Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO921.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 31KB | 694 lines

Space Digest                Mon, 26 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 921

Today's Topics:
 Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems) (2 msgs)
                            DC-X (2 msgs)
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (3 msgs)
               Found your own dark-sky nation? (3 msgs)
                       My HERO General Ivanov!
             NASA, Space Advertising! PR Work is needed.
                          Perseid publicity
                 Satellite Assembly/Factory in Space!
                Sea Going Soyuz? Alaska? Interesting..
     Simulators (was: Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
       Test Stands at MSFC (Was Re: Room in the VAB?) (2 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: 25 Jul 1993 09:47:15 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
Newsgroups: sci.space

I know in the early 80's and late 70's  shuttle technology and information
was a prime target of the soviet espionage establishment.  the
USSR also  raised complaints about the shuttle that while it is
in it's horizontal flight mode,  it is considered a military
aircraft, and if it entered soviet airspace  it would be treated both
as a hostile intruder and a hostile act of war.  The russians raised
some interesting questions that  if the shuttle went down,  inside
their borders,  they would not be obligated to return it or crew
as it is a military vehicle.  they were citing the manifest,
the crew history and the funding source as that justification.

I didn't know about the sanger history( Thanks dennis).  it does
seem like a bit of hype considering even then we had  several
thousand nuclear tipped iCBMs  on red alert.  but then again,
the cold war was  a time of massive hysteria and paranoia.
--

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 18:12:15 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>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?

Actually, isn't the design all wrong for a skip-bomber? Wouldn't
you want bigger wings or something, and maybe less crossrange?
--
+-----------------------+"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 15:50:17 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>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.

I hadn't heard this detailed before. What maneuvering RCS capability
does the proposed DC-1 have? It certainly can't do rendezvous with
it's main engines, they're too coarse.

>>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.

I think this particular item would be hard to throw in the payload
bay. It's needs to be integrated with the flight systems and displays,
and it needs a clear view of it's target. This relates to the question
asked above, can the proposed DC-1 maneuver delicately *sideways*?

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: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 16:24:50 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>> The best DC argeument is that it saves money
>> and the savings can be spent on social programs.
>>
>> Now, I personally don't believe that and would fight budget reductions
>> if they happened. But it is an arguement that will work.
>
>
>I don't think this is a very good argument.  If you just want to
>reduce the cost of currently planned programs, would not expendable
>rockets (Proton or BDB) save most of the launch cost, with less
>upfront cost and risk than DC?  The extra cost of DC has to be
>justified by comparison with the marginal savings beyond the low cost
>competitor, not against the total savings of not launching on the
>shuttle.

I don't think it's a good argument either, but for different
reasons. I think it's cynical and dishonest. People will
catch on that they are being had (again) and your credibility
and effectiveness will be lost while NASA's budget gets an
even broader axing.

I think it's acceptable to sell space programs on their own
merits, and on the related issues of competitiveness and
job creation, but to cynically promise more HUD funds as
an effect of a space program, and then to work against that
appropriation, only creates more enemies.

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: 25 Jul 1993 09:49:44 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

 Henry,  you are wasting your time following up to anything the hayashida
posts.  it's only interest is job preservation.  reading news postings
and making logical conclusions is not it's forte.

--

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

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

Date: 25 Jul 93 14:01:04 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22pe1p$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>We can rest assured according to the Clipper office in Huntington Beach, that
>Mr. Sherzer's numbers were enough to elicit chuckles and no concern of leaks.
>

I am so glad you are happy about the security of MDA.

>Furthermore, I will be most pleased should Clipper actually clear 50,000 feet.

Just to edify the net.  I don't think DC-X  is slated to break 35,000.
Alan,  is it uprated?   and as for the clipper,  that's still on the boards.

>However, we should all recall that Delta reaches GEO, where as Clipper may
>reach a test stand in NM.  We should also recall that as Mr. Sherzer and

I have no idea, what it's talking about?  Delta reaching GEO?  nothing
we have reaches GEO.  GTO, yes.

And the DC-X is on the test range now.


>the shuttle haters (who call themselves "space advocates") proclaim the demise
>of the shuttle; others are working on scientific payloads and packages to fly
>in the orbiter.  So, as some are busy talking about how bad shuttle is, others
>are busy making it better and using the systems we have in place.
>

Even if the system in place costs twice as much as competitive flying systems
for 90% of it's mission.


>The bottom line , or should I say, thread is that some on this network continue
>to portray the NASA-industrial team as incompetent.  This IMHO is an underlying
>mischaracterization.  There has been much to come from the shuttle and station

Yep.  at least another 120 billion dollars in aerospace welfare for
california  and florida.

The NASA industrial team isn't incompetent.  it takes a  very special
skill to squeeze money out of the taxpayers.


>programs, regardless of the more limited views of some.  The NASA CSTS project
> is benefiting from the assembled expertise of engineers and scientists who
>work at the facilities supporting shuttle and station programs, and its not
>coincidence...for perhaps the greatest benefit of an organized space program
>is the assembly and maintenance of a motivated and trained workforce...the
>same workforce that can mobilize to meet national needs.

WOW.  I thought my grammar  was bad at times.  Does anybody understand this?
Bowery,  will you fix your programs  sentence parser.  it's  gotten into
a lock state.


--

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 18:17:01 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>Which claims are extravagent? Sure, it's moderately risky but it's
>>not extravagent.

>Claims of 50 flights per year per vehicle are extraordinary. No other
>space launcher has come close to these rates.

The Russians have. It's also within a factor of two of what Titan or
Atlas could launch at with existing facilities if the demand was there.

>The claim of $400 a pound to LEO is also extraordinary.

I'm using figures of $500 to $1,000. These are very close to what the
Russians do it for and a factor of 3 or so (at the high range) with
what we can do with our existing 30 year old launchers. Hardly an
extrodinary decrease. It is a extrodinary reduction compared to Shuttle,
but that doesn't count.

>No other system comes close. These are revolutionary orders of magnitude

All the reductions you refer to above are far less than an order of magnitude
(much less 'revolutionary orders of magnitude'). The problem is you need to
copare it to best commercial practice, not government subsidized jobs
programs.

>>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.

You don't judge programs on claims in a vacume. You judge them on the
likelyhood of success in meeting those claims. As I said, in the early
1900's both Langly and the Wright brothers made similar claims. You
would have concluded, using your rule, that the Wright brothers would
have failed because Langly, who made similar claims, failed. Yet we
do have airplanes.

If you want to say DC will fail, fine. Just say why with a bit more
substance than your arguements above.

>There's only been one other, Shuttle, in spaceflight,

Well, the Russians built two. We also have our Shuttle and now DC.

>though the phrase "Too cheap to meter" should haunt you as well.

Are you asserting that DC will fail because nuclear power failed?

>Not true. US experience has been that unmanned launchers have had higher
>failure rates.

We don't have statistically significant numbers to make that claim. At
best it's about the same. Maybe it's a bit safer, but we don't know.

    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."             |
+----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 10:22:01 GMT
From: Joe Dellinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,sci.space

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

    Maybe you could get Midway... a US territory (not part of the State
of Hawaii) and the military is closing up shop there and leaving it to the
birds. (All the rest of the NorthWestern Hawaiian chain is officially
incorporated into the City and County of Honolulu, believe it or not.)

    Or you could create your own island from scratch! There are several
places in the world where there's *ALMOST* an island, some of them in the
middle of nowhere (more than 200 miles away from the nearest dry land and
so unclaimed by any country). Wilder seamount (Southwest of Hawaii) is a
good one, if I believe the maps it's only 3 feet shy of being an island.
Another is the high point of the New England seamount chain, only about
20 feet shy of being an island and within relatively convenient distance
of the US and Canadian East Coasts. There are several others to choose
from! (I imagine the occasional ship that must accidentally run into these
must feel like they have the luck of Job.)

    Unfortunately, if sealevel rises very much more, which it probably
will, several island nations are going to _become_ yet more almost-islands.
Japan spent several millions of $$'s capping Minami Tori Shima (Marcus island),
an isolated speck of almost-awash land, with a layer of concrete to prevent
it from becoming an almost-island. (If they had let it go under they would have
lost exclusive economic rights to Pi * (200 miles)^2 of sea, you see.)

    Of course, it probably wouldn't work anyway. A while back somebody
actually tried to found "a libertarian paradise" on some previously unclaimed
sea-level atolls between Fiji and Tonga, the "Republic of Minerva". Tonga
simply waited a few days while the "Minervans" built up a seawall for them,
then invaded, kicked everyone out, and officially annexed the atolls to Tonga.

    But then, Tonga has a lot of chutzpah... recently they claimed ALL
the remaining geosync slots left unfilled over the Pacific for their own
communications needs. (If they happen to temporarily have spare capacity,
they _may_ consent to lease use of their slots to the highest bidders, say
for people wanting to put in more capacity between the US and Japan.) Hey,
the international treaty allocating geosync space said countries could claim
unfilled slots according to their needs. The Tongans must think these
Westerners are idiots to leave a hole like that for them to exploit!

    (Of course, there must be something special about the Tongans... how
else to explain how they managed to remain independent up to the present, even
keeping their 1800's-style polynesian royalty, complete with politically
supreme hereditary monarch? Their King looks like he'd make a good professional
defensive tackle, too... wouldn't want to argue with him.)

     /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
    /  \  /  \  /Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, Honolulu\/\/\.-.-....__
___/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger, Internet: [e-mail]\/\.-.__
________________________________________________________________________________
"When the Khmer Rouge leaders in Phnom Penh had problems |
with the water supply, they realised that none of them   |  --- David Chandler
knew where the water in the taps came from."             |

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 13:10:49 GMT
From: Greg Hennessy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
#    (Of course, there must be something special about the Tongans... how
#else to explain how they managed to remain independent up to the present, even
#keeping their 1800's-style polynesian royalty, complete with politically
#supreme hereditary monarch? Their King looks like he'd make a good
#professional defensive tackle, too... wouldn't want to argue with him.)

Actually, I beleive their King *IS* a rookie defensive tackle for an
NFL team!

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      [e-mail]
 UUCP:        ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 15:58:57 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>|> 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.
>
>    Maybe you could get Midway... a US territory (not part of the State
>of Hawaii) and the military is closing up shop there and leaving it to the
>birds. (All the rest of the NorthWestern Hawaiian chain is officially
>incorporated into the City and County of Honolulu, believe it or not.)
>
>    Or you could create your own island from scratch! There are several
>places in the world where there's *ALMOST* an island, some of them in the
>middle of nowhere (more than 200 miles away from the nearest dry land and
>so unclaimed by any country). Wilder seamount (Southwest of Hawaii) is a
>good one, if I believe the maps it's only 3 feet shy of being an island.
>Another is the high point of the New England seamount chain, only about
>20 feet shy of being an island and within relatively convenient distance
>of the US and Canadian East Coasts. There are several others to choose
>from! (I imagine the occasional ship that must accidentally run into these
>must feel like they have the luck of Job.)

Uhhh. The original post was meant to be tongue in cheek, now you're
getting serious. I don't think that most astronomers would really
want a sea level observatory if they had a choice. The seeing would
be poor too much of the time.

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: 25 Jul 93 13:28:17 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: My HERO General Ivanov!
Newsgroups: sci.space

General Ivanov, shoudl be cashiered, and then made head of or offered head od a
new company to sell time on russian satellites and such.. After all he has
atleast an idea of how capitalism works. To many russian have been brain washed
for so long that capitalism is bad, that it is only black market and such, that
they can't even begin to understand what makes modern capitalism and runnign a
business. Atleast what I can see Gen Ivanov does know how..

I have a few friends who have to deal with the "russian" mentality of
capitalism, and its darn right stressful..

Case in point, a man in russia is buying bread in one place, shipping it, I
belive on his own airplane to anothe rplace, and selling it at a higher price
than what he bought it at. Well many who my friends have known in russian think
of him as a bad man, a black marketer, basicall y what we in the US (or at
least in Alaska) call a merchant/capitalist..

So far I have seen soem individual or partnership capitalism in Russia, but
alot I have seen is run by semi-state owned companies.. OR totally state owned
companies, and that is socialism, and that is what the russians have been for a
long time.. Atleast since 1917.. The Russians have never been comunist, just
strange socialists..

===
Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]

So in ending, some one should lend capital ti General Ivanov, and help him set
up his own business, if not already doen (I think it has been doen already),
but help him more.. Atleast he has guts..

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 16:09:59 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: NASA, Space Advertising! PR Work is needed.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>NASA and other space realted companies/organizations need to do more
>advertising, and PR work..  Also open up to the 20th Century..

Sadly, because I too would like to see massive space colonization in
my lifetime, PR is not a viable approach. Space already has a massive
PR presence for free thanks to science fiction and Startrek and activist
groups like this one. It's very unlikely that people who would be attracted
by space PR aren't already on board. What's needed for space exploitation
to succeed is simple to define and difficult to do; show a profit.

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: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 15:38:57 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Perseid publicity
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

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

It makes a difference, but not that much since crime in our cities
is also common in daylight. It's mostly of psychological value.
But that doesn't make the demand for it any less real.

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: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 13:03:05 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Satellite Assembly/Factory in Space!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Here is an idea that I have not noticed before or hasn't been mentioned in a
while.

A very good use for a space station, is a construction site for satellites..
BAsically send the satellite up in pieces, put it togetehr in space (namely
inside a space sock arrangement) once its completed, tested, checked, it is
moved outside the station, then tested soem more. Once it passed muster, it is
then loaded into a manuvering tug, and sent to the orbit that it is assigned..

Reason fro maneuvering tugs versus shuttle is they would be smaller, more
maneuverable, and could be left at or near the site of the satellite for later
recovery of satellites in the area, adn therefore reuse the satellites and the
TUG.. One this this makes a heck of a lot more sense than build the satellite
on earth, and launch it (a very stressful thing for delicate equipment), and
then put into orbit and they don't work.. (REF: Hubble!!!!)..
Also why have a launch for every satellite that goes dark or messes up, why not
have pre-positioned TUGs to cover much of the normal satellite orbits.

The TUGs would be unmanned (but a one man crew could be added or ??)..
With soem form of strap on oxygen tanks, and extra propellant (oxygen or other
one), and soem form of manual controls (real basic controlls).. The TUGS could
act as a Ferry between future stations, after all the sky will not be as empty
as it is these days (okay stations not satellites)..


===
Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jul 93 13:12:11 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Sea Going Soyuz? Alaska? Interesting..
Newsgroups: sci.space

I resemble that remark. Wel I doubt soyuz would make the crossing, but I can
get a Umiak to help pull them along.. Or mayeb we can attach soem seal bladder
whale floats to the Soyuz and help keep it afloat..

Refrigeration unit in 70+ F degree weather, RIGHT!!... Right now its warmer
than many places in Canada and the Northern US.. Maybe not as wet thou..
As far as I can tell all of SE ALaskas Rain Forest Weather went south to the
Mississippi area.. They are basking in sun, and hardly any rain, which is wierd
for them..
Global warming? 50 year rotation? we shall see..

If they do it in winter, it might work, but Id hate to land on the Ice, or the
seas.. 32F degree seas is not fun.. Space Suits might might help thou..

===
Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]
(I'm Michael Adams, Home in Nome Alaska, where its dry! and the high)

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 18:27:31 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Simulators (was: Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>I should have commented on this when Ken Hayashida said that simulators
>were going to raise the cost of DC-Y... but IMHO simulator costs for
>shuttle or DC-Y should be a lot less than they were ten years ago.

They should be, but not for the reasons you think.

First of all, you don't fly DC in the same 'stick and rudder' manner as
other aircraft or Shuttle. The pilot tells the DC what to do and it does
it. The pilot is more of a systems manager than pilot.

Second of all, Shuttle needs lots of simulator time because the crews
only fly once every few years. It's very hard to keep current in those
circumstances. With a DC flying weekly, currency is easier to maintain.

  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."             |
+----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 25 Jul 93 13:52:32 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Test Stands at MSFC (Was Re: Room in the VAB?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Dennis.

    ASSRM is more then political. it is also environmental.
that sucker kicks out quite a bit of chlorine gas  as a exhaust product.
i believe back in the 70's when they were determining wether to
test the SRBs at Stennis,  it was enough of a concern  that
they helped tip it from stennis to THiokol.  the desert is pretty
dry and empty.

    after thiokol got kicked from ASRM,  that option died.

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 16:57:11 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Test Stands at MSFC (Was Re: Room in the VAB?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22u370$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

 > ASSRM is more then political. it is also environmental.
 > that sucker kicks out quite a bit of chlorine gas  as a exhaust product.

No.  It emits quite a bit of chlorine-containing material, but no
chlorine gas.  Most rocket motors operate fuel-rich, so one would
not expect an oxidizing compounds like molecular chlorine to be
present in any but trace amounts.

Just about all the chlorine in an aluminum/AP/polymer solid rocket
comes out as hydrogen chloride.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 921
------------------------------