Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO930.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 38KB | 820 lines

Space Digest                Wed, 28 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 930

Today's Topics:
                               Catapult
     Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
    Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
                            DC-X (2 msgs)
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (3 msgs)
                   Found your own dark-sky nation?
              Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
                  SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993
                     Why I hate the space shuttle

        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: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 15:03:11 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Catapult
Newsgroups: sci.space

> Dave Stephenson writes:
> The calculations for an E-M catapult are easy. From memory the energy
> needed to send 1 tonne into escape from the surface of the Earth
> (neglecting air resistance! actually about 10% for a long thin thing
> like a utlity pole) is 22 MW-Hrs. For a launcher 3 kms long (memory!)
> that needs dischargin in about 3.5 seconds. Working backwords we need
> 2.5 million automobile batteries spread out along the track.
>


        No sweat!  At an inflated government cost of $100 per battery,
including wiring and charging provisions, this is a mere $250 million.  This
is likely to be only a small fraction of the other costs of such a program.

--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 13:55:45 GMT
From: Jim Carr <[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) says:
>>
>>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.

The *experimental* question is a matter of determining a rate under
reproducible conditions.  For example, the rate for muon catalyzed
fusion has been well characterized.  Once that has been done, the
remaining questions are theoretical.  The shortcomings of those
"standard" QM calculations that existed in 1989 are by now well known.

Of course, this whole discussion belongs in sci.physics.fusion, where
it will be read by people who do not read sci.physics or sci.space.

In fact, if you were holding it there you might have read a rather
interesting post by K.H. Johnson of the MIT Materials Science Dept,
who has done ab-initio quantum-chemistry calculations for the Pd D
system.  He points out that the rate of fusion is enhanced only
slightly, but that there is a chemical mechanism for 10 eV/atom
from a bulk catalytic recombination that *could* explain much of the
data one sees in the literature.

In article <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> writes:
>Actually it is a matter of rate, but I agree that the phrasing of the
>statement tends to sort of imply that cold fusion is a fact. The real
>question is whether the rate in a D20/palladium cell is any larger then
>in a glass of D20. If not then it can be said that cold fusion does not
>happen.

Of course cold fusion is a fact.  Muon catalyzed fusion has been known
for many decades.  It would be exceedingly unlikely that *some* cold
fusion would not occur in a Pd-D system.  (After all, one can detect the
radioactive decay of some nuclei that emit C-14!)  The question is whether
it can be seen, and if so, is it significant.  Even if not significant for
energy production, if seen it poses a most interesting physics problem on
the boundary between chemistry, materials science, and nuclear physics.

--
J. A. Carr       <[e-mail]>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 11:11:19 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <stephens.743777554@ngis> [e-mail] (Dave Stephenson) writes:
>I thought that the Polaris motors for the British Nuclear Submarines
>had that dubious honour. They have caused real problems, even it is
>roumoured having to de-retire the guys who built them to check and
>repair them.


I thought the Chevaline program re-engined
the Polarises, to  essentially poseidons.

pat

--

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

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 14:47:50 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

jeff findley ([e-mail]) wrote:
: How many of these "critical doors" are on the bottom of the Shuttle?  Three to
: eight?  I know they have doors over the rather large LH2 and LOX connections
: and probabally the ET attach points as well.  Landing gear also needs these
: "critical doors".  Seems like we've been there and done that since the days of
: the X-15 (way before I was even born).

I'd venture a guess at 6 - three for the gears, and three for the ET attach
point.. however, on the top side of the orbiter are someting approaching
20 seperate "sections" of control jets.. each of which would require an
additional door.. the more doors, the greater the risks.. one door that
fails to close is enough to cause serious problems on reentry..

: Perhaps MD has already done the research to put RCS jets on the outside without
: "critical doors", since the design is roughly based on maneuverable reentry
: vehicle (i.e. nuclear warhead) technology.  Just how maneuverable these things
: are is a mystery to me. :-)

A good question.. anybody know anything?

Mike
: --
:   __   __    __   __  /-------------------------------------------+-----------\
:  /  \ |  \  |  \ /  \ |"Have you noticed the way people's         | The above |
:  \__  |   | |__/ |    | intelligence capabilities decline sharply | opinions  |
:     \ |   | | \  |    | the minute they start waving guns around?"| are mine, |
:  \__/ |__/  |  \ \__/ |Dr. Who (Tom Baker in "The Horns of Nimon")| not SDRC. |
: [e-mail] \-------------------------------------------+-----------/

--
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: 27 Jul 1993 11:17:25 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

  Who needs Doors?  just idle the thrusters,  and they should put out
a gas stream that will keep the re-entry barrier off the nozzles.

pat
--

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

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 14:11:20 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

Doug Mouser ([e-mail]) wrote:
:               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.

Well.. considering how hard it was for NASA to get funding for SSF (an
in-house project) I can see where they might have decided it was too hard
to fund the LLNL proposal.. I'm not sure about why they decided to use
the Fred design over LLNL's, so won't comment on that..

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

Yes.. to some extent it does, as do most government programs.. however
I've noticed a concentrated effort to start fixing this throughout all
NASA programs and projects, so I'll wait to make my judgements..


:       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?

It's possible.. again I know very little about LLNL's proposal.. 'course
there's something a little bit scary about the words "inflatable" in
conjunction with "space station".. but I'd assume the worry would probably
be unfounded.. again, I dont know enough to make a good call on this one..

:       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.

<grins> I'll admit my job biases me a bit towards NASA, although I'm also
willing to complain about things I disagree with, but it's also fun to
note I almost pay enough taxes to cover close to my salery.. ;) (and watch
em climb.. whee!..)

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: 27 Jul 1993 14:31:44 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

Actually, those are mostly the upper ranks, not the middle ranks..
(I consider middle ranks division and branch heads, not center directors
or Washington administrators).. and all of the branch chiefs and division
types I have talked with are all quite positive towards the recomended
changes..


: |: 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.

And lots of people watched the shuttle launches too.. this still doesn't
follow the line of argument.. my point is that a man-rated ship will
require additional equipment and sytems that an unmanned will not.. period.
Whether or not you launch it's first flights with people aboard or not
does not diminish the fact that a manned vessel will cost more than
an unmanned vessel of the same style and abilities. This is the chief argument
those against manned spaceflight use time and time again.. and personally
I beleive that people get more excietment and pride out of our manned missions
than our unmanned missions, justified or not.. I didn't see thousands of
people all over the roadway to see the mars explorer launch, but I DO see
thousands our there to see a simple shuttle flight.. 'course this is just
a guess but it seems to me people like seeing humans living and working
in space..

: |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.

Simple.. give us the funding to build it's replacemnt, and WHEN the
replacement is online and oprational, we'll switch over.. you, among
others, keep saying NASA should learn from history and not repeat
past mistakes. NASA stopping the apollo project BEFORE shuttle came
online WAS a serious mistake that cost us our first orbital lab, and
cost us a lot of wasted time and support.. but some out there seem
hell bent on having us repeat this mistake again with shuttle.. I
feel it would be foolish.. and I beleive the shuttle is a little more
useful than a powerless boat two miles off the reefs.. the SSME's
have been refined and improved to keep their reliability very high..
but there will be (and will alwyas be in such a system) certain failures
which can cause critical problems.. so?.. we should abandon our only
manned launch vehicle till the net great cargo truck to orbit "DC" come
online and repeat the same tragic error of Apollo?

: |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.

Yep.. it's expensive, but I'd disagree with underperforming.. it's not
"economicaly" efficient, but scientifically it's very valuable.. it
continues to do valuable and rewarding research every single flight,
making the chances for the long term habitation of space by later
systems like DC more possible by the experience and knowledge gained
now..

: |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?

Sure.. ASRM's, SSME's, Comm systems, GPC's, fuel cells, and ECLSS.
There are more, but these are already hitting a funding wall..

: |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 that would be a shame.. for the shuttle has proven a remarkable
achievement which has greatly expanded our knowldge of space, spacecraft,
and human factors in microgravity.. but there will always be those who
belittle progress and achievement.. after all there are still people who
beleive the earth is flat and the moon landings were faked.. the shuttle
is no longer the best way to go, and would be a failure if designed and
built TODAY, but for when it was designed and built, it was a remarkable
achievement..

: |(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.

.but nobody stopped using there old planes on the wish that the new
ones would work better.. they waited TILL the new ones were there..

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: 27 Jul 1993 14:42:36 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

..and at the time we were in a "race" against the soviet menace.. with
a larger budget.. and second s? where's the first? IF we spent half
of NASA's budget for 7 years on this, we'd have to kill even more of
the programs.. which are already tight on funds.. that's still a
LOT of money.. (especially considering some people are claiming
we spend way too much as it is..)

: |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.

<chuckles> at least I can keep myself from stooping to name calling
and such.. I never have claimed to know everything, but I do know
a fair amount about my favorite field, and continue to learn each
day.. and most importantly, I try hard to keep an open mind.. something
too many people these days are lacking..

: 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.
Somehow I doubt the guys at Ames were upset over this.. seems a bit of
a generalization.. and 1 billion a year is a LOT of money, considering
that aeronautical research is generally less expensive than space work
since you don't need expensive launch vehicles to get up and work..

: >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.

And it's now the 90's, and NASA is refocusing on more viable projects..
we try to learn from the past.. and have learned that we will not end
up with the huge budgets envisioned in the 80's.. so are reworking
things to live within our means..

: >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.

Such as...? I try to get through Space Week and a few of the IEEE/AIAA
publications each week, and havn't seen anything on it.. could you be
more specific please?

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: Tue, 27 Jul 93 16:18:34 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?

> Whether or not they have "independence" is an open question; some
> people say the US government put them up to their actions in the

> Minervan deal... sometimes those banking havens can be very
> inconveinent to some people back on the mainland.
>


I don't remember the details. I do remember posting detailed infor on
Minerva some years back. They are probably still fighting it in the
World Court. They raised money by selling gold coinage, and I
remember some of the adds in Reason.

Actually I think they were a bit naive. Peaceful South Pacific or
not, they should have been better prepared. The best response to the
whole thing would have been a successful defense: with the "King"
getting his subjects returned in boxes.

There is more to liberty than talking about how nice it is and the
warm fuzzy feeling you get philosophizing about it. When someone is
preparted to shoot at you, you had better be prepared to shoot back.


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

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 08:56:29 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!

George William Herbert <[e-mail]> writes:
>[e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>Appropriate about one year's shuttle budget to build a whole bunch of
>>jail space and provide for, say, 5 years imprisonment for most of the
>>upper level federal civil servants and the upper level managment of the
>>pseudo-private "contractors" they do business with.  Enjoin them from
>>ever being employed by federal agencies (including the pseudo-private
>> ones) or receiving any federal funds ever again.
>
>You've been listening to John Logsdon on bad days, haven't you...

I wasn't aware that John Logsdon had started to turn the corner yet.

It had to happen sooner or later.  In fact, I expect that just as a
lot of the Party wheels in the Soviet Union now turn out to be the
most ruthless entrepreneurs in Russia, so we will see people who I
would like to see in prison, ending up starting space businesses as
NASA falls apart.  We've already seen such movement at all levels
from the early founders of the space station program to ISU types.

>>That would open up competition in space transport to the degree
>>that the cost per lb to LEO would drop by a factor of 2 every 3 years
>>for the forseeable future.  It would have the side-effect of enabling
>>a general politico-economic recovery in this country, but we can ignore
>>such benefits as being "in the noise" relatively speaking.
>
>Lesse, that's $1500/lb by 96, $750/lb by 99, $375/lb by 02, and $190ish
>by 2005...
>
>Retro plans to offer $1000/lb in 5 ton quantities sometime around
>96 if my test stand doesn't blow up in the near future (i.e. no
>fundamental flaws).  That should slowly decay off towards $600/lb
>by 2000ish ...

I was being reasonably conservative, and assuming that there would be
a variety of businesses (ie: several SMALL businesses) around to ensure
that one of them would actually achieve something like their projected
price reductions (in addition to being pressured into actually reducing
 price by competition rather than having one of try to pull an OSC on
 the rest via political connections & "strategic partnerships").

>and won't go much lower.  I'm not sure there will be
>enough market demand to push that lower until 2005-2010.

You sound like the mainframe or mini manufacturers of the early 70's
talking about the demand for computers.  The market is a lot more
flexible than anyone now imagines -- given a reasonably free market.

>With the side effect that we don't have to kill the existing
>industry and government people first. 8-)

Your faith is touching.  May you not be disillusioned.

>>>Or maybe some NASA system designers need to take come classes in small
>>business
>>>and economics? Might give them a perspective of how to do things truely on
a
>>>shoe string, and a dead line..
>>
>>Oh, you mean like an International Space University class on how to
>>run a small business? ;-)
>
>Ok, which year were you at ISU?  You _have_ to be an alumni...

Hardly...

>[Side note to the uninitiated: Peter Diamandis, one of ISU's
>founders, is currently on his second launch services company
>and does a graphic "this is what starting a business is like"
>lecture.  8-) -gwh ISU '92]

Any reasonable venture capitalist would look at Diamandis's FIRST launch
launch services company more closely than his business plan for his second --
and he wouldn't take Diamandis's version of the story as his primary source
of info.  Personally, I would never invest in anything associated with
ISU due to my opinion, formed when I met him in Washington D.C. around 1984
and repeatedly confirmed since then, of Todd Hawley.  Your company "Retro"
included.  I don't need to look at your business plan to see it isn't worth
my time to bother.  All I need is to see you were at ISU and that you didn't
come away with a negative opinion of the place.

>The only problem with this is that Space isn't inherently a small-business
>environment.

No, but high technology startups ARE inherently small-business environments.

>The business plan for Retro for example, at the _lowest_
>expected flight rate, is making ten million dollars a year in 1995 or 96,
>and the high end of the possible growth curve has us in the half-billion
>range by 1998.  So do I become a bad guy once I start making serious
>money?

No, you become a bad guy once you achieve the ISU dream of creating the
"new generation" of space bureaucracy -- even if in the private sector,
which, I'll admit, wouldn't be as bad as stealing taxpayer money to do so.

Basically, however, your definition of "small business" is flawed in
such a way as to expose your ideology:  Dollar volume => number of
employees.  This is one step away from the idea that "the ultimate
 basis of value is the man-hour" which is the basic error of Marx.

A "small business" has few employees, regardless of its volume of
business or level of profitability.

When you get over the ISU-promoted dream of becoming the new GM of space
you'll recognize that about the time you successfully develop your technology
your best tactic is to license it to someone who can actually manage large
production bureaucracies well, like our friends in the orient, and then
use your royalty stream to move on to the next technical frontier (as well
 as lobbying the State Dept. to get off their duffs and start enforcing
 U.S. intellectual property rights abroad rather than giving them away
 in bogus patent treaties).  Basically, accept your unique place in the
world as an American -- you're a "looney inventor" who belongs NO WHERE
on ANY organizational chart, but who deserves lots of royalties (when
 you turn out to have been more lonely than looney).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 11:28:59 -0400
From: Allan Bourdius <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.space,sci.space

>Jack Swigert flew on Apollo 13, which, although it looped around the moon,
>never went into orbit.  Deke Slayton never flew to the moon -- his one space
>flight was the Apollo Soyuz Test Project, which was an earth orbiting flight.
>--
>Chris Jones    [e-mail]

Sorry, but you're wrong.  Apollo 13 HAD to go into lunar orbit because a
short time before the oxygen tank explosion, they conducted a mid-course
correction to take them off a free return trajectory.  The accident
occured while Swigert was shutting down SPS systems used during the mcc
burn.

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

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

Date: 27 Jul 93 13:00:44 GMT
From: jeff findley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <230m4i$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
|> 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..

Problem is, it costs so %@#& much that NASA can't develop the next vehicle.
Even it's own ACRV is being tossed out in favor of the cheaper Soyuz.
However, Shuttle does have quite a capability to launch and bring back large
payloads from LEO.

|> : 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..

Not.  The same people that brought us Shuttle are *not* bringing us DC.
This argument alone is not good enough to make me wary of DC not living
up to its claims.  If it does live up to its claims, MD will have opened
up a whole new market and possibly built the DC-3 of LEO.  This is good
long range planning.  Shuttle keeps people busy all of the time, but it
isn't good long range planning to keep using it until another one is
destroyed.

|> 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,

What can a Shuttle do that a Saturn V can't?  Besides bring back large
payloads.  I already give the shuttle that much.

|> 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.. ;)

If Shuttle wasn't so limited in its payload capacity (I don't think it
ever made its goal) it would be easier to build Freedom.  Besides,
why do we need Shuttle to build Fred?  We are taking payload up, not
down.  Shuttle is much better suited to bringing things up *and* down
instead of just up.  An HLV (like Saturn V) would be better suited to
lofting Fred.

|> : 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..

Whoa there.  This restriction was only placed on the Shuttle *after* the
Challenger disaster.  Part of the reason we had a disaster was that Shuttle
was trying to be all things to all people.  It was supposed to be The Space
Transportation System of the USA.  Launch costs of commercial payloads
*were* subsidized.  Shuttle failed.  We had to go back to building Titan and
Atlas just to get rid of the backlog caused by the Shuttle's failure.  Don't
forget Shuttle's history.

|> : 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..

I don't like the idea of men flying on top of solids.  You can't shut the
things off, and their failure modes are not benign.

|> : 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..

I can see that.  Shuttle isn't the best or the cheapest, but it does work.

|> : 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..

Somehow, I don't think the X-30 will be built.  We don't quite have the
technology needed to do this in the near future.  Maybe in the next
century after we finish developing and testing the engines, materials, etc.

|> : 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..

How about triple redundant Amiga 500's with a backup Amiga 500?  This is
how the shuttle's computers are reliable, aside from being radiation
hardened, etc.

|> : 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?

A NASA that needs a cheaper way to resupply Fred, since crew rotation
and resupply of Fred are big ticket items.  If DC was here, Fred would be
cheaper to keep going.

|> : 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..

Never new Nixon.  Don't like the reason anyway.

|> : 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..

Funny.  NASA turned down two upgraded shuttles in favor of one of the older
designs when they had to replace Challenger.  Never could figure this one
out.  If Shuttles are so great, why aren't two upgraded Shuttles better
than one regular Shuttle?

"I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky

I bet the Shuttle is a kludge.  -- Unknown

Jeff
--
  __   __    __   __  /-------------------------------------------+-----------\
 /  \ |  \  |  \ /  \ |"Have you noticed the way people's         | The above |
 \__  |   | |__/ |    | intelligence capabilities decline sharply | opinions  |
    \ |   | | \  |    | the minute they start waving guns around?"| are mine, |
 \__/ |__/  |  \ \__/ |Dr. Who (Tom Baker in "The Horns of Nimon")| not SDRC. |
[e-mail] \-------------------------------------------+-----------/

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 930
------------------------------