Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO615.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 37KB

Date: Sun, 23 May 93 05:16:13
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #615
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 23 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 615

Today's Topics:
             Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long) (2 msgs)
                 Case for Mars V Conference Schedule
        How do the Soviets retrieve boken satellites? (4 msgs)
                              Moon Base
           Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" (3 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 22:00:27 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>I suppose you could modify an aluminum SST for a short sprint to Mach 3+,
>>with active cooling for leading edges and limits on high-speed flight time
>>so the rest of the structure wouldn't get too hot, but it sounds a little
>>marginal to me.
>
>Is there *anything* about space launching that isn't marginal when
>compared to civil aviation? High speed dash capability has been
>demonstrated in B-58, SR-71, and of course X-15 without active cooling...

The B-58 wasn't capable of Mach 3 even in a dash, and neither the SR-71
nor the X-15 was made of aluminum.  (The SR-71 was mostly titanium, and
the X-15 used titanium for its *low-temperature* structure plus various
refractory metals for the hot stuff.)

The crucial question is, are we talking about an operational transportation
system, or a low-duty-cycle research aircraft?  Marginal approaches won't
cut it for operational transportation -- there you need safety margins
and fault tolerance.

>... Active cooling for the necessary
>short dashes might be easiest, but even Shuttle tiles or thermal blankets
>might do for passive protection...

Except that adding *external* insulation means throwing most of the old
aerodynamic test results in the garbage -- you're dealing with something
approaching a new aircraft.  You don't just casually slap insulation on
the leading edge of a wing; the slightest change in leading-edge shape
makes a big difference to the aerodynamics.  And a fatter leading edge,
in particular, is seriously bad news for supersonic drag.

It's probably feasible, but it's getting pretty far from the notion of
an off-the-shelf aircraft.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 01:39:50 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>
>>I suppose you could modify an aluminum SST for a short sprint to Mach 3+,
>>with active cooling for leading edges and limits on high-speed flight time
>>so the rest of the structure wouldn't get too hot, but it sounds a little
>>marginal to me.

>Is there *anything* about space launching that isn't marginal when
>compared to civil aviation? High speed dash capability has been
>demonstrated in B-58, SR-71, and of course X-15 without active cooling
>systems. Now the latter used special materials, but we've become much
>more adept at that in recent years.

Are you on skunk-works? I was a while back when there was discussion
of something called the "Super-Hustler" which I think you would find
very interesting.

>Active cooling for the necessary
>short dashes might be easiest, but even Shuttle tiles or thermal blankets
>might do for passive protection. (I know, bite your tongue for mentioning
>off the shelf Shuttle pieces.)

I talked about it a while back; we could use them off the shelf or even
off the shuttle.

--

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

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

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 21:16:14 GMT
From: Richard Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Case for Mars V Conference Schedule
Newsgroups: sci.space

Here's the schedule for The Case for Mars V.  Appended are registration and
lodging information.

  CASE FOR MARS V - TENTATIVE SCHEDULE - SPEAKER ASSIGNMENTS    May 20, 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      |       May 26      |       May 27      |       May 28      |  May 29 |
      |    1   Wed   2    |    1   Thu   2    |   1    Fri   2    |   Sat   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7:30 |   REGISTRATION    |                   |                   |         |
 7:40 |      BEGINS       |                   |                   |         |
 7:50 |                   |                   |                   |         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 8:00 |  Welcome - TM/CU  |    PATHWAYS TO    |LIFE SCI-| MISSION |         |
 8:10 |                   | HUMAN EXPLORATION:|ENCE, THE| STRATEGY|         |
 8:20 | Tom Paine Dedicat.| MISSION PROPOSALS |TOP ISSUES Murbach |_________|
 8:30 |                   | Mendell           | Lyne    | LeCompte|         |
 8:40 |                   | Zubrin            | Pfitzer | Willis  |         |
 8:50 |   Goldin (video)  | Lusignan          | Cann    | Turek   |         |
-------------------------------------------------------------------         |
 9:00 |                   |                   |         |         |  Work   |
 9:10 |     Pellerin      |                   |         |         |  Shop   |
 9:20 |                   |                   |         |         |  Wrap   |
 9:30 |                   | Duke              | Rudiger | Clark   |   Up    |
 9:40 |___________________| Morgenthaler      | Reysa   | Colin   |         |
 9:50 |                   | Lemke             | Rice    | Rodin   |         |
-------      Break        |-------------------|-------------------|         |
10:00 |-------------------|      Break *      |      Break *      |         |
10:10 |  Video Teleconf.  |___________________|___________________|         |
10:20 |  Stanford-CU-UMD  |       PANEL       |         |SPACECRAF|_________|
10:30 | Defense Conversion| What Happened to  |         |         |         |
10:40 | & International   |       SEI?        | Kuznetz | Herbert |  Break  |
10:50 | Industrial Coop   |  Lessons for the  | VonZandt| Stoiko  |         |
---------------.---------------- Future ------------------------------------|
11:00 |        .          |        .          |BIOSPHERE|PROPULSIO|PUBLIC PGM
11:10 |        .          |        .          |Live Video         | Life on |
11:20 |        .          |        .          | Nelson  | Landis  | Mars    |
11:30 |        .          |        .          | PANEL:  | Colvin  | Past    |
11:40 |        .          |        .          |FUTURE OF| Borowski| Present |
11:50 |        .          |                   |LIFE SCI | Merrihew| Future  |
------------------------------------------------------------------|  -----  |
12:00 |                                                           |Biosphere|
12:10 |                                                           |    2    |
12:20 |                        LUNCH BREAK                        |   Live  |
12:30 |                                                           |         |
12:40 |                                                           |  -----  |
12:50 |                                                           |  Rover  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------  Demo   |
 1:00 | POLICY  | PRECURS-| INTL COOPERATION  |LIFE     |RESOURCE |         |
 1:10 |         | ORS     |                   |SUPPORT  |UTILIZAT.|         |
 1:20 |         |         | Bourke            |         | Brierley|  -----  |
 1:30 | Day     | Cook    | Gorshkov          | Roberts | McMillen|Terraform-
 1:40 | Meyer   | Chicarr.| Friedman          | Chamber.| Ramohal.|ing Mars |
 1:50 | Simmons | Knocke  | PortreeP          | Gonzale.| Kleinbe.|         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 2:00 |         |         | SPACE   |EXOBIOLOGY         | Ishikawa|         |
 2:10 |         |         | POWER   | Ivanov  |         |MARS BASE|         |
 2:20 | Landis  | Pivirot.| Gill    | Clark   |         |DESIGN   |         |
 2:30 | Cadden  | Zubrin  | Cataldo | Farmer  | Asher   | Cohen   |  Party  |
 2:40 | Becker  | Murbach | Gaier   | Rice    | Herbert | Buckley |         |
 2:50 | Marshall| Thangav.| Landis  | Landhe.P| Kuznetz | Moore   |         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

      |    1   Wed   2    |    1   Thu   2    |   1    Fri   2    |   Sat   |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 3:00 |      Break *      |      Break *      |      Break *      |         |
 3:10 |___________________|___________________|___________________|         |
 3:20 |COMMERCIA|PLANETARY|         |TERRAFORM|NEW TECH-|         |         |
 3:30 |         |PROTECTION         | Fogg    |NOLOGY   |         |         |
 3:40 | Ryan    | Race    | Gaier   | Zubrin  | Yowell  | Ishikawa|         |
 3:50 | Vanaja  | Gonzales| Burger  | Yashar P| Willoub.| Cliffton|         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 4:00 |EDUCATION| Spiero P| ROVERS  | Oberg  P| Chapin  | Sadeh   |         |
 4:10 | Laatsch |PANEL:   | Savu   P|TERRAFORM|         | Scott   |         |
 4:20 | Scott   |WHAT NEXT| Smith   |PANEL:   |         | Laatsc.P|         |
 4:30 | Richard | SCIENCE | Burleson|FUTURE OF|         |         |         |
 4:40 |         | OBJECT- | Morgent.|EARTH AND|         |         |         |
 4:50 |         | IVES?   | Garvey  |MARS     |         |         |         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 5:00 |         |         |TELEOPER.|         |         |         |         |
 5:10 |         |         |  ROVER  |         |         |         |         |
 5:20 |         |         |  DEMO   |         |         |         |         |
 5:30 |         |         |----.--------------|         |         |         |
 5:40 |         |         |    .              |         |         |         |
 5:50 |         |         |    .              |         |         |         |
---------------------------    .              ------------------------------|
 6:00 |         |         |  Martin Marietta  |         |         |         |
 6:10 |         |         |                   |         |         |         |
 6:20 |         |         |     Reception     |         |         |         |
 6:30 |         |         |                   |         |         |         |
 6:40 |         |         |                   |         |         |         |
 6:50 |         |         |                   |         |         |         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 7:00 |                                                           |         |
 7:10 |                                                           |         |
 7:20 |  <--------------------- WORKSHOPS ----------------------> |         |
 7:30 |                       7:30 - 10:30 pm                     |         |
 7:40 |                                                           |         |
 7:50 |                                                           |         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 8:00 |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |
 8:10 |         |         |Biospheres         |         |         |         |
 8:20 |         |         |Workshop |         |         |         |         |
 8:30 |         |         |via Video|         |         |         |         |
 8:40 |         |         |Boulder- |         |         |         |         |
 8:50 |         |         |to-Bio 2 |         |         |         |         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 9:00 |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |
 9:10 |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |
 9:20 |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |
 9:30 |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |
 9:40 |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |
 9:50 |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
10:00 |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |
10:10 |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |
10:20 |         |         |         |         |         |         |         |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*  Rover Demo During Break
** Note to authors: two slide and two overhead projectors will be available.


@Workshops (Proposed)
---------------------
A plenary workshop meeting will be held at 7:00 PM Wednesday May 26 and again
on Thursday evening in the Glenn Miller Ballroom to propose, define and
coordinate the workshops.

1. Short Term Economic and Social Justification for Human Exploration
   Chair: Robert Becker

2. Biospheres Workshop
   Chairs: Penelope Boston, Kelly McMillen
   Workshop will include video linkup with Biosphere 2 at 7:30 PM, May 27

3. Workshop on Earth and Mars - The Future of Two Biospheres
   Chair: Chris McKay, Robert Haynes
   With terraforming notes by Robert Haynes

4. What happened to the Solar System Exploration Initiative? - Lessons
   for The Future.
   Chairs: Carol Stoker, Larry Lemke

                           *  *  *  *  *  *  *


                REGISTRATION AND PRESENTATION RESPONSE FORM

                          The Case for Mars V

Name:__________________________________________________________________
Organization:__________________________________________________________
Mail Code:_____________________________________________________________
Address:_______________________________________________________________
City,State,Zip:________________________________________________________
Country:_______________________________________________________________

Phone:____________________________FAX:_________________________________
E-mail address:________________________________________________________


PRESENTATIONS: The conference program will consist of invited papers and
panels as well as contributed oral and poster papers.  Titles for contributed
papers should be sent as soon as possible.  Abstracts for papers must be
received by May 12, 1993.  Abstracts sent by electronic mail are preferred.

   ____ I wish to offer a paper for consideration in the program.  Please
   indicate preference for ____ oral or ____ poster presentation.

Title/Subject:___________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________


WORKSHOP: The conference program will include a workshop for professionals
and advanced students that will focus on technical, social and programmatic
aspects of Mars exploration.

   ____ I wish attend the workshop.  Please indicate your area of
   interest/expertise: ___________________________________________________
   _______________________________________________________________________


REGISTRATION FEE: Conference facilities are limited and advanced registration
is recommended.  The registration fee is $90 (US) until May 12, 1993 and $120
thereafter (students and K-12 educators $20, $25 after the deadline).  Make
checks payable to The Case for Mars.

   ____ I plan to attend the conference, ____ Undecided, ____ Will not attend.
   ____ I wish to register at this time, payment enclosed.

Please send to:
 Tom Meyer                     [phone] (Tele.), [phone] (FAX)
 Case for Mars V               zodiac::marscase (SPAN)
 P.O. Box 4877                 [e-mail] (Internet)
 Boulder, CO  80306  U.S.A.    tmeyer (NASAMAIL)


                              THE CASE FOR MARS V

                          HOTEL AND TRAVEL INFORMATION

REGISTRATION: The Case for Mars V will held at the University Memorial Center
(UMC) on the University of Colorado campus in Boulder.  Registration begins
at 7:30 AM, Wednesday May 26th in the main lobby.  The UMC is located on
Euclid Street at Broadway.

DIRECTIONS: If you are driving from Denver/Stapleton Airport to Boulder via
Highway 36 (28th Street in Boulder), take the Baseline exit off of Highway 36
(second exit in Boulder), turn left (West/toward the mountains) and go two
blocks to Broadway (second stop light).  Go right on Broadway to Euclid (second
stop light).  The UMC is on the NE corner of Broadway and Euclid.  Go right on
Euclid 1/2 block to short term public parking on your left just beyond the UMC.
Note, park only in designated lots, campus parking is heavily patrolled.  Long
term parking permits may be purchased at the registration desk.

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

HOTELS:

Clarion Harvest House, 1345 28th Street (Hy 36), Boulder, CO 80302.  (303)
443-3850, [phone] FAX. Conference rates until April 15th: $68 S, $78 D,
$57 S Gov't.  Coming from Denver via Hy 36, the Clarion is located on the
left one block past the first stop light on 28th Street as you enter Boulder.
Distance to the Conference is 6 blocks.

Hotel Boulderado, 2115 13th St., Boulder, CO 80302.  [phone], (800)
433-4344 FAX, [phone], Rates: $104-$144 S, $116-$156 D.  Distance 9
blocks.

Days Inn, 5397 S. Boulder Road, Boulder, Colorado 80303. [phone],
[phone], Rates: $64 S, $69 D, (Gov't rate less $5). Distance 2 miles.

Golden Buff Lodge (Best Western), 1725 28th St., Boulder, CO 80301.  (303)
442-7450, [phone], [phone] FAX, Rates: $62-70 S, $72-80 D.
Distance 9 blocks.

University Inn Motel, 1632 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302.  [phone],
[phone], [phone] FAX, Rates: $50-80 S, $55-85 D, $5 each
additional person, includes Continental Breakfast.  Distance 4 blocks.

Holiday Inn, 800 28th St, Boulder, CO 80303. [phone], [phone].
Rates: $74 S, $84 D.  Distance 6 blocks

Boulder Broker Inn, 555 30th St., Boulder, CO 80303. [phone] or (800)
338-5407, [phone] FAX, Rates: $91 S, $101 D.  Distance 8 blocks

Mariott Courtyard, 4710 Pearl East Circle, Boulder, Colorado 80301. (303)
440-4700, [phone], [phone] FAX, Rates: $69-$75 S, $69-$85 D,
($66 D Gov't Rate).  Distance 2 miles.

Briar Rose, Bed and Breakfast Inn, 2151 Arapahoe Ave., [phone],
Rates: $70-94 S, $85-109 D.  Distance 7 blocks.

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

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION:

AIRPORT: Denver Stapleton Airport is located about 30 miles from Boulder.  Car
rental, buses and limos are available.

AIRPORT LIMO: The Airporter Limo to Boulder hotels is $9.50, travel time 45
minutes.  It departs on the hour from Stapleton Airport, 8 AM to 8 PM, and
10:15 PM last departure, tickets at airport baggage level Door 6, ride space
available or call 303 321-3222 for reservations.

BUS, AIRPORT-TO-BOULDER: The RTD bus from Denver Stapleton Airport to the
terminal in downtown Boulder departs from the area near the airport baggage
level Door 11.  The bus is marked Boulder, and travels approximately every 30
minutes from 7:40 AM to 5:40 PM and hourly until 12:40 AM, cost $2.50 exact
change, travel time 75 minutes.  Hourly on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays.

The Regent Street bus stop is nearest Kittredge dormitory, followed by the
Euclid Street stop at the University Memorial Center, the conference
registration site.  The bus next passes the University Inn motel and continues
to the downtown terminal which is three blocks from the Hotel Boulderado.

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

CAMPUS HOUSING

[NOTE: DURING THE FINAL WEEK BEFORE THE CONFERENCE, THE UNIVERSITY WILL ACCEPT
DORM RESERVATIONS BY PHONE AT [phone].]

A University of Colorado room and board package is available for The Case for
Mars V conference.  The package includes lodging in Kittredge Residence Halls
Complex from May 25 - May 29, 1993 (Tuesday - Saturday).  The price for
single accommodations is $181.93 per person.  This includes lodging Tuesday
night May 25th through Friday night May 28th and all meals beginning with
breakfast on Wednesday through breakfast on Saturday.

Payment is due at check-in, do not send payment in advance.  Reservations
should not be made by phone.  Please mail the enclosed application card to
make your reservation.  A confirmation will be sent to you prior to the
conference.  The package can be extended but not broken; call [phone]
in order to arrange an extended stay, or for prices on double rooms.  Check-in
is at Kittredge Commons located just south of the Fiske Planetarium easily
distinguished by its geodesic dome.

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

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SUMMER CONFERENCE HOUSING APPLICATION
KITTREDGE [phone]

MAIL TO: Kittredge Commons
         The University of Colorado
         Boulder, Colorado 80310

Name of Conference:____________________________________________________________

Participant Name(last/first):__________________________________________________

Address:_______________________________ City:___________ State:______ Zip:_____

Telephone(Home): ___________________ (Business): ___________________

Sex:_____   First night lodging:_____________ Last night lodging:______________

Please Request One of the Following:
 * Single Room _______ Double Room:_______ (No Roommate Preference)

   Double Room (Name of Roommate)______________________________________________

   Special Requests(Smoker/Nonsmoker, etc):____________________________________
 * There are a limited number of single rooms.  If unavailable, assignment will
   be made to a double room with another conference participant.

Complete if Accompanied by Spouse and/or Family:
 Spouse:
   Name:______________________ First night lodging:_________Last night:________
 Children:
   Name:_____________Age:____ Sex:____ Double:____ Single:____
                               First night lodging:_________Last night:________
   Name:_____________Age:____ Sex:____ Double:____ Single:____
                               First night lodging:_________Last night:________

   Name:_____________Age:____ Sex:____ Double:____ Single:____
                               First night lodging:_________Last night:________

Will a Rollaway Bed be Needed? _____________ Crib? __________
Total Number in Party:________________

Payment is due at check in. Cash, travelers checks, personal checks, Visa and
MasterCard will be accepted.  Do Not Send Payment in Advance.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



--
Loudyellnet: Richard Johnson | Sneakernet: ECOT6-29 or ECNT1-6, CU Boulder
Phonenet: +1 303.492.0590    | Internet: [e-mail]
RIPEM and PGP public keys available by server, finger or request
Speaker to avalanche dragons.   Do you really think they listen?

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

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 20:08:40 -0400
From: "William F. O'Dell" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do the Soviets retrieve boken satellites?
Newsgroups: sci.space

All of this STS vs. Soyez got me wondering.
How do the Soviets retrieve scewed up satellites?-Or do they?
Just curious.

Furman
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 01:45:07 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do the Soviets retrieve boken satellites?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> "William F. O'Dell" <[e-mail]> writes:
>How do the Soviets retrieve scewed up satellites?-Or do they?

In general, they don't.  They did do a major repair job on one of their
space stations -- Salyut 6? -- by the obvious method of docking a Soyuz
to it.

The ability to return large payloads from orbit is much oversold.  It is
almost always better, or at least simpler, to just leave things up there.
Things that do need to be returned are usually small.  (The only thing big
about LDEF was its frame; the individual experiments were small.)
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 23 May 93 02:52:04 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do the Soviets retrieve boken satellites?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> "William F. O'Dell" <[e-mail]> writes:
>All of this STS vs. Soyez got me wondering.
>How do the Soviets retrieve scewed up satellites?-Or do they?
>Just curious.
>
>Furman
>[e-mail]
>

 No, they don't. They launch new satelite to replace the broken one.

 For most military sats, they actualy launch the replacement BEFORE
 the old one breaks.

Pawel Moskalik

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

Date: 23 May 1993 03:12:26 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do the Soviets retrieve boken satellites?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>How do the Soviets retrieve scewed up satellites?-Or do they?
>
>In general, they don't.  They did do a major repair job on one of their
>space stations -- Salyut 6? -- by the obvious method of docking a Soyuz
>to it.
>

  It was Salut 7. There have been two repairs. In 1984 they did a major
plumbing job on the fuel system. It took 5 EVAs.  In 1985 the station
went completely dead. It turned out that the acumulators were not recharged
and the whole station froze (!!). They have docked Soyuz with it
and the crew fixed the problem and slowly reactivated all systems.
There are some nice pictures of Dzhanibekov and Savinykh working on
board, in warm coats, gloves and fur hats (!!).


>Things that do need to be returned are usually small.  (The only thing big
>about LDEF was its frame; the individual experiments were small.)

 Good point. Soviets do LDEF-type experiments all the time. They place
 the samples outside of the MIR station during EVA. Some time later another
 crew during another EVA takes them back and returns to Earth in their
 Soyuz, or in Progress Landing Capsule.


Pawel Moskalik

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

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 22:14:36 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>The more pressing question though is "Why go back to the Moon?"
>The general public says "Been there, done that." And there seems
>little commercial justification. There are certainly more interesting
>scientific targets. Mars for one, minor planets and comets for others.

The main reason for going back to the Moon is to start a sustained
program of space exploration.  The first step in doing that *has* to
be convincing the public (or whoever's funding you) that one or two
visits is not enough.  A program whose support is based on "firsts"
is headed straight for another post-Apollo disaster, because there
just aren't that many readily-accessible "firsts".  If the objective
is sustained spaceflight, the Moon is the right place to start.

Commercial justification for a return to the Moon is slim, but for
anything else -- Mars, asteroids, etc. -- it's nil.

As for "more interesting" scientific targets, that depends on who you
ask.  There is a long list of unsolved mysteries of lunar science.
And letting your space program be run by which target looks most
interesting at the moment means not having a *program* at all, just
a random grab-bag of missions.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 21:49:35 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>If you look at polling information, the space program comes in next to
>last as a priority for funding; only defense is lower...

This depends a whole lot on what sort of question you ask, as is usual
with such things.  For example, Joe Average typically has a wildly
inflated idea of the size of the NASA budget, and supplying a bit of
information with the question can change the answer quite a bit.

Last I heard, the overall picture hasn't changed much in recent years:
the public generally likes the space program and wouldn't support killing
it... but doesn't think it's particularly well run, and doesn't consider
it a high priority.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 01:29:22 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

[e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:

MS>On Sat, 22 May 1993 14:34:38 GMT, [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) said, in reference to the Shuttle:

>Phil> And there isn't a flying machine in the world that has destroyed
>Phil> as much money/effort/resources.

MS>Well, the B-1 program is certainly a close competitor, if not the
MS>victor.  It can't even perform its mission and has spent more time
MS>grounded than Shuttle did after Challenger.

Well, it depends on _what_ B-1 you mean; the B-1B seems to be an
attempt to make the baseline B-1 into something that could pretend
to compete with the B-2 (subsonic low-level stealth) and given the
airframe and mission it was originally designed for, the conversion
was bound to produce something really costly.

And maybe now would be a good time to pump you for info on the
great Shuttle/B-1 scandal I saw on 60 seconds a while back, where
allegedly Rockwell was charging NASA under the shuttle program for
stuff related to the B-1.

>On the other hand, the B-1A, in the white livery, was a great deal
>more attractive than the Shuttle.  Not so the B-1B--what a difference
>a little paint makes.

Well, were you expecting them to maybe paint a target on it?
Camo may not look that great, but it's not like there was _that_
much choice.

And you're also forgetting the ATF; not only is the winner starting to
look like a turkey (only flying copy crashed in a PIO), but it looked
horrible to begin with.

I mean, if we're going to spend money for a plane to fight the
currently scaled-back Soviet Threat, couldn't we have at least spent
money on the one that looked good?

>I see B-1s and B-2s fairly frequently.  For all the ballyhoo about the
>B-2's cost, I'll bet that the B-1 is a great deal more expensive, in
>current dollars, over the entire life of the program.  Particularly if
>you add in all the lobbying costs.

I've also heard that the B-2 is expensive for the same reason the
Shuttle Orbiters are expensive: the program got stretched out to the
point where they weren't being built assembly-line fashion any more,
but one at a time...

_Nothing_ is cheap as a hand-made one-off item.
--

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

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

Date: 23 May 93 04:48:08 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

On Sun, 23 May 1993 01:29:22 GMT, [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) said:

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

MS>On Sat, 22 May 1993 14:34:38 GMT, [e-mail] (Phil G.
MS>Fraering) said, in reference to the Shuttle:

Phil> And maybe now would be a good time to pump you for info on the
Phil> great Shuttle/B-1 scandal I saw on 60 seconds a while back,
Phil> where allegedly Rockwell was charging NASA under the shuttle
Phil> program for stuff related to the B-1.

All I know is what I read in the L A Times and AvLeak.  Remember
that I work on the first A in NASA, not on the S.

I will say that charging problems aren't unique to Rockwell--I've
heard of a lot of such cases.

Phil> And you're also forgetting the ATF; not only is the winner
Phil> starting to look like a turkey (only flying copy crashed in a
Phil> PIO), but it looked horrible to begin with.

The YF-22 wasn't that bad a plane--remember that the plane that
crashed was just the fly-off bird and not the real thing.  Certain
compromises were made to get something in the air cheaply and quickly.
The Y in the name tells you this up front--Y aircraft aren't quite
as risky as X aircraft, but they're not production aircraft and have
to be treated as special aircraft.

For what it's worth, that YF-22 was coming to Dryden just as soon as
they finished a little 100-hour program of testing that they wanted
to do for the F-22, trying to save some time and money when the Cat
I testing started.

Phil> I mean, if we're going to spend money for a plane to fight the
Phil> currently scaled-back Soviet Threat, couldn't we have at least
Phil> spent money on the one that looked good?

The F-4 Phantom is flying proof that looks aren't everything.  Ditto
the F-117 and virtually any USN carrier-based aircraft.

We're getting the YF-23s, according to the latest notes from the
Facility staff meeting.  One will be flyable and I think the other
will be an iron bird.

>I see B-1s and B-2s fairly frequently.  For all the ballyhoo about
>the B-2's cost, I'll bet that the B-1 is a great deal more expensive,
>in current dollars, over the entire life of the program.
>Particularly if you add in all the lobbying costs.

Phil> I've also heard that the B-2 is expensive for the same reason
Phil> the Shuttle Orbiters are expensive: the program got stretched
Phil> out to the point where they weren't being built assembly-line
Phil> fashion any more, but one at a time...

Actually, I read somewhere that for the original order size, the
B-2 costs just a little less than the B-52 in current dollars.
Since the BUFF was built in 50's dollars, I think this is pretty
believable.

Phil> _Nothing_ is cheap as a hand-made one-off item.  --

Or even a two- or three-off item.  The X-15, the X-29, the X-31, the
X-anything come to mind here, as do the Y-anythings and the
N-anythings.  Not just expensive to buy but expensive to maintain.

I've decided that the only reasonable way to cost R&D is to apply its
cost only to the first sample--this means that the first B-2 was
_very_ expensive, but the subsequent ones just have the incremental
cost.  None of this averaging the R&D costs over all the aircraft.
After all, it took all that just to get the first plane in the air.

If you start out building ten planes, you don't really spend 1/10 the
R&D on each one; you spend it all on the first one.  It takes as much
R&D to fly one as it does to fly ten.

(Obviously, it costs more to build more aircraft and to operate more
aircraft.  I'm sure you realize this, Phil, but I'm spelling it out so
that no one will point out that ten times as many aircraft use ten
times as much fuel or maintainence, etc.  An ounce of prevention....)

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 615
------------------------------