Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO910.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 33KB | 810 lines

Space Digest                Fri, 23 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 910

Today's Topics:
                                <None>
                             ACRV return
                       Celebrity Observatories
 Celebrity Observatories-Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, Prince....
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (2 msgs)
              Hubble solar arrays:  how'd they foul up?
                 lunar mining and the case for space
                maximum velocity for gravity assists?
                          Perseid publicity
                    Spaceflight History (was Jupit
                      Space Lottery! Any Ideas?
                       Wanted: Solar sail info
                           Why Fund Space!?

    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: 22 Jul 93 11:05:44 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: <None>
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> A colleague mentioned that a British newspaper recently featured
> Whitney Houston's (spelling?) house in which it was revealed she has
> an observatory.

Interesting. I seem to have missed this...

>
> Brian May (guitarist with rock group Queen was doing an astrophysics
> degree including research in Canary Islands - source BAA Journal 1980+/-3).
>

Yes, this is indeed true! Brian May was studying at Imperial College for a PhD
under Prof. Jim Ring. I'm unsure of the details of the project, but its likely
to have included some Canary Islands observations as IC ran the Infrared Flux
Collector (now the Carlos Sanchez Telescope) there at the time.

I don't know what hios current interest in astronomy/astrophysics is at the
moment, but he does go back to IC from time to time to the research groups
Christmas parties etc. I did my PhD at IC, which is how I know all this.

This makes it all the more galling when the ITV Cart Show announces that his
planned career was 'astrologer?'!

2 of the three other members of Queen also came from Imperial, though I can't
rmember their fields of study. Freddie Mercury, in contrast, came from the
Royal College of Art across the road.

>  Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
>  (ONE OF WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - email re any larger! 0.039%)
> Tel:   0 8 9 1 - 8 8 - 1 9 - 5 0     for U.K. Hotline (new message Mondays)
>                                  (dial 1550-111-442 in Republic of Ireland)
--
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax            |  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro        |           Saint Germain...
================================================================================

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

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 14:38:40 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: ACRV return
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ralph Buttigieg) writes:
>17 Jul 93 19:18, [e-mail] wrote to All:
>
> hte> Look at the parts of the globe within 28.5 degrees of the equator.
>Lots
> hte> of ocean, lots of desert and jungle, lots of underdeveloped countries
> hte> with slightly-dubious governments.  You'd really like to aim an
>emergency
> hte> return at somewhere like the great plains of North America or the
>Russian
>
>The primary return area for the ACRV is central Australia. Big, dry and
>flat. With resonably non-dubious governments.There were NASA people out here
>late last year checking the facilities out.

On the other hand, if your capsule floats, as ours used to do, and you
have a 7 seas bluewater navy, as we used to have, then you'd got a 2
out of 3 chance of coming down on water even if you fire your retros
blind. Water is nearly always big, flat, and free from obstacles. And
there aren't any troublesome dolphin governments to deal with.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 22 Jul 93 11:07:05 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Celebrity Observatories
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

Ooops! I'd better try again!


> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>> A colleague mentioned that a British newspaper recently featured
>> Whitney Houston's (spelling?) house in which it was revealed she has
>> an observatory.
>
> Interesting. I seem to have missed this...
>
>>
>> Brian May (guitarist with rock group Queen was doing an astrophysics
>> degree including research in Canary Islands - source BAA Journal 1980+/-3).
>>
>
> Yes, this is indeed true! Brian May was studying at Imperial College for a PhD
> under Prof. Jim Ring. I'm unsure of the details of the project, but its likely
> to have included some Canary Islands observations as IC ran the Infrared Flux
> Collector (now the Carlos Sanchez Telescope) there at the time.
>
> I don't know what hios current interest in astronomy/astrophysics is at the
> moment, but he does go back to IC from time to time to the research groups
> Christmas parties etc. I did my PhD at IC, which is how I know all this.
>
> This makes it all the more galling when the ITV Cart Show announces that his
> planned career was 'astrologer?'!
>
> 2 of the three other members of Queen also came from Imperial, though I can't
> rmember their fields of study. Freddie Mercury, in contrast, came from the
> Royal College of Art across the road.
>
>>  Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
>>  (ONE OF WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - email re any larger! 0.039%)
>> Tel:   0 8 9 1 - 8 8 - 1 9 - 5 0     for U.K. Hotline (new message Mondays)
>>                                  (dial 1550-111-442 in Republic of Ireland)
--
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax            |  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro        |           Saint Germain...
================================================================================

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

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 14:40:55 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Celebrity Observatories-Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, Prince....
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>A colleague mentioned that a British newspaper recently featured
>Whitney Houston's (spelling?) house in which it was revealed she has
>an observatory.
>
>Apart from wanting to knwo if any knows the details of the installation,
>I wanted to start a discussion on celebrities who own telescopes, just
>how many of them are there, how deep is their interest in space, what
>kind of set ups have they got etc?

Johnny Carson, formerly of the Tonight Show, is an astronomy nut. He
has a telescope in the backyard at Malibu. Bet the seeing is lousy
though.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 01:51:16 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:

>As a point of comparison, the Shuttle and the B-1/B-1B bomber were developed
>in approximately the same time frame and somewhat similar circumstances.

>While the Shuttle is disappointing for all the reasons previously noted,
>the B-1B is arguably an outright failure.  Perhaps I'm being to lenient
>on NASA but I figure they did rather well considering all the interference
>and second guessing from without.  Hindsight is 20/20....

Hmm.... the B-1B still flies more regularly. Perhaps it only looks
more like a failure to you because its dedicated mission is nuclear
retaliation and we haven't had a reason to show it off yet...

I mean, you don't see a successful training mission on the
news every time it happens...
--
+-----------------------+"And so it went. Tens of thousands of messages,
|"Standard disclaimer"  |hundreds of points of view. It was not called
|[e-mail] |the Net of a Million Lies for nothing."
+-----------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 03:36:31 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>> for 1/10 to 1/20 the cost of the shuttle.  The development risk would
>> have been much lower.  It would not have been as much of a jobs
>> program for California, though.
>
> Are you sure? You'd be building 8 new vehicles a year instead of
> 3+1 one time. I'd think you'd have more jobs.


Well, the plan for BDB was to weld together most of the vehicle near
the launch site.  I suppose this means California jobs for polar
orbits, but most of the work would have been in Florida.  The design
work would have been in California, perhaps, but it was a much simpler
vehicle with a much smaller projected development cost.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Jul 1993 19:01 EST
From: David Ward <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble solar arrays:  how'd they foul up?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes...
>In article <22kejf$[e-mail]> Pat, [e-mail] writes:
>
>>What i was wondering is how could this kind of design flaw
>>sneak past any sort of reasonable test procedure?
>
>Good grief, man. How can you ask such a question, even
>rhetorically, when the most conspicuous related example
>of our time is the mirror on the same spacecraft?
>
>The answer to your question is, no doubt, the same.
>There was not a reasonable test procedure in place, or
>if there was, some committee decided not to believe its
>negative results, which amounts to the same thing.
>
>Leigh

I'm soory, but I'm afraid you're a bit off-base.  A flexible structure like
a bi-stem array can be tested thoroughly on the ground, but some
assumptions _must_ be made taking ground tests and applying them to space
application.  In particular, I'm thinking of how hard it is to assess a
structure's damping ratio in a 1-g environment.  Since we don't have "anti-
gravity" yet to allow the structure to float in a weightless, free-free
(unsupported) state, there is some residual damping from the support
structure in any mechanical mode testing performed.  Usually, the
assumptions made come from a reasonable structural analysis.  If it sound
like an intuitive process, sometimes without 3 sigma hard numbers before
flight, that's pretty close to my impression.  On the ACS side, we'd prefer
nice, stiff, heavy arrays with easier to analyze modes, to avoid the types
of problems HST has.

On a similar note, I'm aware that some of Goddard's dynamics guys, some of
Marshall's guys, and some Lockheed guys spent a great deal of time devising
a control system that effectively adds damping to the solar arrays, so that
the thermal snap effect is currently only a problem for about a minute at
the terminator (a similar note was posted from one of the science ops guys
earlier this week).  Such a fact raises a question:  why is NASA so eager
to put _another_ unknown (new arrays) on HST, and how high of a priority is
the solar array replacement.  I'm afraid the answer is:  very high, because
of political pressures.

Comments?

David W. @ GSFC

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

Date: 22 Jul 1993 22:36:30 GMT
From: hans f barsun <[e-mail]>
Subject: lunar mining and the case for space
Newsgroups: sci.space

    here is a thought somewhat off the not-so-beaten-track to orbit.

    a while back, i remember hearing about a man who had invoked some old
US statute to place a mining claim on some portion of the moon.  i was
driving home with one of my roommates and his girlfriend one night and there
was a full moon.  in my foolishness, i mentioned that claim.  my roommie's
girlfriend became very irate and said, "we can't go out and mess up other
worlds before we clean up what we have done here."  i think i bristled,
blew smoke out my ears and told her that a) the moon was dead...there is
nothing there to hurt and b) that mining the moon (or the asteroids for that
matter) might let us stop tearing the tops of mountains here.
needless to say she was not convinced.....since there are so many social
problems that must be solved here.

so i guess that i am asking for any and all information that will
allow me to argue the case for space research and exploration.    of course,
after being raised on a steady diet of science fiction, it is simple.   we
need to go to space because we must.  unfortunately, it would be nice to
have more ammo.
e-mail would be great, thanks.

Hans
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 02:09:50 GMT
From: Al Globus <[e-mail]>
Subject: maximum velocity for gravity assists?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Does anyone know if there is a maximinum practical velocity that can
be achieved using Jupiter gravity assists?  I'm thinking about using
such assists to propell space colonies for multi-generational trips to
nearby stars and want to know about how many generations I'm talking
about.  From a simplistic view only the acceleration of the colony is
limited so that multiple gravity assists could (very theoretically)
achieve any velocity short of the speed of light.  However, I have a
feeling there is some factor I'm not thinking of that limits, as a
practical matter, the maximum velocity achievable, for example, the
pull of Jupiter's gravity as one leaves the area.

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

Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 01:54:27 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Perseid publicity
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:
>>I do like to watch with other people, but there seems to be little
>>point to assembling vast numbers, unless by so
>>doing you can evengelize successfully about light polution. I have
>>given up on this cause in cities like Vancouver. Too many of my congeners
>>are Yahoos who will never care. I wish you success, Mr. Ryan. If you
>>succeed in raising public support for, say, shielded outdoor lighting
>>I'll be impressed. California's ruined. I've failed miserably here. Maybe
>>I should emigrate to Ireland next.

(Funny that you use the term Yahoo. You know where it comes from?
Do you know the alleged geographical location?)

>So gather your astronomer buddies and buy a Pacific island. If Marlon
>Brando can do it, so can you and a few of your friends. When your nearest
>neighbor is a thousand miles away, it can get real dark. Dull, no night
>life, you say? Well, them's the breaks, as the Yahoos say. A neon sky
>is more to their liking. It makes it easier to see the mugger sneaking
>up to rob you.

Just wondering, but does all that lighting really decreace crime?
NYC has a lot of light pollution and a much higher crime rate
than relatively dark-skied Pecan Island... or Ireland, which
is a better comparison point, being more populous}i...


>Gary

>Gary

>--
>Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
>Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
>534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
>Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |
--
+-----------------------+"And so it went. Tens of thousands of messages,
|"Standard disclaimer"  |hundreds of points of view. It was not called
|[e-mail] |the Net of a Million Lies for nothing."
+-----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 93 22:02:00 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Spaceflight History (was Jupit

> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 16:54:04 GMT

> Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>

Writes:

>>... At some point, before there really were "real" Jupiters,
>>they converted the Redstone as a reentry test vehicle, and called it
>>the "Jupiter-C." Partly, the reason for that was that was, I am sure,
>>"disinformation."

> Actually, the various sources are pretty much in agreement on
> this one: it was done because von Braun's crew noticed that when
> the Cape people set schedules, they (a) tended to give new
> programs higher priority,

Thank you for your comment, Henry (is everyone here named that?)

Yes, well, I never heard that particular story, but it could well be at
least one part of the   explanation. (Not to wander completely of the
subject, but I have frequently held that words, including names,
have a "life of their own" and not even the   people that invent them
control them. So, no matter who selected the   name, or how, the
world had to accept it, and once it did, it couldn't be "put back in the
box". "Delta" is a good example of a name that escaped, and took over
a whole program, an upper stage that at the   booster.)

I didn't say what the object of the disinformation was. I have been
on programs that were hyper sensitive about security and the
Soviets were no higher than third on our list of concerns.

What I do know, for sure, is that in the   summer of 1957, before
Sputnik, I was working as a "Summer Student" at Redstone Arsenal.
And, I was highly interested in the   Jupiter, and anything concerned
with it, and I was reading everything available on it, Aviation Week,
Missiles and Rockets, etc. The designation certainly confused me, and
I think a lot of other people at the time.

If priority was all they were looking for, they could have done the
same as the  Air Force, and have given it an "X" number. Their
equivalent was the "X-17," and reentry vehicle development was
pretty "hot" (clever, eh?) at the time. There really were people with
exemplary credentials that thought that ICBM/IRBM reentry vehicles
were like landing on the Moon, fundamentally impossible (due to
dust layers, or whatever).

BTW I checked Baker's "The   Rocket." He gives quite a discussion of
the early, formative, days of Saturn, and manages to get all the way
through it without saying "S III" even once. Most of the discussion is
correct, as far as I know, he gives a reasonable explanation of E-1s
vs. H-1s, the H-1 pump location change, etc. but he is apparently
following an "Army Scenario" in discussing the H-1 changes, without
mentioning, or realizing, that most of them had already been
demonstrated on the Atlas and the Thor.

That is not anything new and different. The   fact that things have
already been done (by some other agency) has never had any
influence on peoples perception of what is possible in many areas,
Huntsville being in the forefront. Sort of an extension of The "NIH
syndrome."

There are a few errors in the discussion. The date he gives for the
S-IC contract award was much too late, over a year after I had
already accepted a job on the program, and even after I had very
belatedly reported for it (Sept. 25, 1962). I have another book,
somewhere, that has some rare and esoteric early Saturn lore, I will
check what is says, if I can find it.

Another personal experience with some bearing on the early
development of Saturn, a matter of 2 or 3 weeks before the
Mercury/Atlas flight of John Glenn (Feb. 20, 1962) I (as a very junior
engineer) was assigned to witness the   disassembly of an Atlas
engine (in the Rocketdyne Canoga Park facility) that had failed
during a static test (and which assumed great importance, when it
was suggested that the JG MA-2/6 engine might have the same
fault.)

While we were taking our engine apart, some other guys were
putting another one together in the   next assembly position, the
very first static test article J-2 engine. (The first flight of the J-2 was
Feb. 26, 1966,  a very compressed engine schedule. Beware of engine
suppliers who say they can do better.)  The J-2 was, and is, BTW a
very weird engine, in the details of its construction (plumbing, in
particular) very unlike other Rocketdyne engines.

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

Date: 23 Jul 93 00:52:11 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Lottery! Any Ideas?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Lottery in Space and heart problems and other likely diseases/injuries for a
Lottery Winner. Ever heard of the "Release Form".. People all over suffer from
more stress and such than a space launch, ever ridden in some of those nifty
carnival rides..

Also ever heard of the "Flight Physical" to find those nifty problems, and
correct them, so it might add on to the cost of the launch, but you can claim
it as an advertising expense latter on your taxes.. Or does NASA not pay taxes,
well then claim it as a operating expense or Public Relations, liek the Air
Farce does..OR is that recruiting..

===
Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 23:48:08 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Wanted: Solar sail info
Newsgroups: sci.space

I'm posting this for David Hayter, who doesn't
have net.access.  I will forward any replies to
him.  If you have any info, please EMAIL me if
possible, since I don't usually read this newsgroup...

Regards,


Raja.
----------------------
Message from david J. Hayter begins:

I am interested in finding information about a
proposed "Solar sail race", due to take place
in 1995, I think!  As I understand it the race
starts from earth orbit, goes to the moon, with
the first one back being the winner.  If you have
any knowledge about this proposed race, I would
appreciate your reply.

I'm also intersted in any info/references on
solar sails in general.  Raja already gave me h
the references from the "FAQ."  Any others?

Thank you very much,


David J. Hayter.

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

Date: 23 Jul 93 00:32:12 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Why Fund Space!?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Reasons for funding space:

New drugs, and chemicals and materials for on earth use.. Purer chemicals nad
materials to..

Alos as long as human population expands, we need to expand our resource
available areas, and space will provide that. Once a nation stops expanding, it
has a habit of dying. Namely the larger nations, but it happens elesewhere.. If
a nation has a "stable" population, it does not need more resources (or atleast
as much) and there for can expand slowly. But here in the US and other nations,
we has large, "unstable" population growth, and we need to mineral/resource
expansion that space can give us. I know notnow, but near future..

Especially since we lock up some of the best mineral resources land into parks,
preserves and such, we need to expand in ways that does not interfer with those
parks/preserves..

So until some one can coem up with a way to nicely control the population
growth of humanity, and basically live with in our means here on earth, we need
space..

===
Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]

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


From: "Theodore F. Vaida ][" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Potential Markes for DC-#
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jul 93 21:36:19 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University
Lines: 71
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

Fill # with your prefered model (I like the DC-1 personally!)

What about the commercial uses for the DC series? (including the
original dc-x that might be usefull for sub-orbitals!)


CREWLESS OPERATIONS:
1: Airborne Express (Federal Express, UPS, USPS, Percolator
Courier...) need reliable QUICK trasportation of some INCREDIBLY urgent
payloads (like documents from the president to the russian president
perhaps?)

2: Breadbox science experiements that sitck out on an arm when the
DC-1 is in orbit (speical doors needed?)

3: Landing at the 50 yard line of the superbowl (kudos to the person
who thought this one up...)

4: Pulling tree-stumps from the yard... :O)












































--

---------==============Sig file cover sheet=====================---------
                  ->POLAR CAPS<- or [e-mail]
      Student Konsultant Making the world safe for computing!

      Pages including this page:  1
                                -----

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


From: "Theodore F. Vaida ][" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC-1 and FAA
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Jul 93 21:19:32 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University
Lines: 60
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (stephen voss) writes:
>If DC-1 is going to be approved for manned flight or not
>FAA then maybe
>then FAA
>should stand for FEDERAL AEROSPACE ADMINISTRATION

DAMM STRAIGHT, if there is one (and only one) federally funded agency
that is designed to provide saftey in the these united states that has
done its job, i would have to say that it is the FAA!

My family used to own an airplane (Piper Cherokee 6) and we flew quite
extensivly to many places.  In all the time of dealing with the FAA
(liscencing, flight plans, saftey inspections registrations and
medical certificates) the FAA preformed impressivly and kept the
hasstle to a minimum (they even fund several companies to provide
FREE weather service information over modems that is up to the minute
correct!).

I am not privy to the corporate angle as to how much hasstle the plane
making comanies go through, but knowing that many people build their
own planes from kits and get them certified (and rarely do certified
planes have airworthyness problems unless the owner does no upkeep) I
would have to say that the FAA knows its job, and thats what it does.

The fact that the FAA controls the air space over this country (and
that NASA has to ask the FAA to clear its airspace over KSC) makes it
a good argument to extend their coverage up into LEO, plus that would
give the governement a mandate to continue a reasonable (read
inexpensive) presence in space to keep things straight.  Essentially
the FAA is an executive operation (under the prez) so unless them
pesky congress critters get antsy, the FAA can run a tight ship with
litte or no legislative overhad biting them in the back.

Anyway... now its time to hand the soap box to somone else...


















--

---------==============Sig file cover sheet=====================---------
                  ->POLAR CAPS<- or [e-mail]
      Student Konsultant Making the world safe for computing!

      Pages including this page:  1
                                -----

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


Xref: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:67464
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
References: <22jbtb$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 14:07:56 GMT
Lines: 60
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <22jbtb$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>
>>I feel compelled to note a historical similarity in recent posting to an
>>event in the recent past, and hopefully help aviod a repeat. Currently,
>>those DC-X/1 Prohpets are fortelling of a glorious time when the DC
>>is flying. [Goes on to say the same claims where made for Shuttle.]
>
>>Well, I listen to the DC-X/1 crowd and
>>can't help worrying. Not because it's nesessarily an impossible task.
>>Rather, because they are making  VERY extravagent claims.
>
>Which claims are extravagent? Sure, it's moderately risky but it's
>not extravagent. If it won't work, we will know after investing less
>than the cost of a single Shuttle flight in the concept.

Claims of 50 flights per year per vehicle are extraordinary. No other
space launcher has come close to these rates. There's no experience
that shows it's possible. Aircraft experience doesn't count, it's too
different. The claim of $400 a pound to LEO is also extraordinary.
No other system comes close. These are revolutionary orders of magnitude
improvements over current practice in a single generation. There's good
reason to be skeptical. SSTO is a radically different way of doing spacefight.
It may indeed bring remarkable savings, or be a dead end boondoggle. It's
way too early to be booking passage at guarranteed rates. Or more to the
point, it's way too early to be planning on depending on this thing for
other missions like SSF.

>This is the famous "a project has failed therefore all projects must
>fail" arguement. In the early 1900's you could have used this arguement
>to 'prove' that we would never have airplanes based on Langly's failures.

No, that's *your* strawman that you love to knock down. What it really
is is a comparison with other programs of like claims. There's only
been one other, Shuttle, in spaceflight, though the phrase "Too cheap
to meter" should haunt you as well. Many new technologies make extravagant
claims in their benchtop days, but fail to live up to them in operational
service, if they get that far.

>Note that to manrate a spacecraft you add tens of millions of $$ in cost per
>flight yet all that extra money doesn't improve the safety record one bit.
>Un-rated launchers are just as safe as the rated ones.

Not true. US experience has been that unmanned launchers have had higher
failure rates. In all of US manned spaceflight there has only been one
catastropic launch failure. How many unmaned boosters have failed?
Man rating includes a lot more than just some redundant hardware. Mainly
it's an exhaustive system of *procedures* followed on the ground before
launch, that standing army, that insures that all systems are in peak
condition for launch. Look at Atlas, it had a flawless record as a
man rated launcher, but only an 85% record as an unmanned launcher.
The hardware's the same, but the procedures are relaxed for the unmanned
missions.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 910
------------------------------