Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO598.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Thu, 20 May 93 05:36:30
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #598
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 20 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 598

Today's Topics:
                      About the mercury program
                         Billboards in Space
                               Billsats
                  Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
 Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
               Interesting DC-X cost anecdote (2 msgs)
Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!) (2 msgs)
           Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere
                      Measurement of Solar Noon
                           Orion Spacecraft
                     Over zealous shuttle critics
                                 R101
                 Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
                Saturn (was Re: Dance of the Planets)
                   Space Marketing would be silly.
            Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (2 msgs)
                              WaterWorld
               Why Government?  Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"

    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: Thu, 20 May 1993 00:28:41 GMT
From: Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: About the mercury program
Newsgroups: sci.space

Since Henry is reading this (and since he is in a zoology department),
and I'm on a tear about NASA's pushing astronauts as scientists, let me
relate a fable I remember from the Mercury days. Perhaps someone out
there can flesh it out or shoot it down. Cite sources, please, in either
case!

It seems that the importance of Man in space was to be highlighted by
having an astronaut perform a biological experiment on an early Mercury
flight. Sea urchin eggs and sperm were placed in a two-chambered acrylic
container fitted with a crank. Turning the crank would fertilize the eggs
and increase the sea-urchin count in space by several embryos.

The reason the experiment was done is that when sea urchin eggs are
fertilized on Earth, they differentiate in a manner which depends on
gravity. At some stage in development (I think it was at the 8-, 16- or
32-cell blastula stage) differentiation can be seen in the embryo,
oriented vertically in the Earth's field. If the embryo is turned over
after each cell division it does not differentiate properly, and giant,
undifferentiated embryos result. If some of the less radical of these are
allowed to develop they produce viable, if outsized, sea urchins. The
reason for looking at development in zero-gee is then obvious, if not
compelling. The conclusion might be that, if interstellar expeditions
want to take along sea urchins as a renewable food source, they'd better
provide centrifuges for them. It is astonishing to note that a similar
conclusion may apply to humans, but that is not yet known!

Which brings us back to the fellow with the plastic box. At the appointed
time our hero turned the crank. Unfortunately he turned it too hard, and
it broke! Thus was demonstrated the importance of Man in space. A
machine, after all, can't be expected to do science.

Leigh

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 01:42:35 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billboards in Space
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Dale M. Greer) writes:


>2) The surface of the Moon has about the same reflectivity as tar, so it
>   wouldn't take much for this billsat to be extremely bright.  In fact,
>   if I were going to do it, which I never would (hint: I don't accost
>   neighbors and fellow motorists with loud music either), I would use
>   some relatively dark material, else it might be too bright to read.

The moon is only bright due to having a dark background.
See everyone else's brightness calculations.

>3) Mao Tse Tung said: "Political power comes out of the barrel of a
>   gun."  There seem to be more anti-billsat people and they seem to be
>   willing to make great sacrifices to fight against billsats.  I doubt
>   that the pro-billsat people are willing to fight as hard for their
>   point of view.

True. But you also let the whole world see, in plain view, that
you're an even bigger jerk than someone who puts up adsats.

I mean, just think for a second: when was the last time you saw
anyone who shot at the goodyear blimp described as something other
than mentally deficient?
--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
[e-mail]|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 01:33:31 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billsats
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (jim jaworski) writes:

>[e-mail] (Tom) writes:

>> Richard J Shank sez;
>>
>> >I can see it now emblazened across the evening sky --
>> >                THIS SPACE FOR RENT
>>
>> How about  - ALL SPACE FOR RENT -?   Who's the landlord for space, anyway?
>
>GOD IS!!!

Or was, before he sublet out to the Vorgons. Of course, they plan
to put up billboards near Earth, because that way they'll be visible
from the freeway.

>[e-mail]
>The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607
--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
[e-mail]|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary

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

Date: 19 May 93 21:53:58 GMT
From: jeff findley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

There is a good overview of the Boeing TSTO concept in the May 17, 1993
issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology.  This article is titled,
"Boeing Proposed Two-Stage-To-Orbit Plan".  On the page opposite, is an
article titled "DC-X to Begin Static Test Firings".  Interesting enough,
the article mentions DC-X by saying, "Although Boeing would like to participate
in a Single-Stage-to-Orbit (SSTO) vehicle shuch as McDonnell Douglas's DC-X Delta
Clipper, internal feasibility studies indicate SSTO is not technically viable for
near-term implementation, including routine operations, according to John H.
Sandvig, manager preliminary design, Boeing Military Airplane Div."
Basically, the host aircraft will take the orbiter (under the host's belly) up
to about 100,000 ft altitude at a speed of Mach 3.3.  The orbiter separates
and finishes the flight to orbit under its own power.  The article goes on to
mention the following specs for the vehicle(s).

First Stage, or Host Aircraft (modified SST)
--------------------------------------------
o Doesn't specify what SST would be modified, but it doesn't look off the shelf
o Six 73,500-lb. static-thrust jet engines with afterburners burning 111,000 lb
  of JP-4 (this engines does not yet exsist)
o One Space Shuttle Main Engine burning 284,000 lb of cryogenic fuel
  (I would guess that this would need to be refurbished after every flight, like
   the Space Shuttle's main engines)

First Orbiter Variation
-----------------------
o Unmanned
o about 500,000 lb of cryogenic fuel
o One Space Shuttle Main Engine
o Four RL-10 liquid fuel Centaur engines (Not the RL10A-5 on DC-X)
o Wings similar to the shuttle's for unpowered, Space Shuttle-type reentry
o 12 x 12 x 20 ft payload bay
o 20,000 lb into 50 x 100 nautical mile transfer orbit (using standard SSME)
o 30,000 lb into the same transfer orbit with a more advanced SSME

Second Orbiter Variation
------------------------
o Manned
o NASP-derived Ram/Scramjet engines (not yet fully developed, as far as I know)
o Wings and reentry profile similar to Orbiter #1
o 20,000 lb into a 120-nautical mile, circular orbit

Third Orbiter Variation
-----------------------
o Unmanned
o Partially expendable, high-payload version
o No wings, only the engines and avionics pod will reenter and be recovered
o Unspecified propulsion (I would guess it would be the same as #1)
o 50,000 lb payload into a 120-nautical mile, circular orbit


My Humble Opinion
-----------------
Although Boeing claims that using an SST-like host aircraft would allow rapid
turnarounds, airline-like reliability and self-ferry capability, the use of
SSME's in the first variation of its orbiter and in the host aircraft should
keep costs high and slow turnarounds.  If they have to refurbish the SSME's
after each flight, they better keep a lot of spares on hand if they want to
keep turnaround time low (this wouldn't be cheap).

Also, the main jet engines on the host aircraft have not been developed.
Av. Week said that industry propulsion experts think this would be a 10-year
multi-billion dollar project.  This doesn't sound "near-term" to me.

Conclusion
----------
This doesn't look quite as promising as DC-Y (or whatever it is currently
being called), but if DC doesn't work, this may be a good alternative if Boeing
can deliver on it's estimate of flights costing less than $1000 per pound of
payload to orbit.

Jeff
--
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Jeff Findley, SDRC              | This is a test of the .signature system. |
| Cincinnati, OH                  | Remember, this is only a test.           |
| e-mail: [e-mail]   | All opinions above are my own, I think.  |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 19 May 1993 22:03:42 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ken Jenks, writes about the problems being management
not technical.  And what can be done about this.

The O'connor nee Shea group  is specifically tasked to
evaluate management,  and the Vest Panel  will  review
management changes.

My simple theory.  Give the whole thing to one center,
and one contractor.  Infomr the Center director,  that he and
his kids  have to crew it the first year.  Tell the CEO of the
contractor,  any over-runs come out of his salary.

pat

Who still thinks  that there is no  way out at this point,  and
is considering  what NASA  minus  SSF  and STS  would look like.

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

Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 18:05:43 GMT
From: Jay Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting DC-X cost anecdote
Newsgroups: sci.space

That's  nothing. I heard some one say it would cost NASA about 1 billion
dollars.

NASA's version, though, probable would be canceled by congress before
making it off the ground.

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

Date: 19 May 1993 22:18:21 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting DC-X cost anecdote
Newsgroups: sci.space

Pete Aldridge, made an interesting statement.

Cost for space hardware, measured in pounds.

Amatuer   $10,000/lb.  New gear.

Commercial COmm  $20,000/lb.

NASA/AF white Gear  $50,000/lb

CIA/NSA/ Black projects.  $100,000/lb.

I wonder how DC-X  fits into this schedule?
I figured  that assuming the DC-X team  was  100 people,  it was
costing  $1,000/day/person to build.   Does anyone know exactly how
many people were working  full time equivalents on the DC-X?

pat

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

Date: 19 May 1993 22:10:06 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pawel Moskalik) writes:
|
|Carter did not secure adequate funding for the shuttle development.
|He wanted to have it built cheap. You save on development, but then
|you have to pay much more in operational costs.
|
>Today US is paying for Carter's petty saving.


BSSST.

Wrong.  STS  funding  was set by Tada  Richard Nixon.
His OMB chief,  held NASA  to the LEast cost implementation.
At that Point,  the Carter administration  was stuck  with what
was there.

Fletcher,  had already selected,  ROCKWELL,  Thiokol  and Rocketdyne????
and  metal was being bent.

Now Carter,  could have  ordered a full review,  stopped the process
and Ordered,  New Boosters,  LRB's  not SRB's   and  maybe a re-compete
of the engines,  but that would have  delayed teh program  another 2 years,

and NASA was still promisng 24  flights a year, starting in 80.

Carter had he issued a new review,  would have  had all the heat
that Clinton now has on SSF.

pat

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

Date: 19 May 1993 22:12:53 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1tdnpb$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles J. Divine) writes:
|Carter himself did not seem that protechnology in general.  His
|general approach to problems seemed to be puritanical preaching --
|not let's see what we can do.

Let's not forget,  Carter was a nuclear engineer,
and seemed a whole lot more realistic  about what could be done
as opposed to reagan  who had no idea  what the laws of physics were.

pat

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

Date: 19 May 1993 21:54:52 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan to Test Aerobraking in Venus Atmosphere
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric H Seale) writes:
>[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
|
|Of course, Congress is getting bored with Magellan anyway (now let's see
|-- if a program fails, they whine because of the failure; if a program
|succeeds, they whine because they have to keep funding it... ;-) ).
|My understanding is that without aerobraking, Magellan's operations funding
|would have been cancelled anyway, and the bird would have been turned
|off.  If Magellan doesn't make it through aerobraking in one piece, at
|least she'll go down with her boots on...


Bzzt.

    Wrong, answer.  The correct answer is Nasa Management
is tired of Magellan,  and is putting money  that could support
COBE  and Magellan  into  DDTE towards AXAF  and SIRTF.
Not to mention our old friend  Fred  and STS.

The amount of money to support magellan  is actually below
the level of attention  of COngress.
They would only list something like this,  if a particular
member  had a bee in their bonnett,  about it.

Remember,  NASA has a 14Billion dollar budget.  9 million
bucks,   is less then .1%  of their total budget.

The DoD  uses the Phrase, a penny  to describe  $100,000.00
Their people don't even program  below this increment.
Magellan is only 9  DoD dollars.

pat

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

Date: 19 May 93 21:57:14 GMT
From: David Lai <[e-mail]>
Subject: Measurement of Solar Noon
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi netters,

    I wish to know what is the best method to measure solar noon (when
the Sun is highest in the sky) using only naked-eye.  That is, how do you

know when the Sun is highest in the sky???

                        Regards,

                            David.

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 01:54:01 GMT
From: Colby Hayward <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orion Spacecraft
Newsgroups: sci.space

    This is sort of a crossover from a question I asked on sci.military;
If anyone here has heard of the proposed Orion spacecraft, they may be
wondering the same thing.

    Apparently, the Orion has a large "pusher plate" (read: shock
absorber) built into the rear of the vessel.  It propels (sp?) itself by
dropping nukes out the back, and detonating them at (relatively) short
range.  The shockwave is supposed to propel the ship forward.

    WHAT shockwave?  Aren't we in near vaccuum, here?  :)

    Someone care to explain this to me?


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\  Colby Hayward; The Colbyashi-maru     /
/              *Loopy*                   \
\  aka [e-mail]  /                                     /
/  What the hell is a sig, anyway?       \
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 01:30:23 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Over zealous shuttle critics
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In <1tb1re$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>>>The shuttle will share another with the R-101.

>>What's teh R-101.

>There were a pair of airships built by the British.  One was a private
>concern, was built, and flew well.

That was the R-100.

>The competitor was the government built R-101, which was a disaster.

Yah.

After the R-100 flew to Canada and back, and the R-101 crashed
in France due to structural failure, the government declared that
Airships Were Obviously A Waste Of Time and therefore scrapped the
R-100.

>--
>"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.
--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
[e-mail]|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary

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

Date: 19 May 1993 21:59:20 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: R101
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Del Cotter) writes:
>No reason you should have heard of it, it was built by foreigners (those
>ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it, Pat).


As if we should care about the problems of a Failed, second Rate
Bankrupt Imperial Power,  that didn't know enough to Fight a
Defensive Trench War?

Sarcasm  mode off

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

Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 22:53:34 GMT
From: Scott Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
Newsgroups: sci.space

>words, are you asserting as fact that no such system exists?
[Live video assertations removed]
>
>[Note that I am *not* asserting the fact of the existence of such a
>system with a 30fps or similar frame rate.  However, I can think of
>situations where such a system would be useful or desirable by people
>who could get allocation for funding of such a project and can think
>of no specific technological impossibilities involved in its creation.
>You may feel free to draw your own conclusions from there, however it
>seems a reasonably safe bet, unless you can come up with reasons why
>such a system would be impossible, that such a system exists.]
Live video as shown in Patriot Games most likely is possible.  From a
satellite, improbable.  Think about a satellite in low earth orbit, which
the US recon satellites supposedly orbit.  Think about the period of said
orbit.  How many minutes is the scene in Patriot Games last?  Do you think
that the satellite could actually maintain pointing on that one spot for
that long without varying the resolution, etc.?  Do you think that the
satellite is capable of those kinds of body rates to do this?

The average period of a low earth orbit is around 90 minutes, with an
average velocity of 17,000 mph (give or take).  Think about what kinds
of capability would be required to give live video with that kind of
resolution.  I think that Real Time means that the image is collected
at the time that it is taken and not dropped off on some film cartridge
for later retrieval.

I would guess that a video image like shown in Patriot Games would more
likely come from a blackbird or similar airplane, not from space.
--
Scott Smith
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 03:15:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Saturn (was Re: Dance of the Planets)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Uwe Bonnes) writes:
>
> Both the "starchart" and "(x)ephem" - package can plot the position of the moons of saturn (and very much more!)

I should have mentioned I am PC based. xephem is for unix isn't it? Is
"starchart" for PCs?

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).
Tel: [phone] (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min
  (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.035%)
                    growing fast! up another notch by mid May 1993!-----^

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 03:31:14 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be silly.
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Jurkat) writes:

>Do you really think there'll be only one advertiser or just one billboard?

No.  However, I doubt that there will be enough for the average over time to
be greater than one.

>Also advertisers like to outdo one another:  i.e. bigger and brighter
>billboards, with animation, blinking attention grabbing lights, billboards
>shaped like the product, several billboard to show a special effect, etc.
>It'll make Los Vegas look down right homey in comparison.

To duplicate 100% solar reflection on a 1.6 km square (a mile measured in real
units) would require the same amount of energy as would hit such a surface in
full daylight.  That works out to be close to 4 megawatts.  That either means
an impressive nuclear reactor or a solar array 3 km on a side.  Neither of these
strike me as worth the effort.  If someone wanted to build an array that size
they'd be selling the power, not using it to promote cures for that not so
fresh feeling.

Folks, I'm too much of a realist to take my predictions of the future seriously.
However, there are a half dozen good reasons why this whole bugaboo should never
get off the ground and a half dozen more why it wouldn't be the end of the
world if it did.  I'm not going to promise that the night sky will never look
like Las Vegas.  However, I'd like to see _one_ reason why I should take this
threat seriously.  You've heard one press report about a single company that's
considering doing this and didn't have any funding.  You've turned it into the
threat of scores of tampon ads miles long, blinking their way across the night
sky.  Anyone can flame a strawman and get an impressive result.  We've
presented back of the envelope engineering and economic analysis suggesting
you're wrong.  The least you could do is try some of the same.



--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
            "Find a way or make one."
                 -attributed to Hannibal

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 01:09:53 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space

[e-mail] (Matt Kennel) writes:

>I believe that this orbiting space junk will be FAR brighter still;
>more like the full moon.  The moon upsets deep-sky observation all
>over the sky (and not just looking at it) because of scattered light.

We already went over the fact that the space junk or whatever will be
much much less bright than the full moon.

>This is a known problem, but of course two weeks out of every four are
>OK.  What happens when this billboard circles every 90 minutes?  What
>would be a good time then?

Due to its orbit the billboard would be passing over a location once every
twelve hours, not ninety minutes. And during at least one of those passes
it's going to be daylight anyway; during the other it'll be deep twilight.
--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
[e-mail]|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 01:22:11 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space

[e-mail] (Steve Waddell) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>|> [e-mail] writes:
>|>
>|> >What a waste of resources when they can't even get the space station going!
>|> >===============================================================
>|>
>|> Destroying that project wouldn't pay for another water cooler at
>|> Reston. This project would pay for itself at a very small fraction
>|> of what Space Station is taking from the gubbimint every year and
>|> not getting built....
>|> --

>Maybe they should put the billboards on the space station!  :)

Other than the fact that the station probably isn't compatible with the
billboard, this idea may be worth pursuing. Ads on the station itself would
have high visibility (during televised coverage) without really screwing
up the night sky like everyone is unfoundedly claiming the adsat
would.

Besides, I just noticed: the station modules are shaped _just_ like
Coke cans.

Ken, are you still out there? Your office have a water cooler yet?
If not, have I got a deal for you...

>____________________________________________________________________________
>  Steve Waddell                                        [e-mail]
>  Bellcore                                             [phone]
>____________________________________________________________________________
--
Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
[e-mail]|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 01:59:34 GMT
From: Colby Hayward <[e-mail]>
Subject: WaterWorld
Newsgroups: sci.space

    On a rather sci-fi-ish note...

    I occasionally like to (try to) write science fiction stories,
usually based on hard science, with a bit of artistic leeway.  Mind you, I
hardly ever finish them...  :)

    Anyway, I was wondering what the conditions would be like if you had
an Earthsized "planet", in Earthlike orbit, around a more-or-less Sunlike
star, that was composed entirely of water.  The surface would be a normal
ocean, but once you got past, oh say 20 miles deep, wouldn't strange things
begin to occur?  The core would probably be some form of high-pressure ice,
with various layers corresponding to various pressures, right?

    Yet another strange concept from the mind of Me (tm).


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\  Colby Hayward; The Colbyashi-maru     /
/              *Loopy*                   \
\  aka [e-mail]  /                                     /
/  What the hell is a sig, anyway?       \
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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

Date: 19 May 1993 22:24:28 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government?  Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1tbu55$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
|
|Shuttle is like penicillin.  It was extremely difficult to isolate and
|extremely expensive.  Its original use was very limited.  But demand for
|the drug caused mass production.  It is a drug which must be used carefully,
|or side effects will occur.  Whether or not shuttles (or any following
>vehicle) gets mass produced will be driven by the market.
a
No.  I don't think so, ken.

Peniccillin  had an enormous market,  that being any one with a
gram negative infection.  That was several million people/ year.
and Penicillin had the capcity to be mass produced,  it really required
nothing more complex then a good sized dairy would require.

Centoxin  has a small market,  and proved to have very, limited effect.
The shuttle did too.   The fact is the SHuttle requires an enormous
army of people to support a small flight rate,  with no prospect
ever of increasing that production.

Also,  the shuttle has very few unique capabilities  that are needed.

Most payloads go one way,  and the in flight service costs, exceed the
economic value of most payloads.  Even the HST, service mission is very
marginal  on a cost  basis.

The shuttle  will most likely end up a lost history chapter.

pat

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 598
------------------------------