Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO927.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 34KB | 787 lines

Space Digest                Tue, 27 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 927

Today's Topics:
                        A Blast from the Past
                 A ride to Mir for only $12 million?
                       Buran and Aviation Week
     Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
                               Catapult
Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist) (2 msgs)
                                 DC-X
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (3 msgs)
                 Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed
                   Help, looking info on Grad Prog
            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: 27 Jul 93 00:43:50 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Blast from the Past
Newsgroups: sci.space

The following article is apropos to some of the recent
discussions on this list...

------------------------------
"Shuttles -- What Price Elegance?"
[Robert C. Truax, Aeronautics/Astronautics, June 1970, pages 22-23.]

After years of debate, the reusable orbital shuttle appears to be
headed for full project status.  It may be unseeming for the true
believers, who have been arguing the case for reusability over the
years, to begin haggling over the details so soon, but 'twas ever
thus.

My concern is that the approach selected will include many unnecessary
frills that will run up the cost and extend the development time to
the point where the program becomes another Dynasoar or MOL.  All too
many government projects go this route.  American industry can perform
technological prodigies, as we have witnessed in the Apollo and
ballistic-missile programs.  The national resolve must be firm,
however, if success of such projects is to be assured.  Long,
difficult technical developments are seldom successful if the
justification is not crystal clear; and, let's face it, the
justification for the reusable orbital shuttle is *not* crystal clear.
Although a favorable administrative decision appears at hand, the
subject is still controversial among the experts.  It is therefore
vital to the success of the project that its costs and duration be
minimized.  The mood of the country will not support another
engineering "tour de force".

With the above considerations in mind, I would like to point out once
more that, with the proper approach, development of a reusable orbital
transport need not be particularly difficult, expensive or
time-consuming ("Thousand Tons to Orbit", R. C. Truax, Astronautics,
January 1963.  "The Pressure-fed Liquid, Dark Horse of the Space
Race," R. C. Truax, IAF Convention 1967.)

It is necessary, however, to keep the primary objectives in the
forefront and ruthlessly exclude features technically difficult but
contributing only marginally to the central purpose.

The features which I consider in the category of peripheral frills,
but which present vast difficulties, include land touchdown and
booster flyback.  These features, unfortunately, are near and dear to
many proponents of reusable vehicles.  They make the "aero" part of
the aerospace industry feel needed.  They even have an appeal to the
non-technically minded.  But they make about as much sense as
requiring airplanes to be able to land at railroad stations.

For the moment assume that the reusable orbital transport requires at
least two stages, and talk about the upper stage(s) first.  We already
have a reusable spacecraft, maybe two.  With minor design changes,
both the Gemini and Apollo spacecraft are reusable.  There is no
approach to returning a craft to Earth from orbit that is simpler,
which costs less payload, or, I submit, which is either quicker or
less costly to develop or to operate that the low-L/D,
parachute-landed spacecraft using water touchdown.

The present type of heat shield probably must be replaced each flight.
An intrinsically reusable or a less-sophisticated expendable shield
might prove more economic for repeated use.  But I can see no valid
argument for abandoning the essentially ballistic re-entry with
parachute touchdown in water.

Let us examine what we pay for winged or even lifting-body re-entry,
and what we reeive in exchange.

In the re-entry phase, we trade off high heating rates and receive
longer heating times and *greater* total heat-input.  The net effect
is loss of payload.  We gain lower re-entry accelerations.  If we have
as our chief aim shuttling little old ladies (or possibly a president
with a weak heart) to and from Earth orbit, I would agree that lower
"G" is a significant advantage.  As long as the crew and passengers
are even moderately healthy individuals, at least one step removed
from the wheelchair, the reduced acceleration cannot be [presented] as
a significant advantage.

The second "advantage" touted for the high L/D re-entry is
"footprint."  A large footprint carries the capability for a wider
selection of landing point for a given deorbiting condition.  However,
any landing point within the maximum latitude excursion of the
orbiting craft can also be selected by waiting a bit longer and
deorbiting at the proper time.  The Apollo spacecraft has built into
it all of the lift capability required to compensate for deorbiting
errors and to permit reasonably short orbital "holding times."  How
much are we willing to pay for a minor gain in scheduling convenience?

Expansion of landing opportunities in emergencies cannot be cited as
an advantage of high-lift re-entry.  It may be a necessary adjunct,
but a lifting-body craft probably cannot be safely ditched in the
ocean, nor can it be landed on rought terrain.  The ballistic vehicle
with aprachute can do both, and in substantially any weather.  Its
touchdown on land may damage the craft some, but the probability for
survival of the occupants is very high.  The crew of a winged re-entry
vehicle, on the other hand, coming in for an emergency landing might
learn to their grief that three quarters of the surface of the Earth
is water!

Use of special lifting bodies cannot be justified on the basis of
touchdown accuracy.  Only ultra-conservatism and concern for our
astronauts' safety prevents us from recovering one mile off Cocoa
Beach.  Nor is it necessary to have half the U.S. Navy standing by.  A
helicopter or pickup boat could have the spacecraft and crew back at
the launch site within minutes.  Does it matter whether they ride in a
boat or on wheels?  As a matter of fact, barring the construction of
expensive new runways and other facilities, the land-landing
spacecraft will wind up further from its launch site than one the
lands on water!

Most of these results about the spacecraft (i.e., the payload module)
apply also to the upper propulsive stage.  Minimizing the exposed
area generally minimizes the problem of heat protection.  The arguments
for winged re-entry are even less valid for the ascent propulsion
stage unless it is permanently attached to the payload module or
separately manned.

The penalties for doing the latter are serious.  Perhaps the most
powerful argument for separating the two modules is that one does not
need to return a cargo enclosure.  Indeed, it can be quickly shown
that it is uneconomical to do so.  Mixed passenger and cargo flights
should be the exception, rather than the rule.  Propellants, in
particular, should be transported to orbit in a throwaway container.
We should never try to maximize the amount of empty container
that must be brought back through the "thermal thicket."  If,
indeed, it proves economical to return expended upper stages,
they should be left to make the journey alone -- started on their
way, perhaps, by a space "switch engine" which gives them proper
orientation and impulse, and then returns to the space station.

I have saved my comments on the first stage until last because it is
here I feel we can make our greatest mistake.  A winged, flyback
booster could be a money sponge of unparalleled capacity.  It is,
unfortunately, the kind of technological challenge that engineers
cherish and which they may be expected to recommend with unstinted
enthusiasm.  It is also the avenue to participation and profit by an
airplane-oriented industry.  Even if the many-fold problems we create
by such a requirement can indeed be solved by vast injections of
cash, the payoff, I am convinced, is completely trivial.

Let us examine the two features separately.  Take flyback first.  Why
fly?  Well, flying saves time -- but it also costs money, particularly
if we are trying to fly back a huge booster, for we have to take its
transport plane into space with us first.  Yet that is essentially
what we propose to do.  I will not belabor the point that making a
space booster that is also a hypersonic airplane is a formidable
problem.  Even the staunchest proponents admit that.

Instead, let us see what would be gained if we indeed had such a beast.
First, we would gain time.  The return from a few hundred miles down range
would be in a matter of minutes.  Return by tug or retrieval vessel would
require perhaps 24 hr.  When launch intervals approach this figure,
the saving in time would permit a reduction in vehicle inventory.
However, since the cost ratio between simple ballistic and flyback
booster must be at least 10 to 1, the breakeven launch interval would
be several per day.  I am sure that such high utilization rates go
far beyond the lifetime of this first-generation reusable booster.
The savings in time, then, is not a valid argument for flyback.

How about land touchdown?  Like an airplane, I mean.  The usual
argument is that airplane turnaround costs are a few thousand dollars
at most (i.e., Boeing 707 in commercial service) whereas expendable
ballistic boosters cost millions just to check out and launch.
Certainly (the argument goes) a booster that has splashed in salt
water and been towed hundreds of miles would have to be completely
rebuilt at heaven knows what cost!  A reusable booster that looks
like an airplane, flies like an airplane, and, above all, lands
like an airplane will probably have turnaround costs approaching
that of an airplane.  I say nonsense!  This opinion simply reflects
wishful thinking and "gut feel".  So is the pessimistic appraisal
of the effect of water landing on refurbishment cost.

As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, the structural
fraction of a winged flyback booster is about on a par with a
scaled-up Aerobee.  A simple, rugged pressure-fed booster would
perform as well as the ultra-complex flyback VTOHL (or HTOHL).  The
pressure-fed booster could be recovered by means of a relatively small
inflatable drag-device.  Studies have shown that water-entry
velocities up to several hundred feet per second could be sustained
without damage.

Naturally, a water-landing booster must be designed to exclude sea
water from any electronics or delicate machinery; but the unmanned,
simple system I have suggested before involves precious little
such claptrap.  The problems are not essentially different from those
encountered in excluding sea water from ships, submarines or seaplanes,
all of which operate immersed in the ocean for much longer periods
than a reusable booster.  Quite similar rockets (liquid JATO of
WW II) have been dropped in the ocean and reused many times without
*any* refurbishment, other than reservicing with propellants.  An
experiment with a modified Aerobee (Seabee) showed a refurbishment
factor of only 7% on the first try!

No, far from having a higher turnaround cost than the winged flyback
booster, the pressure-fed rocket, utilizing a ballistic path, pure
drag retardation, and vertical, water touchdown with tug return would
have a much lower turnaround cost.  It would, for the simple reason
that there is so much less to refurbish!

There is only one advantage to the horizontal-landing flyback
booster that I would freely acknowledge.  The late, redoubtable Nick
Golovin termed water landing "inelegant."  I would agree, but how much
are we willing to pay for elegance?

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

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

    "Absolute stupidity of the worst sort"
        -- Freeman Dyson commenting on the space shuttle

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 00:05:48 GMT
From: Innocent Bystander <[e-mail]>
Subject: A ride to Mir for only $12 million?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Claudio Egalon) Pontificated:
>> Only one millionaire has attempted this, so far as we know, and he
>> wasn't willing to pay the full price, so he didn't fly.  (I'm assuming
>> John Denver is a millionaire-- forgive me if this isn't true, John.)
>
>I might be wrong but I recall that John Denver offered around US$40
>million to fly to the Mir. Is it right? Since he did not fly, apparently
>the Russians  were asking more than that. I am not aware of how much
>the Japaneses paid to fly their journalist so I would like to know if
>there  is anyone in the Net that have the right figures.
>

As I heard it, it wasn't the $ that stopped Mr. Denver, it was
either the one-year of required cosmonaut training and/or the
requirement that he learn fluent Russian.



/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
| "You know how people are.  They only recognize greatness         |
| when some authority confirms it."                                |
|                    -Bill Watterson in "Calvin and Hobbes"        |

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 22:46:05 GMT
From: Claudio Egalon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Buran and Aviation Week
Newsgroups: sci.space

> Someone once pointed out that when Aviation Week & ST printed the first
> reasonably accurate drawings of both the Energia and Buran, they included
> the name Buran on the drawing

I remember this incident. It was a letter from a reader that was published in
AW&ST. In the same page of the letter, there was a photo of  Buran which
the reader was refering to. As far as I remember, AW&ST did not comment
about this reader's letter.

Claudio Oliveira Egalon
[e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 20:03:39 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>
>Here's the way its reported in Russia. It still does not point out the
>judgement of all parties involoved, but its a good first look. Thank
>the JPRS-FBIS folks for the colorful translations....
>

What's  JPRS-FBIS  for our general edification

--

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

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

Date: 26 Jul 93 20:58:14 GMT
From: Bob Kirkpatrick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Catapult
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Darth Vader) writes:

> I was wondering if anyone out there ever thought about what it would take to
> build a Heinlein style catapult.  What would it cost?  Would any private
> corporation be able to fund such a project?  Is it technologically possible
> at the present?  Just speculating absently...

Technologically, I think it is possible. The technology is similar to that
used in particle accellerators and some monorails. Of course, this would be
one whale of a train. :-)

The cost of building it would be pretty impressive. Not only are there the
materials needed, but the property on both the flatlands and the incline.
The biggest hurdle I see (relatively speaking) would be firing it. The pow-
er needed to charge it would be immense. As I sit here considering it from
my layman's position, all I can think of is Doc Brown tearing his hair in
Back to the Future yelling "One point twenty-one gigawatts!"

Which, for all I know, might just be the quiescent current for a magnetic
catapult. (!)

--
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.

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 22:17:02 GMT
From: Cameron Randale Bass <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <1993Jul26.144727.21019@bsu-ucs>, [e-mail] writes...
>>
>>For those who still are researching cold fusion, the entire question
>>is still about RATE.  The faster you can make the fusions occur,
>>the more power you can generate.  So, the size of the cell and the
>>amount of power it can generate will not be determined until someone
>>can give us some reproducable experiments that measure the rate of
>>cold fusion.
>
>I can't agree that it's "just a matter of rate."  That answer seems
>to hide a more fundamental truth.  I presume that the rate of
>cold fusion according to standard QM tunnelling calculations at
>room temperature is so incredibly small that you could never hope
>to actually measure it in a real experiment on the desktop.

    I don't remember the rates of any other reaction pathway in
    Pd-D, except Pd-D itself.  And that was 1 in 10^4000.  So you wouldn't
    even expect to see it in an ensemble of a ten *universes*
    like our own.

                         dale bass

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 22:13:46 GMT
From: Cameron Randale Bass <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

In article <1993Jul26.144727.21019@bsu-ucs> [e-mail] writes:
>
>
>Firstly, we know that cold fusion does occur-whether it is in the
>Palladium/heavy water cells aka Pons and Fleischmen or whether
>it is muon-induced, the question is one of rate.

    Actually, if the rate calculated for Pd-D processes is 1 in 10^4000,
    I'd say that it was *not* actually occurring.

                           dale bass

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

Date: 26 Jul 93 15:44:23
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22pqlf$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (stephen voss) writes:
   >This is a public (repond with a post) question

   >3) Why should we be funding space programs at all when we have (fill in
   >your favorite social cause) here at home

       Hmm, you could take some people's answers and say "My favorite
   social cause is jobs" and justify the space program taht way.

Oh bother. I've been thinking on this a little...

Now, the essential problem here is not so much the money,
but the manpower and resources needed to deal with
<insert favourite social problem>, the argument being
that the <space program> diverts needed resources away
from worthier programs. Now, if people are truly committed
to the notion that <f.s.p.> is _that_ big a problem, there
are far more effective ways of mobilising the needed resources,
personally I would recommend shutting down all TV and divert
the freed "free time" to tackling the social problems.
This has the advantage of being a scalable solution, if they
truly feel <f.s.p.> has that high a priority, simply tell your
friends to watch _no_ television and dedicate the resources
freed until the problem is solved...

;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson               Lick Observatory          *
*  [e-mail]        "standard disclaimer"      *
*  Some people think they're really clever            *
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979    *

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 23:13:20 GMT
From: Doug Mouser <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <231b5s$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michael C. Jensen) wrote:
>
> Doug Mouser ([e-mail]) wrote:
> :         Brilliant condems or "Great Explorations"...LLNL's plan for an inflatable
> : space
> : station and a maned mars mission.  Effectivaly kill by NASA's turf fighting
> : and
> : politics.
>
> : Doug
>
> : PS.  The plan called for a maned mars mission in seven years, for 40
> : billion!
>
> ..and you blame NASA for that? $40Bil is a LOT of money.. (why not
> compare that to the yearly budget of NASA for instance..) it's
> important to note also that a significant portion of NASA's budget
> is spent on non-space related research and development.. (the first
> A in NASA stands for Aeronautics.. and NASA does a LOT of aeronatical
> research..) I don't see where this is NASA's fault, unless you think
> that if NASA was eliminated, all of it's funds would go to that projects,
> which in it's own way is far fetched.. I'll admit I know little
> (more like nothing) about this set of inflaables.. but I strongly doubt
> it's all the big bad NASA's fault that it isn't being flown/developed..
>
> Mike
> --
        You bet I blame NASA.  Of course not every one at NASA is to blame, some
even support the idea.  As for 40Bil, NASA wanted to spend about 400
billion
over 25 years to send men to mars.  The 40 billion LLNL had in mind would
have been for one space station, one moon base, one fuel transfer vel. and
the
mars ship.  Now NASA wants to spend 12 - 15Bil just to start FRED, for just
the
inflatable space station "it was call earth station" would have been under
5Bil in 1989 dollars.  I'll look up that real dollar amounts tonight.

    And your right, NASA does some great work.  HUD does some great work too,
but
like HUD, NASA does mismanage our (MY) money. IMHO

    Why is NASA spending so much money on FRED when there are other less
exspensive alternatives?  Is the design of FRED technicaly superior in any
why to LLNL's earth station?

    I do not work for L. Wood or in any way with the dept. that purposed
LLNL's
space plans.  My job is not on the line here but my tax money is.


Doug

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 19:57:38 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <230jpv$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
|Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:
|
|: 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..
|

Alan posts the basic numbers.  But MDA people i spoke to, have a
plan based upon locking up 85% of the Medium Launch capacity
in the US  within two years  of product release.  Now as for 200
launches per year,  part of that is posited on opening new markets.
I believe Overnight express to anywhere and executive transport will
create the market for 200 launches/year.

The idea is as launches increase,  costs devrease,  and demand increases.

Do you have a basic problem with this?  It's  called supply and demand.


|: >(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..
|

Well,  Considering goldin spent the first year in his job fighting
with his subordinates about this in particular,  and had to
directly slam a number of people  to stop the campaign to remove him
from his job  this year,  i wouldn't exactly say it's appreciated
by the middle ranks.  Try reading through the back issues of space news.


|: >
|: >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"?
|

Ken Hayashida, keeps  posting about his great vaunted spreadsheets
and analytical skills.  I am quite seriously directing you to
someone who has been collecting the data,  or at least had it
mailed to him.


|
|: 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..
|

So basically you are saying that without gluing some guy to a roman candle
no-one will pay for the launch.  I guess that's why people are fighting
to see the DC-X test flights.

You are still dodging the basic issue though.  The Redstone,  Atlas,
Titan  and Saturn  were all proof launched  through 3?  launches
before men were placed in the capsules.

STS  flew without any proof testing.

PS  lots of people watched the saturn test launches.


|: >
|: >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..
|
|
|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 problems of the shuttle though are still severe.  There is no way
to fix the basic structural and design problems of the shuttle.

What youa re talking about is sort of like commenting on how great the
blankets are  in a boat that has lost power and is 2 miles
off the reef.

Please tell me  what has been done to handle a Failure in the SSMEs
or turbo-pumps.  Or what can be done in an orbit while the SRBs
are burning.  ANy system without useful abort modes at all
times is doomed for trouble.  there are still dozens of 1-R
failure modes.


|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

Try expensive,  underperforming  and attention diverting kludge
flying.

|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..
|

You want to list some of them?


|These still all lead back to the central points.. that shuttle is
|a VALUABLE resource that should be used until a replacement is available..

Oh it is valuable,  but it's expensive.  far too expensive.

My theory is the shuttle will get listed with the
great western, the R-101  and the spruce goose as engineering
boondoggles  (oh i forgot the hindenberg too).

|(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?


I am sure that the Air-ship community was saying the same things
about the Ford Tri-motor  and lockheed Vega at that time.

pat

--

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

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 20:17:08 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <231b5s$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>Doug Mouser ([e-mail]) wrote:
|:         Brilliant condems or "Great Explorations"...LLNL's plan for an inflatable
|
|: PS.  The plan called for a maned mars mission in seven years, for 40
|: billion!
|
|..and you blame NASA for that? $40Bil is a LOT of money.. (why not
|compare that to the yearly budget of NASA for instance..) it's

It's Half of NASA's budget  for 7 years.  Do you have a problem?
Apollo  ate 80% of NASA's budget for 10 years.  The Second S is for
Space.

|important to note also that a significant portion of NASA's budget
|is spent on non-space related research and development.. (the first
|A in NASA stands for Aeronautics.. and NASA does a LOT of aeronatical
|research..) I don't see where this is NASA's fault, unless you think

Michael shows his true innocence.  Naive boy.  I hope you can learn.

Aero research is under 1 billion/ year.  1/14th of the budget NASA gets.

Goldin's biggest contribution last year was getting Aero research kicked up
to 1 billion this FY.   And it was against the will of every major director
at NASA.


>that if NASA was eliminated, all of it's funds would go to that projects,

No,  but NASA should be focused on viable projects.  every project they
proposed in the 80's  cost  orders of magnitude more then their
past projects  in the 60's.


>which in it's own way is far fetched.. I'll admit I know little
>(more like nothing) about this set of inflaables.. but I strongly doubt
>it's all the big bad NASA's fault that it isn't being flown/developed..
>


Read the trade press.

pat

--

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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 22:21:51 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

I just received confirmation on the HASC R&T Subcommittee vote. They
authorized $80M and directed the program be moved to ARPA. As I said,
this is everything we asked for. Those of you who wrote or called, pat
yourselves on the back. You did a good job!

The next step legislatively is still being worked on. However, now is the
time to send letters and phone calls to Schroeder and any other HASC
member you wrote to thanking them. This is an important step since very few
people ever do it. we will need her support in the future and thanking
her now makes it much easier. Besides, she deserves it.

  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: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 23:49:54 GMT
From: Gregg Murphy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help, looking info on Grad Prog
Newsgroups: sci.space

I've been trying to get some information, but since I've been out of
school, it is difficult to find where quality graduate programs are.  I am
looking for a Masters Program in Aerospace.  If anyone knows of a quality
prog.  I would enjoy hearing from you via E-Mail
Thanks,


Gregg Murphy,  [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 20:09:22 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Test Stands at MSFC (Was Re: Room in the VAB?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>Just about all the chlorine in an aluminum/AP/polymer solid rocket
>>comes out as hydrogen chloride.
>
>Of course, the difference is a little academic, since HCl is just about as
>much of a problem to breathe as Cl itself...  Give HCl the slightest trace
>of water and it turns into hydrochloric acid.

Tha'ts what i get for posting loosely.  I was thinking about the chlorides
released,  converting to Acid Rain.

The nice thing about LOX/LH2, is it's a clean green Flying Machine.
(BTW the DC-X Promo tapes  pound this point home.)
I suspect Lox/RP-1 isn't bad as an exhaust either.

But i've  seen a lot of the hoop jumping on the Stennis environmental
problems.  I don't know why NASA didn't just tell Thiokol to rent out
it's Test stands, or never get a contract from NASA again.

pat
--

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

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 927
------------------------------