Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO920.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 33KB | 813 lines

Space Digest                Sun, 25 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 920

Today's Topics:
     Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
                        cheap space computers
Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India (4 msgs)
                                 DC-X
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (3 msgs)
                            Energia re-use
               John Glen as the first American in space
                     Musicians and space (2 msgs)
   Room in the VAB? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
            Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
                  Subject: Space Lottery! Any Ideas?
            Test Stands at MSFC (Was Re: Room in the VAB?)

        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: 24 Jul 1993 23:18 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22s80c$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>>
>>We can conclude from this that it would be *very* interesting to learn
>>what the claims were when developers were "selling" the Buran project
>>within the Soviet bureaucracy.  Alas, I don't think our chances of
>
>
>At least in Space News,  there have been sideways references
>to Buran  being hyped on the basis of the space shuttle.
>
>The statements were,  THe americans are building Spaceski Shuttleski.
>It will fly over,  steal satellittes with Bay and canadarm  and
>drop nuclear bombs on moscow.
>
>around about 1986, the ruissians  caught on the STS was not
>a ahppening thing.  by 1989, it was obvious Buran wasn't either.
>


The Russians were worried about the potential of STS to be a first strike
weapon. Before you laugh remember that the people who brought you the STS and
Apollo (The Von Braun Team) were very familiar with Sanger and its
bombardment from orbit capability. I happen to have a copy of the 1944
report to the Luftwaffe concerning the utility of Sanger. It even has nice
pictures of the bombardment pattern on Manhattan!

If you think about it for a minute it makes sense. The air force added the
cross range requirements and upped the payload. Also most of the pilots of
the thing are military types, it is launched from an Air Force secure base.
Add to this that the base down the street (Patrick AFB) went nuclear in the
1980-81 time frame and you have much circumstantial evidence, especially if
you are the paranoid commie, that STS could be used to drop many many MIRV's
on the Russian motherland. Actually it is not a far out idea at all.
Could you imagine how many MIRV's STS could carry?

There was a formal protest lodged by the Soviets on the eve of the Launch of
STS 1 to the UN claiming the Shuttle was a first strike weapon that would
tilt the strategic balance in our favor. Whether the military guys ever thought
of this or not, the Soviets did and based upon this, and the well known
potential capability of such a system flying under the cover of a "civilian"
agency, the Sovs felt that they had to respond to STS by building its
cousin.

After 1986 as pat correctly pointed out the Russians lost interest. Why? We
abandoned the military launch facilities for STS (Vandenburg) and began the
phasing out of STS military operations.

Kinda makes you wonder don't it.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 25 Jul 93 00:47:57 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: cheap space computers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>On one satellite they discovered that the space rated battery was
>available from hospital suppliers. I think it was used for one of
>those "thumpers". The space rated version was something like $20K.

Sounds like you mean "de-fibrillator".  and be aware,  nowadays
hospital grade costs as much as space grade :-)

>I think the russians have a far better idea. You send two cheaper and
>less reliable craft and bet that at least one will work.


Works well  for everything except mars.  the Red Planet never shone
upon the Red Star.


pat

--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

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

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 22:46:31 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

[e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
(about solids vs. liquids...):
>>- they're far better as strategic forces.

>Agreed!

Well, if you're object is deterrence, _yes_.
For first strike, liquid fueled rockets would be
just as good.

Well?

>--
>Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

--
+-----------------------+"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: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 00:28:42 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Phil G. Fraering) writes:

>>>(about solids vs. liquids...):
>>>- they're far better as strategic forces.
>
>>Agreed!
>
>Well, if you're object is deterrence, _yes_.
>For first strike, liquid fueled rockets would be
>just as good.
>
>Well?

!!

Deterrence *is* an objective of strategic rocket forces.  Besides, who wants
to keep a standing army about just to keep the liquid fueled rockets ready
for action?  One could certainly use liquid fueled rockets for "first strike"
but I can't think of many ways in which they would give one an *advantage*
over solid fueled rockets...

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 00:12:31 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>This is loaded with inaccuracy.  The Atlas and Titan I (*not* the
>later Titans, which used UDMH/hydrazine/N2O4, and which were the ones
>maintained unti the mid-80s) used liquid *oxygen*, with kerosene...

To minimize confusion, it is important to understand that Titan I and
Titan II were *completely* different missiles, with only the name in
common.  There wasn't a whole lot in common between Minuteman I and
Minuteman III either, or between the first and last Polaris versions.
The theory behind this was that it was harder to get money for a new
missile than for a new version of an existing one... so one simply
pretended that the new missile was just a new version.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 24 Jul 1993 21:26:23 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
|[e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
|(about solids vs. liquids...):
|>>- they're far better as strategic forces.
|
|>Agreed!
|
|Well, if you're object is deterrence, _yes_.
|For first strike, liquid fueled rockets would be
|just as good.
>

Only if your opponent  either lacks a reconnaisance capacity,  an intelligence
capacity  and hasno first strike ability of his own.

Loading cryo fuels takes quite a period of time.  If you want to surprise
your opponent, it means that nobody overflys the  launch complex
and sees teh fumes,  it means that there is no leaks  in your system
and your opponent  doesn't get antsy for some reason and smash
you just out of the blue.

Besides first strike is totally and grossly over-rated.  What real good
does it do?  you can't occupy ir-radiated territory.  the nuclear
clouds  drift all over the place. And if you nuke a neighbor,  you
most likely nuke a good eprcentage of your own teritory.

pat
--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

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

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 22:46:47 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>Why can't DC-1 do on-orbit repairs?  On the contrary, DC-1 may actually

>My understanding of the DC concept is that it doesn't have a large
>enough bay to support a Canadarm or work cradles or tools and spare
>parts or suiting rooms or airlocks or life support for more than a
>few orbits.

The payload by is 15x15x30 feet. Should be big enough to fit all
that stuff. As to duration, the requirements are for a 4 day stay
which is plenty of time. BTW, since power comes from the same tanks
as the fuel, you can tradeoff longer stays for lower payload or
less delta V.

>It doesn't, to my knowledge, have provision for extensive
>orbital maneuvering and rendezvous with a balky satellite. I haven't

The mission of Delta Clipper is brilliant pebble deployment. Putting
lots of small things into different orbits takes lots of delta V so
I don't think this is a problem.

>even heard of a search radar capability.

Shouldn't be too hard to add. You can integrate it with all the other
stuff into a repari pallet.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------11 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 93 23:24:55 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems

> Quite and interesting idea. Truax is still going at it although I
think he
> is around 83 years old now!
>

> Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
>


Dennis: Bev and I ran into his marketing/sales manager at a big
buffett place in Huntsville during the ISDC. They still have big
plans and are still planning on getting money out of the settlement
with the government. I wish them luck.

                                        cheers, Dale



--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the           Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 00:03:07 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22peof$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>... communications (i.e. TDRSS).  This leads to the question...if you
>are supporting a high flight rate, how are we really comparing savings between
>DClipper and shuttle when the Delta Clipper will still be reliant on some
>sort of tracking and data relay system (presumably TDRSS...deployed by the
>orbiter fleet); upon fuels which still must be created and transported to
>launch sites; and upon simulators for the crewed flight which DC'ers keep
>dreaming about?

The general answer to all these questions is "ask Delta or United".  The
approaches you take to these issues for eight flights a year are very
different from the ones you would take for (say) eight hundred flights
a year.  None of these things are big cost items for even the shuttle;
scaling them up, if necessary, should be straightforward.

For tracking and data relay, the big question is how much coverage you
will actually need.  Airliners don't have continuous video feeds down
to the ground, and it's not at all obvious that DC would need them.
For the trickiest and most complex missions, perhaps, but not for the
more routine stuff.  Even voice contact needn't be continuous provided
it is available promptly in an emergency.

Fuel costs have never been a significant part of even NASA's launch costs.
Liquid oxygen is commercially available in large quantities in most parts
of the US -- just place an order and let the suppliers worry about how
to get it to you.  Liquid hydrogen is a bit harder to come by, but even
it is commercially available in a reasonable number of areas.  And any
hydrocarbon fuels required are no problem at all.

McDD's idea is that a lot of routine DC flights would be unmanned, and
thus should not require simulation.  Even if this ends up not being true,
how many simulations does the captain of United 101 do before he takes
the bird off the ground?  Zero -- he'll simulate various generic emergency
procedures during training, and at regular intervals during his career,
but he won't bother simulating a specific flight.  Even military pilots
generally don't bother to simulate an entire flight; the farthest they'll
normally go is simulating unusual aspects, like a landing at an unfamiliar
field with a difficult approach.

NASA's whole simulation approach is rooted in the model of infrequent,
extremely expensive one-of-a-kind flights with very long lead times, where
it is worth spending years of costly preparation to avoid the slightest
chance of a screwup.  (That's the theory; in practice, this approach is
not as effective as you'd hope in preventing screwups.)  Cheap and frequent
flights would permit, and require, a different approach.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 24 Jul 1993 21:16:35 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22k70e$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>: You look only at the claims made by DC and Shuttle. I look at the technology,
>
>Actually, I'm looking from the perspective of space programs history.. not
>just shuttle OR DC, but rather any space program I've been able to think

Actually,  the nature of space engineering, like that of all other
engineering fields,  is that reliable well understood older technologies
work far better then  Bleeding edge technologies.

If you want a  good example,  look at VOyager.  Built upon the
well understood Mariner bus,  with mostly off the shelf sensors
and systems.  they have greatly out performed their  original
missions,  and only slightly over-ran the DDTE allocation.

we won't count O&M.  The plan  was only for saturn.

Or look at the Explorer Series.  I don't recall them either costing
lots,  or having severe technical problems.  Heck,  even some
of the Mariner series is still running.   Please think some more.


>about.. Shuttle is a significatly more complicated vehicle, and is older..
>I expect DC to work better.. (it HAD better work better or we'll be
>quite disappointed) The claims I've read range from $1000/pound to $20/pound
>for the DC system. These SEEM to take into account the same unrealistic
>"demand" beleifs that Shuttle did years ago.. (and for the record, shuttle

What unrealistic demand beliefs are these?  I would seriously suggest
you study a little economics,  then come back.


>COULD fly 50+ flights a year given enough vehicles and personnel.. but

Yeah,  sure.  Just build another 20 orbiters,  a second VAB,  and
4 more launch pads.   Of course,  do you know how much  that would cost?
$30 billion in orbiters  (Unless they switch to new generation vehicles,
then it's  16 Billion).  Probably  10 Billion in extra infrastructure.
and another 10 Billion dollars in spares.  Plus do you know what kind of
O&M Money we are  looking at?  $20 Billion more.   Gee,  probably
some 36 Billion  in one time costs  and  20 billion more per year.

Gee,  that's  only 1.5 NASA's per year.   Come back when you get real.


>with current staff and equipment, 8 is about the best you'll get..)
>My only point in my original post on this subject was my impression that
>the "forcasts" of DC's performance seem to be growing each month, and it'd
>be wise to keep in mind the pitfalls of history to aviod doing them again..

Well, considering the people who have all reviewed MDA's  figures think they
are realistic,  I am not too worried.  I remember reading AvWeek
back in the 70's and people then were saying the shuttle  was grossly over-sold
grossly underperforming,  and lacking the significant safety measures
of the apollo program.   Take a walk down to the Library.  look up the
old AvWeeks.   Read the Letters to the editor.  you'll find them
enlightening.


>(I know NASA's working VERY hard to learn from it's mistakes and improve
>it's performance)
>

This is a seriously top-down culture change.  it's not well appreciated
by th emiddle ranks.


>
>I'd really like to see the rational behind the payload cost figures. I'd be
>happy to analyze em out myself if somebody would be kind enough to post
>them so I can see if my theories are sound.. again, the initial point

Well, I am sure,, you can work with Mr Hayashida on his spread sheet.


>improvement in performance from what I've seen posted, but would LOVE
>to be proved wrong if somebody cares to post relavent info.
>

There should be an archive with Sherzers posting of SDIO's numbers.

>: Aside from payload, and maybe a few other minor requirements, Shuttle
>: didn't live up to any of its claims. Calling it a failure is reasonable.
>
>No.. it isn't reasonable. The shuttle system was and IS a remarkable
>achivement, and a success given the scaled back design abilities

Hey.  It eats one third of NASA's budget,  it costs significant'y
more then any competitive product.  it's additional features don't get
a lot of demand.  There are lots of reasons to not consider the STS
a success story.

>and requirements. Blaming NASA for the work of congress is hardly fair

You mean Cap Weinberger.   It's the oldest story on the net.
Certain right wing elements  decide to pass off failure onto the
perennial whipping post, congress.  Congress works on the presidents
budget.  we've been around this before.


>or called for. In commercial industry, if a company decides to
>develop a product, they will often expend the amount of funds required
>to actually develop it. NASA ends up giving the nation a proposal X,

This man has never worked in private industry.  Industrial budgets
get cut all the time too.  Proposals go up to higher management.
they come down  with some  large integral  divisor  applied.
Things are tough all over.


>with a budget of $50MegaBucks, and congress turns around and tells NASA
>to do proposal X, with the same requirements with a budget of $25MB's
>and over a longer time span. I'd LOVE to see MD or another company be
>effecient under those conditions.
>

The advantage industry has,  is they often don't have much of a
bureaucracy to work through.  Budgets levels may be small,
but  what you get you can spend.  Unless it's a university,
in which case,  overhead is first subrtracted out.


>thank ye for it.. if you can remove congress from the loop, or allow
>NASA to play on the same "level playing field" as commercial industry,
>I'd bet NASA would prove to give commercial industry  good run for it's
>money.. but the games gotta start in congress..
>

The GAO  cited level funding as a absolute requirement for project viability
and efficiency in NASA,  but found that they still had a poor grasp of
how to manage and budget for risk items  in their developemental contracts.

The shuttle toilet merely being a more egregious violator.  there is
plenty of blame in this issue.


>
>I disagree, but this is a whole seperate argument.. making a vechicle
>man rated (thanks to national reg's) DOES require more safety and
>reliability than a non man rated system. And the Shuttle's
>reliability IS greater than it was when first flown.. by a significant
>margin.. yes, shuttle is NOT an ideal system.. and I hope DC proves

Shuttle was not man-rated when it flew.  Man rated systems become man-
rated by a series of proof launches.  The STS did not do this.


>: If we can man rate Shuttle, man rating DC will be a snap.
>
>I'd be sceptical it'll be as easy as you are guessing, but I'd be pleased
>if it were.
>

What alan is referring to is the technical ledgerdemain that allowed
STS - 1  to fly.  remember,  the number of SSME  engine hours
at that point  was measurable in single digits.  i'd even venture
that it was less then 1.

If STS could be man rated with such a thin background of flight
experience,  a probable  DC-1  with  several  hundred flight hours
under remote control  should  be easily man rated.


>: And yet these added costs don't affect reliability. Why bother with
>: them? Sure, it covers somebody's ass, but what value does it add?
>
>They DO add reliability.. most of the major improvements or redesigns
>done on the shuttle have added reliability or survivability to
>the vehicle.. I'd MUCH rather fly on today's shuttle than the one
>flown ten years ago..

You must mean  the FLy down the escape pole while the SRB's  are
still lit system?  or the  crew ejection system?   The STS still
has black holes in the flight profile where  no escape is possible.

Oh.  i know. you are referringto the much improved,  O rings on the
SRB's.  that's it.  The shuttle is a kludge up front and backwards.

now it does fly.  it's paid for.  but never forget it's a jalopy
at heart.

pat

--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 00:06:07 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energia re-use
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>>   3) are any components of the Energia lifter salvaged after lauch?
>
>I think the liquid strap-ons are recovered, but it takes a huge
>helicopter.

Russian accounts seem to differ on whether any recovery has actually been
done.  The strap-ons certainly are designed for it, and there have been
claims that the core is meant to be recoverable too (although I don't
quite see how).
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 00:18:32 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: John Glen as the first American in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Claudio Egalon) writes:
>Why is that many Americans think that John Glenn was
>indeed the first American to fly in space?? ...

Partly because he did take to media exposure better than the other
astronauts did.  Partly because his flight was the first US one that
was actually comparable to Gagarin's.  Partly because Shepard and
Grissom didn't really do any more than the X-15 pilots did.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 93 00:24:13 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Musicians and space

>

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


It shouldn't be thought all that strange. Lots of people straddle
music and science. Weir of the Grateful Dead was one of the original
L5 members. Astronaut McNair was a jazz musician, and one of his
friends did a video that was on MTV as a remembrance.

Look at all the rock bands that used space themes in their music and
in their videos. ZZ Top "Rough Boy" comes to mind, as do many others.

I won't put myself in anywhere near the same category, but I did get
my (albiet small) PRS check this month :-) (That's the UK/Ireland
equivalent of ASCAP and BMI, only better ;-)
--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the           Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 21:05:40 -0400
From: Allan Bourdius <[e-mail]>
Subject: Musicians and space
Newsgroups: sci.space

>It shouldn't be thought all that strange. Lots of people straddle
>music and science. Weir of the Grateful Dead was one of the original
>L5 members. Astronaut McNair was a jazz musician, and one of his
>friends did a video that was on MTV as a remembrance.

The song in question is Jean-Michel Jarre's "Fourth Rendez-vous" from
the album entitled "Rendez-Vous", released by Disques Dreyfus in 1986.
Ron McNair originally was going to record the saxophone part for the
track "Final Rendez-vous" while in orbit on mission 51L.  If it hadn't
been for the disaster, this would have been the first
commercially-available musical piece recorded (in part, at least) in
space.

Allan
-------------------------------------
Allan Bourdius [Applied History/Industrial Management]
PA Rho Chapter of Phi Kappa Theta #017-1051
1069 Morewood Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA  15213
[phone] or [e-mail]
"More geese than swans now live, more fools than wise."

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

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 22:44:16 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Room in the VAB? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes...
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>>> There is still plenty of
>>> room in the VAB for making a new stacker for the Shuttle and other
>>> improvements that would support an increased flight rate.
>>
>>Yes, but then they'd have to move the piles of Mars mission studies
>>out of there, and where would NASA put *them*?
>>
>>Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey

>Bill next time you come to Huntspatch we will have to give you the stealth
>tour of a certain nearby facility and show you just how much room there is
>to do fun things up here.

Reminds me of a question for you: Do you think they could have tested
the ASRM's in any of those buildings/test stands at Marshall or the
Arsenal?

>Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

--
+-----------------------+"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: Sun, 25 Jul 93 01:09:04 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems

> Ps, Ken, so that you know, my sources inside MacDac indicate that
while
> the pro-DC forces here are being optimistic, they're within the
zone
> MacDac engineers are willing to defend as reasonable assumptions at
> this stage of the game.  They also say they're having a hell of a
time
> with internal politics to the point where parts of the company are
> playing dirty tricks trying to undermine DC because they think
it'll
> be bad for the company's (and industry's) bottom line.  Who are you
> talking to and in which department?
>

> -george william herbert
> Retro Aerospace
>


I will also back this up. My contacts and discussions with MacDac
personnel give me the same picture on Alan, ie he is on the
optimistic side of center but not out of the envelope by any stretch
of the imagination.

I had NOT been told about the infighting. But, such things are to be
expected in large companies. One of the reasons why I've always
stayed with small operations: more time gets spent on DOING and much
less on backstabbing.


Oh, and incidentally: the stories about US bureacracy just can't hold
a candle to the things that go on over here. Like an agency that paid
out premium rates for grounds work and grass cutting for 10 years on
a piece of ground that was cemented over the whole time :-)


--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the           Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 93 23:34:14 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Subject: Space Lottery! Any Ideas?

> I don't think a lottery can be 'written off' as advertising. Maybe
it

> can, but it doesn't strike me as likely. :-)
>

> --
> Bob Kirkpatrick -- Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
> I love my country. I'm just not fond of it's people and I hate the
government.
>


And just don't try to run your space lottery in the wonderful state
of Texas. When Jim Davidson tried it for a trip to MIR, he was
briefly made a guest of the state of Texas.

I used to think Texas was a pretty wild and open place. Now I know
it's no different from the over governed North East of the US.


--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the           Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: 24 Jul 1993 23:24 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Test Stands at MSFC (Was Re: Room in the VAB?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes...
>[e-mail] writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes...
>>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:

>Reminds me of a question for you: Do you think they could have tested
>the ASRM's in any of those buildings/test stands at Marshall or the
>Arsenal?
>
>>Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
>
>--

They test subscale ASRM's here all the time. They also test the SSME in a
single engine configuration on the Technology Test Bed, which used to be
the test stand for the S1C stage. Heck they tested the Saturn V at 110% of
rated thrust here, a piddly little 2.5 million lbs thrust ASRM should be
no problem. The problem probably is one of politics. There are many more
people living in the area now and it might scare a couple of cows in our
politically correct age. In Mississippi the ASRM plant is way off in the
boonies with no 250,000 plus city nearby.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 920
------------------------------