Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO924.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 34KB | 750 lines

Space Digest                Tue, 27 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 924

Today's Topics:
                                 DC-X
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (8 msgs)
                   Found your own dark-sky nation?
                 Satellite Assembly/Factory in Space!
                  Space Lottery! Any ideas? (2 msgs)
                Why I hate the space shuttle (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: 26 Jul 1993 13:13:23 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

Gary Coffman ([e-mail]) wrote:

: >>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.. didn't you know by now? DC can do EVERYTHING.. not only will it
get $20/pound into orbit but it'll fly figure eights on millilitres of
fuel and with it's handy swap out pallets, it'll fly anything you can
imagine.. <grins> THIS is why I've been trying to ask people to consider
about their claims for the DC.. the more it get's hyped up.. and I'm sorry,
but this is "hyping up" a system consdering it's not even flying yet, the
greater the risk that no matter HOW well it performs, it'll still be
a "failure" based upon unrealistic expectations..  personally I do hope
the DC can do all this and more, but to continually claim things about
a system that is still mostly on paper is foolish.. I'd assume though
that the DC will be capable of flying sideways with minimal difficulty..
(just place the RCS jets in the right places along the body of the ship
and it should work out well.. though I'd note I'm curious about how..
according to what I've heard, the DC "upper body" will be used as a
heat shield for reentry.. like the shuttle's underside.. but the shuttle
has no "jet ports" here to worry about.. will the DC have these
holes but use retractable "doors" to cover them for reentry? If so, that
is a fairly "critical" system, considering you will need a door for every
cluster of jets, and each door is a liability in cases of failure..)

Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
[e-mail]  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
[e-mail]  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin*
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 12:18:26 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

: In article <22pjt7$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
: >add to a program IMHO) my point is that the shuttle max of near eight
: >flights a year is MOSTLY caused by limitations of number of vehicles
: >availabe, and therefore is a poor argument against the shuttle system.

: Michael.

:     Don't you think a sorty rate of 2/year, is awful poor performance.
: considering  OV's  cost 1.5 Billion each.  probably 1 Billion each
: if you bulk buy and get  newer designs  (allowing for incompatibility
: in the fleet).   It's this crap sorty rate that has people annoyed.

: pat

Yep.. and I'll be VERY happy (probably more happy than you could
realize) WHEN we get a new launch system online.. personally I'd rather
NOT see us expand the shuttle fleet. Rather, I'd like to see us hold on
to what we have until DC or some other system under development comes
online and we can supplement or swap over to it. Unfortunatly, thanks
to Congress and those who had to scale back/modify designs long ago, it's
what we are stuck with, and considering the technology, it's a remarkable
achievement and well worth the money spent on it UNTIL a replacement is
available. Those that meerly look at the flight rate and costs will no
doubt dislike the system, but those who look a little deeper into the
payloads, experiments, and crew of the sytem will recognize it for the
valuable asset it is. But there's no way NASA's gonna speed up it's
launching process, and the only way to cut costs would be to launch as
much as DC claims it'll be used. (Costs go down greatly as number of launches
increase.. and I still have a slight problem with DC's claims of demand
for launchers.. but that is a seperate issue)

Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
[e-mail]  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
[e-mail]  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin*
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 12:25:16 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

 [re: astronauts reluctance to fly without controls]

: The answer to that is quite simple. If he don't like it, he ain't
: gettin' hired on my spaceline. After cooling his heels on the ground
: in the unemployment queue for awhile, I'm sure he'll see the light.

: The DC/X is being "flown" by Pete Conrad. He clicks a mouse on a
: Macitosh screen to change pre-programmed flight modes. One click
: sends it into the abort sequence. He states that like it or not, THAT
: is the way of the future. The stick and rudder has seen it's day. Sad
: (I fly now and then myself, more then than now) but true.

: So saith Pete.--

Only one small problem with these beleifs about "anybody" just flying
the missions.. I'd like to see the company willing to just loft a non-pilot
type in their launch vehicle. (At least until it's flown a good number of
times.) These vehicles cost LOTS of money, and they want the best to fly them
generally. Now maybe, just mabye, MD has decided their ship is so reliable
that even an idiot can fly it, or perhaps it doesn't need a "crew" at all
and they can just install bucket seats and give anybody rides on it, but
somehow I doubt it.

Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
[e-mail]  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
[e-mail]  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin*
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 12:27:45 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] wrote:
: > BTW, DC has those built in already. Unlike the "man rated" shuttle,
: DC
: > offers fully intact abort througout its envelope. DC has engine out
: > capability throughout the flight. Shuttle has long periods of time
: > where a engine out will kill everybody.
: >

: And I'll add to that Alan... There is no STS abort mode (other than
: the KYAGB mode) from  SRB ignition until SRB SEP about a two minutes
: or so later. Any failure during that time and you have dead
: astronauts. A problem which, as you pointed out, not even the
: subscale prototype DC/X shares.

Ahem.. that's a bit of a generalization.. "any" failure will NOT cause
loss of vehicle/crew.. the T-0 till SRB Sep is the most dangerous yes,
but it's not to the point that "fuel cell 3 went down, oops, there goes
the orbiter..." You still have to have specific things go wrong to
get you in that position. But I'll agree, it'll be much nicer to have
abort ability at all phases of flight..

Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
[e-mail]  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
[e-mail]  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin*
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 12:47:59 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:

: >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.

I've seen posts pointing towards upwards of 200 flights a year.. no
offense but I DO doubt that level of payloads is available unless
they plan on lofting more of those wonderful space billboards people
are talking about.. I STILL don't see you posting any numbers.. just
rebuttals..

: >(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.

Actually, I know a number of people in the middle AND lower ranks who are
quite happy that it's finally being worked on.. and those that don't
like it can get outta the way..

: >
: >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.

Again, I'm asking for input, not silly comments.. and unless you have
some data to share, why act so "well informed"?

: >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.

Unfortunatly, I have.. and at least in private industry, often I've
seen a project get multi-year budgets, and actually get close to
what it's asked for..

: >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.

The shuttle had a number of systems onboards to allow a man-rating..
these systems cost money, and weight.. if we stripped ALL of the crew
systems outta the orbiter, and flew it like the Russians flew theirs,
we'd probably save lots of money and fly more frequently.. but there's
very little "excitement" that can be sustained without manned lauches,
so personally I don't like that idea much..

: >: 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.

Actually, I'm talking about thing like the comm system, the electrical
system, the hydraulics, the ECLSS, etc... there have been numerous
updates and upgrades into the shuttle over the years which make it
more reliable, and versitle. The "crew escape pole" is such a minor
"upgrade" it's hardly worth arguing about.. it's only useful in a very
limited range of situations, but I for one am still glad it's there..
The shuttle may be a "kludge" in your opinion, but if so, it's the
worlds best, most sophisticated and versitle kludge. There are plenty
of additional upgrades NASA's LOVE to do to the shuttle to improve
it's efficiency and safety even now, but again, the money is not
available so they have to wait..

These still all lead back to the central points.. that shuttle is
a VALUABLE resource that should be used until a replacement is available..
(and DC still isn't flying, or even built.. is it?) AND the DC is
being sold as "God's/MD's gift to space flight" with it's claims of
$20/pound and extreem safety not yet proven.. why should we NOT be
sceptical?

Mike

--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
[e-mail]  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
[e-mail]  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin*
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 12:55:52 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:
: >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.

Gee.. um.. what missions are those? Currently, there are no other man rated
launch systems, and nothing is flown on the orbiter (according to the
NASA policys implemented after STS-51L) that can be flown on a BDB.
Every shuttle flight is well packed with things to do, and I havn't seen
one recently that had anything that could have been done off a BDB, so
what exactly are these missions.. and all this coming from the guy who
tells ME to "go read up".. <grins>

Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
[e-mail]  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
[e-mail]  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin*
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: 26 Jul 93 13:16:58 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>> first big hurdle. (You show me an astronaut who is wiling to fly
>inside
>> a closed can with no control other than the ground, and I'll be
>significantly
>> amazed.

How does Y. Gagarin grab you. The Vostok capsule was basically a missile
warhead re-entry system and was automatic. Some scientists feared that
a man would go mad or be paralysed in zeero -G so the first spaceman
was there strictly for a ride. On the control (!) panel there was an
envelope taped with the key to taking over the spacecraft. It had
three basic modes of operation (presumably up, down and sideways), and
most of its systems were electromechanical (i.e. clockwork).
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada              *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3*
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 13:34:30 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

Henry Spencer ([e-mail]) wrote:
: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
: >As I understand it, DC is to be *teleoperated* when flown unmanned. Seems
: >to me that would require even more simulator time since it's arguably
: >harder to fly remotely than from on board...

: DC is always flown from on board, by a computer.  There are no stick-and-
: rudder controls for a human pilot, even when one is aboard.  McDD's design
: concept is really pushing an idea that gets lip service elsewhere:  the
: human as systems manager rather than pilot.

It sounds promising.. let's hope it works.. :)

Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
[e-mail]  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
[e-mail]  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin*
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 13:56:17 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22smtj$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <22k70e$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>
>>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.
>
    Actually Pat, a shuttle averages just under 3 flights a year.
With turn-around times now under 4 months in most cases (including
on-orbit time) we could easily get 3 flights a year out of each
shuttle.
    So, we wouldn't need 20 more orbiters, try 13 more.  You are
right about the VAB, though there is room to add bays 5 and 6 (and
two of the bays are still unconverted as I recall, so in theory
we could triple existing output fairly easily.)  In fact, I think
the numbers might show that 40+ flights could be handled by a 6 bay
VAB. (Considering that we've down 12 flights out of the 2-bay VAB).
Of course stacking the SRB's would have to be done in a different
place.

    So, your cost for orbiters should be $20 Bullion or $11 Billion.
I'd agree about $10 Billion in infrastructures, and maybe 5 billion
in spares (remember with mass-producing costs come down quite a bit.)

    So, we're looking at $26 Billion in up-front costs.

As for the extra $20 Billion a year, that is a gross exeragation.
Remember, of the $4 billion/8 shuttle flights now, a good deal of
that is independent of the number of flights, so you can't simply
take 8/4 and get $500 million/flight.  Figure $200 million is more
accurate.  So now we get  $10 billion a year, perhaps less.

    However, for $10 billion a year, you could fund 10-20
good size SSTO or TSTO or BDB development programs.  So in that
sense, you're right... shuttle is a waste.  But not as big as
some people would have us believe.

>
>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: 25 Jul 93 13:14:27 -0500
From: Bill Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>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

There's a story about Queen Elizabeth's coronation (in 1953?).  Peter
Ustinov was covering the event for the BBC.  At one point the [then]
Queen of Tonga (perhaps the current monarch's mother), who was herself
quite an imposing woman, appeared in a procession with a much smaller
gentleman.  Ustinov's partner identified the Queen, then wondered who
the gentleman with her was.  Ustinov responded: "Her lunch."  They don't
do live broadcasts like that anymore.

Bill

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 12:51:47 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Assembly/Factory in Space!
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] wrote:
: 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..

Good idea.. always wanted to get the OMV flying with station.. oops almost
forgot.. there are no good uses for a space station so we shouldn't build
one.. suppose we can't do satellite work then.. ah well..

Mike

--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
[e-mail]  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
[e-mail]  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin*
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 11:30:54 BST
From: Greg Stewart-Nicholls <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Lottery! Any ideas?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <22pr99$[e-mail]> Greg Moore writes:
>   I don't think liability is a big problem.
>And remember, you can't sign away your rights to sue, so a
>waiver won't solve all problems.  Besides, in the case of
>something like a Challanger mishap, where a known problem
>was overlooked, and the recommendation of several engineers
>was overturned, I'd want to sue for damages.
  Of course you would. The first reaction of all Americans when something
goes wrong, is to blame someone and sue for damages, that why this
scheme would never work.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
[e-mail] or     : Vici
[e-mail] : Veni

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 14:14:25 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Lottery! Any ideas?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In <22pr99$[e-mail]> Greg Moore writes:
>>   I don't think liability is a big problem.
>>And remember, you can't sign away your rights to sue, so a
>>waiver won't solve all problems.  Besides, in the case of
>>something like a Challanger mishap, where a known problem
>>was overlooked, and the recommendation of several engineers
>>was overturned, I'd want to sue for damages.
>  Of course you would. The first reaction of all Americans when something
>goes wrong, is to blame someone and sue for damages, that why this
>scheme would never work.

    So what if that is American's first reaction.  It's foolish.
And courts are foolish to allows suits where there is little or no
demonstrable negligence.
    In Challaneger though I believe there was demonstrable
negligence.

    (And trust me, I have to worry about demonstrable
negligence a lot being a leading in my local outing club.  Every time
I take someone rock-climbing I could be setting myself and others
up for a lawsuit.)

> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
>[e-mail] or     : Vici
>[e-mail] : Veni

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 13:27:46 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

stephen voss ([e-mail]) wrote:
: 1)It costs way too much for what it does

Perhaps, but show me a system that can do the mission the shuttle
does. Once we move to the next vehicle design,costs will go down, but
personally, considering the experiements and payloads flown on the shuttle
since STS-51L, I beleive it has proven to be worth MOST of the cost..

: 2)The failure of the space shuttle to perform as promised has thwarted
: every manned space exploration objective for the next 30 years

A good reason to be wary of DC claims.. and I'd disagree that the
shuttle is the cause of ALL the worlds (or America's) woes.. this
is a cop-out.. the shuttle has achieved things impossible during
most of the apollo program, and looks like it might end up being
very useful in establishment and operations of the Space Station
Freedom... (or Ed now actually, you can't spell Freedom, or even
Fred on the side anymore.. ;)

: 3)The space shuttles subsidized rates have kept private industry out
: of the manned space exploration business

Hmm.. it's possible, but considering the shuttle will NOT fly (or isn't
supposed to fly) anything that can be done on a BDB, this seems
to be a invalid claim.. only payloads REQUIRING the unique abilities
of the STS are supposed to fly on it..

: 4)Its design is fundamentally flawed,needing disposable rockets using
: different types of propellent. Which is a disaster waiting to happen...
: again

Look at Apollo.. it used different systems AND propellents and was
a success.. this isn't a big problem really..

: 5) It makes manned space exploration look like an unnecessary,dangerous
: costly venture when it doesnt have to be either dangerous or costly

It does? I can see where some may beleive that, but you'll never
please everybody.. and the shuttle doesn't look all that unnecessary
to me.. then again, I love manned spaceflight, and probably wouldn't
complain no matter WHAT manned ship we were flying.. I just love
to see people working in space..

: 6)Its a government project which has turned what was supposed to be an
: efficent and reliable space truck into Whiz bang gimmick of 1970's
: technology "OOOOHHHHH IT TAKES OFF LIKE A ROCKET AND LANDS LIKE A PLANE,
: NEATO!!!". Which turns out to be far less reliable and more costly than
: its predecessor

The original design might indeed have proven both cost effective
and reliable.. but the redesigned system was grossly oversold and it
continues to haunt the system.. and personlly I still like the
landing like a plane idea.. I hope we get the X-30 built..

: 7) I have a better more reliable computer system in my 2 mb amiga 500

Perhaps a cheaper more powerful system (in SOME respects) but more
reliable?.. no..

: 8) Selling a pace shuttle would provide enough money to fund the entire
: DC-Clipper program from DC-X to DC-1 to a man rated DC-3

Not to degrade the system TOO much.. but who would buy it?

: 9) Richard Nixon started the program

<chuckles> a unique reason to hate a system, but perhaps a moderately
valid one considering the design cutbacks are the governments fault
in some ways..

: 10) The ENTERPRISE never flew into space :'-(

People complain it costs too much already.. the Enterprise would have cost
more money to make "space-worthy".. so it was deemed more "thrifty" to
upgrade a different orbiter..

Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen   Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
[e-mail]  "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
[e-mail]  *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin*
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 14:09:01 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (stephen voss) writes:
>1)It costs way too much for what it does
>
    But it is currently the only game in town.

>2)The failure of the space shuttle to perform as promised has thwarted
>every manned space exploration objective for the next 30 years
>
    Oh?  I think there is a lot more to it than just the shuttle.
Remember, the remaining Moon shots were killed before shuttle flew.
People got bored, and Nixon wanted to finish in Vietnam.

>3)The space shuttles subsidized rates have kept private industry out
>of the manned space exploration business
>
    Hmm, other than MacDac, I haven't seen too many serious
proposals for manned flight from private industry.
    Also, if it it costs too much for what it does AND it is
subsidized, which side of the coin you are on?
    (True, pre-86 days launching of commercial satellites was
subsidized, but that's a different story than today.)

>4)Its design is fundamentally flawed,needing disposable rockets using
>different types of propellent. Which is a disaster waiting to happen...
>again
>
    Actually only the ET id disposable.  Whether that's a
fundamental flaw is questionable.  The shuttle is not the only craft to
have ever used expendable tanks for fuel.  And I'm not sure why different
types of propellent, or disposable tanks is a disaster waiting to happen.

>5) It makes manned space exploration look like an unnecessary,dangerous
>costly venture when it doesnt have to be either dangerous or costly
>
    Hmm, ironically up until '86 people were complaining how safe
it was  and that even a teacher could fly into space.  Only since
loosing a national hero in front of school children has NASA backed down
and said that the Shuttle is unsafe.  (Yet I'm sure you could find
a dozen teachers willing to fly tomorrow...)

>6)Its a government project which has turned what was supposed to be an
>efficent and reliable space truck into Whiz bang gimmick of 1970's
>technology "OOOOHHHHH IT TAKES OFF LIKE A ROCKET AND LANDS LIKE A PLANE,
>NEATO!!!". Which turns out to be far less reliable and more costly than
>its predecessor
>
    Hmm, hard to gauge reliability.  In 50+ flights we've lost one
crew.  During Apollo we flew 20 manned CSM's and nearly lost one in
space (13) experienced what could have been a serious lightning hit (12),
and had pogoing problems.
    (Hmm, maybe the Shuttle has Pogo problems?  "We've met the enemy
(of manned space flight) and he is us.")

>7) I have a better more reliable computer system in my 2 mb amiga 500
>
    This one is demonstrably wrong.  The shuttle continues to have
some of the best software and most reliable hardware in the world.
Your amiga may be faster, have more memory and be more compact, but it
is hardly more reliable.
    The last reliable word I had read on shuttle software was that
there had never been a serious problem in an actual flight and only 3 (?)
in ground testing.  That's in close to 15 years of actual flight and
development.  How many times has your Amiga had hang-up or other problem?

>8) Selling a pace shuttle would provide enough money to fund the entire
>DC-Clipper program from DC-X to DC-1 to a man rated DC-3
>
    Hmm, who would buy it?

>9) Richard Nixon started the program
>
    Yeah?  He also opened the doors to China.  What's your point?
(I could argue that Kennedy started the race to the moon, resulting in
Apollo, a one-shot deal, rather than building an infrastructure.)

>10) The ENTERPRISE never flew into space :'-(

    Boo hish.  Yeah, I like Star Trek too.  But if fans insist
on renaming a flight article, then they get what happens.  If they
had waited... perhaps another shuttle would have been named
Enterprise.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 924
------------------------------