle testing executed a handful of landings to
"test" that system.  Henry has listed the problems discovered since then.

The reason SSTO is so popular around sci.space, is that the architecture
allows testing, testing, testing.  Before bothering to put any
multimillion dollar payload or human life on top of an SSTO, _that_ SSTO
will have gone through a testing process as rigorous as any aircraft.

>  But, DC-X will still have failures.  It is the nature of aerospace
>R&D.

Absolutely, how many X planes are still in one piece?  The Shuttle is
too expensive to allow to fail, much less test to failure.

It is hoped SSTO be cheaper.  It probably will be.  There was a rumor
that Rockwell offered NASA two shuttles for the price of one when it
built Endevour, if they could substitute more modern parts, but NASA
refused.  An SSTO architecture allows substitutes to be tested to
everyone's satisfaction.  New things _can_ be tried since the hardware
will resemble a robust aircraft rather than a delicate (hush please) SPACEcraft.

>2  that the payload delivery and return will surpass orbiter operations in
>terms of cost per pound

Turn-around costs a top priority are a top priority in the DC design.   The
robustness of the design will allow tweaking and tinkering to constantly
improve costs, since those mods can all be tested in lots of live launches
before putting a payload on that very same modified vehicle.

--
               If it ain't broke, don't exit()
David Becker [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 May 93 17:04:57 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre?  DC-X?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1sp513$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>Well, Spenz...what can I say? 8-)
>You've attacked my beloved vehicle! ;-)

If I may offer a constructive criticism, perhaps you should decide if you
love vehicles or the use they are put to. I, myself, think the F-86 is
a beautiful aircraft, but rest assured, I wouldn't even think of flying
it in combat today. Most of us want access to space and judge vehicles
on how they perform.

>We see "zero-defects operation" in many area|s of life.

Not to this degree.

>Calling shuttle flight characteristics *bizarre* in the same post
>as touting DC-X is interesting.

Why?

>DC-X will also have similar "zero-defects" issues (am I wrong?).

Your wrong. The DC approach is very tollerent of failure. It also has
the advantage of far greater reliability do to its reusable nature (Shuttle
isn't reusable, it's salvagable).

>I am thinking of how DC-X will deploy a chute or reverse orientation at
>supersonic speeds.

The flip over happens at a very low speed, not supersonic. If the DC-X
shows the flip over works, it will work unless the laws of physics change.

>How much in DC-X is redundant?  That's the real question.

The final DC-1 will have fully intact abort throughout the entire flight
envelop. Upon re-entry for example, it can loose about 80% of available
thrust and still land safely.

>Everything we do in life has zero-defects issues at times (agree?).

Everything can suffer from catastrophic failure but that's not the same
thing. Shuttle simply isn't a fault tolerent design, SSTO is.

>As a doctor, I can not error in my diagnosis and treatment recommendations.

You don't put your patients in conditions where there is no way out. You
wouldn't for example, give a patient a drug and not monitor them for
harmful side effects would you?

>While DC-X's R&D program makes good sense, I am less optimistic about DC-X
>as you (and apparently others) are.

You are very much in the minority. If the DC series fails to make orbit, it
will still be a very worthwhile effort. It will show us EXACTLY what we do
need to do to build SSTO.

>But, DC-X will still have failures.  It is the nature of aerospace R&D.

Again, refering to the DC-1, it will provide fully intact abort theroughout
the flight envelop. Shuttle doesn't. DC is fault tollerent, Shuttle isn't.

>It's successors are not slated to be passenger carrying.

Not true. Build a passenger pallet (a fairly easy thing to do) and it will
carry passengers.

>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.

I would suggest you talk to the DC-X crew themselves. Their original
schedule had an operational DC-1 flying in 96.

>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.

Your ignoring the dammage it does. Mannes space has a reputation for being
unreliable and hugely expensive. Shuttle supporters only make it easy for
opponents of manned space to kill it.

>You could change my view on DC-X if you could prove the following:

The only way to prove those things is to build it.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------35 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 12 May 1993 10:21:12 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>If you where the one paying the bills you wouldn't think so.
>Even measured in terms of payload alone, it is nowhere near Saturn.

>>I had said that it
>>had delivered the most mass to orbit.

>As a rough guess I would say that in 10 years Shuttle has delivered
>to LEO about as much as Saturn V did in 4 years.

Allen, did you read the full text? 8-)
The main jist of my post was not to argue about mass to orbit stats.
The main point of my post was to argue about what was done with that mass.
Can you seriously argue that the scientific return from shuttle is less
than that of the Apollo program?  I'm not sure how we can quantify this.

The value and impact of any program is (IMHO) measured by the impact
of that program on the whole of society.  Clearly Apollo-Saturn made
an enormous sociological impact - how often do we hear "If we could
land a man on the moon, then ..."

The social impact of the shuttle program in Florida, Texas, and
California have been large.  Smaller programs like DC-X may not
have as broad an impact unless it is able to reach the broader consumer
market.

As I said in my previous post, the issue is not mass to orbit.
Its really an issue of social impact, do you think that the shuttle
and the STS as a whole as made life in the US any better?  I think so.


BTW, let's deal with the mass return issue.  I contend that
shuttle has maintained the best performance in terms of any space vehicle
when returning material from orbit.  Does anyone know the mass return
capabilities of DC-X/Y? NASP?

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 13:34:55 GMT
From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" <[e-mail]>
Subject: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education

In article <[e-mail]> Herman Rubin,
[e-mail] writes:
> Real original research consists largely of breakthroughs, flashes of
> insight, serendipity, etc.  True, one can say that one is going to
> consider certain topics, but I doubt that an investigator will give
> back the rest of his research funding if the proposed research is
> either completed or turns out to be impossible.  If we want to have
> good research, we must "decontractualize" it.  It may even be that
> a top researcher in a field will know too much and fail to see the
> obvious, which a newcomer, not yet being in a rut, will find.

This is a good point and reminds me of something John Archibald Wheeler
said to me a couple of years ago when I remarked that all of his
colleagues
that he worked with on a regular basis were graduate students. He told me
that he had found collaborating with graduate students and post-docs to be
much more fruitful because we were idealistic, hungry, and free of too
many
ingrained beliefs. He said that young researchers were much
more likely to "naively" blaze paths which seasoned researchers would not
even
consider.

The wisdom of his statements was borne out at the Center for Relativity
at the University of Texas when the national crunch on tenured
academic positions hit theoretical physics. Less graduate students went
into relativity. Soon after, the quality and quantity of research produced
by the center suffered. The influx of new ideas was gone.

It has been in the NSF's power to avert this disaster. The NSF could set
so
much grant money aside for young researchers. This would give them impetus
to remain in the field and give them leverage in finding academic
positions (a
researcher with a grant is much more attractive to universities).
Unfortunately,
the awarding of NSF grants has become an exclusive club. A young
researcher,
regardless of the merits of his proposal has almost no chance to obtain an
NSF grant on his own. People who have had regular NSF support, continue
to be
supported. One professor even admitted to me that it had become a buddy
system in which NSF administration supported their friends whom they had
known for years and that first-time proposals were rarely given more than
cursory consideration.

Until this sort of thing stops, science will continue to suffer.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson

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

Date: 12 May 93 14:48:25 GMT
From: David Fuzzy Wells <[e-mail]>
Subject: URGENT EMAIL: NASA BUDGET?
Newsgroups: sci.space

>What is NASA's annual budget?
>This year will do, a few years back wpuld be nice too
>but I need this item fast so emails off the top of your head very
>much appreciated (FAQs vanish here!).
>

As a Polish professor of mine often stated when not wanted to be
bothered:  "Tis trivial..."

Do an archie search on "budget".

You will find the budget for NASA in it.....

Also check sunsite.unc.edu for lots of budgets and other political
stuff.

                    Fuzzy.

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 93 13:58:34 BST
From: Peter Churchyard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky
Newsgroups: sci.space

We have space bill-boards now... Its called sat TV.. (:->

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

Date: 12 May 93 15:30:31 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: White Hats Ride Again (was Re: DC-X and publicity... is there any ?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>You can't tell this from the DC-X photo published in *AvLeak*, but
>from the *Space News* picture one may infer that at the rollout
>ceremony McDD was giving out FREE WHITE DC-X FEED CAPS!  This will
>probably become *the* fashion statement for 1993.

I want one!  Anybody got any idea if there's a way for those of us who
just couldn't get off work to be there to get one of these?

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 17:12:09 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: White Hats Ride Again (was Re: DC-X and publicity... is there any ?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>You can't tell this from the DC-X photo published in *AvLeak*, but
>from the *Space News* picture one may infer that at the rollout
>ceremony McDD was giving out FREE WHITE DC-X FEED CAPS!

Yes indeed. Alas the logo on the front is rather flimsy and comes off
if not treated gently.

>This will
>probably become *the* fashion statement for 1993.

Anybody wanting to see what the 'in' space types will be
wearing, look me up at ISDC. (Hat courtesy of David Anderman).

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------35 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 12 May 93 17:23:34 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre?  DC-X?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>DC-X is an attempt to break out of the vicious cycle by keeping
>development costs low and flying incremental "X-plane" hardware.
>It's been, to my mind, incredibly successful already-- they've built a
>complex prototype in under 600 days for under 60 megabucks.

Glenn Reynolds points out that the entire DC-X costed roughly the
same as the Shuttle toilet! (See Space News, April 15, 1993).

>Also, of course, DC-Y and its operational descendants will be useful
>for a wide variety of jobs even if they are *not* man-rated.

DC-1 won't be man rated, it will cary people but won't use the same
criteria used to man rate today's launchers (which only add costs without
improving safety).

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------35 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 12 May 93 09:37:12 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>Seriously, would White Sands become an operations area for the space-capable
>>versions of the DC series?
>
> I'm not sure anybody's planned that far ahead in detail, but it's an
> obvious possibility.  The management there seems less hidebound than the
> people at the Cape and Vandenberg.

Oh, yes, somebody has planned that far ahead.  A "New Mexico
Spaceport" is emphasized in viewgraphs McDonnell-Douglas has prepared,
clearly for building support among New Mexico's Congressmen and other
political leaders.  I've seen this in briefing materials Allen Sherzer
supplied.

I think McDAC would cheerfully emphasize a local spaceport anywhere
they were talking, though.  They'd like nothing better than to have a
bunch of space launch facilities, all flying McDAC hardware into orbit
continually.  But that's a *long* way off.  Still, it's in the
tradition of Delos D. Harriman...

During the first and second stage         Bill Higgins
flights of the vehicle, if a serious      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
irretrievable fault should occur and      [e-mail]
the deviation of the flight attitude of   [e-mail]
the vehicle exceeds a predetermined       SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS
value, the attitude self-destruction
system will make the vehicle
self-destroyed.
     --Long March 3 User's Manual
     Ministry of Astronautics, People's Republic of China (1985)

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


    id AA22593; Wed, 12 May 93 15:56:12 EDT
Received: from CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU by VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
          id aa09065; 12 May 93 16:52:33 EDT
To: [e-mail]
Xref: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:62205 talk.politics.space:2805
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!lerc.nasa.gov!lims01.lerc.nasa.gov!femanrs
From: BRUCE MANNERS <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: G. Gordon Liddy mentions T-Shirt at NASA
Followup-To: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Date: 12 May 1993 08:43 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Lines: 26
Distribution: world
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: lims01.lerc.nasa.gov
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>Mark Hittinger ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
>: Today's Liddy commentary mentions engineers at NASA wearing a T-shirt
>: that states
>
>: "WILL BUILD SPACE STATION FOR FOOD"
>
>
>: can somebody on the inside of this send me e-mail about where I could
>: get one of these excellent collector's items?
>
>Dunno, but your local T-Shirt shop oughta be able to whip one up.  I
>first saw this slogan taped to an outside window of JSC's building 2.
>
>-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
***Stuff Deleted

I think the original T-Shirt was purchased this way.  I have not heard
of any formal/informal T-Shirts like this.  Might be a good Idea though!

**************************************************************************

Bruce Manners                                 "Juglito, ergo sum"
                                                  The Flying Karamozov
                                                     Brothers

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 561
------------------------------