Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO931.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 37KB | 923 lines

Space Digest                Wed, 28 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 931

Today's Topics:
                            Budget figures
    Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
                                 DC-X
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (7 msgs)
                 Satellite Assembly/Factory in Space!
                Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
            Test Stands at MSFC (Was Re: Room in the VAB?)
                     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: 27 Jul 1993 15:53:38 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Budget figures
Newsgroups: sci.space

Latest figures I've seen...
numbers given in millions of dollars

Item                    1993    1994    1995    1996
NASA Wide
 R&D                    7089    7712    8235    8341
 Space flight, control,
        and data        5086    5316    5371    5658
 Facilities const.      525     545     387     375
 R&D Management         1615    1675    1703    1752
Inspector General       15      15      16      16
TOTAL                   14330   15265   15713   16143

STS Budget
 Shuttle Production     1053    1189    1232    1250
 Shuttle operations     3016    3006    2810    2950
 TOTAL                  4069    4196    4042    4201

Space Sciences
 Space Science          1577    1631    1709    1676
 Life and MicroG Sci    313     351     320     282
 Mission to Earth       1148    1074    1448    1508
 TOTAL                  3039    3057    3477    3466

Aeronautics
 Research and Tech.     865     1020    1115    1178
 NASP   (X-30)          0       80      80      100
 TOTAL                  865     1100    1195    1278

**NOTE - I've left out anything after the decimal, which may lead to a couple
numbers being off by one million either positive or negatve.. this also
does not represent exactly what NASA IS getting, rather what the current
budget is looking like as of about 1 month ago.. ***

I found it interesting to note the slight discrepancys between the
posts claiming over $1 billion per shuttle flight, and the actual numbers,
which aim more towards a little under $500 million a flight.. still a lot
of money yes, but important to be close to accurate..

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 93 10:22:04 MST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <233gin$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> 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.


I think the "A3R" program essentially replaced those motors
with exact duplicate new motors.  I've heard they have
problems of different sorts.  The propellant uses "casting
grain"? and "casting solvent" (high NG content) which
causes exudate problems later on in life.

Bret

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 15:55:05 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:
:   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

Intersting theory.. anybody know if this would actually be possible?
(and it brings up a concern, if one jet fails, how bad a heat-leak
would it cause?) Allen? This stuff all seems right up your alley..

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 17:28:29 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems

> : 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..
>


I think it was patently obvious that I meant a criticality one
failure.

--
=======================================================================
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 17:45:40 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems

> 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
>


Your statement is incorrect. I did not say "anyone", nor did I imply
it. Pete Conrad, a former astronaut, fighter pilot, test pilot,
airline manager, etc, is HARDLY anyone. Pilots just won't "fly" the
someday to possibly be follow-on (enough weasel words for everyone?)
to DC/X in the same sense that flying is meant in aircraft (although
it is becoming less and less the case even there) DC pilots will
click a mouse here and there to select the flight mode during
critical phases. I have not heard how they will handle in orbit
maneuvering, but I can think of the sorts of interfaces I would
design. It all comes down to what the job is. If you want to
rendezvous with something at a certain time and place, you don't fly
to it, you feed in the coordinates. For close in I'd use something
not much different from a game joy stick running through a program
that makes it seem intuitive.

The people who control it will be highly skilled people, whether they
push buttons on the ground or on board.
--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the           Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 11:40:32 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <233e8g$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
|Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:
|: by the middle ranks.  Try reading through the back issues of space news.
|
|: |: 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..
|: |
|
|
|: 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.

And the Plans for the DC-1  will be that it will fly with
the same basic equipment the un-manned versions will fly.

Just as a cargo 747 flys with the same basic equipment  that a UA 747
flys with.

Same with  Launchers.  Please point out what differneces in equipment a
Titan carries  when it flew gemini versus  the Titan's  used to launch voyager.

The Launch vehicle  is different from the crew compartment.


|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

You are dodging a basic point.

When the STS flew,  they threw out a basic rule of flight safety.
Now  if such a crucial rule can be ignored for STS,  what makes you
think Man Rating is so hard to achieve.


|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..
|

And the more people living and working in space the better.

THe shuttle is not the way to do this.  and we should move beyond
it as soon as possible.

|: 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

Why should NASA be building and operating Launch vehicles?

WHy not let  private industry build and operate them.  that's what
Goldin is supporting in the national Launch consortium.

and who says NASA is culturally able to build and design anymore?

it's an aging arthritic bureaucracy.  Nothing personally intended
against any indiividual members of this newsgroup.


|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

The amount of capacity given up  in Saturn was far greater then the
amount of capacity given up in STS.


|
|Yep.. it's expensive, but I'd disagree with underperforming.. it's not
|"economicaly" efficient, but scientifically it's very valuable.. it

Look at the alternatives available in cold light of reason.

ELV's for Launch and deploys.  Re-entry vehicles for experiment return.

Use of Mir for Bio-science.   STS does not look that good.

I am sorry.

>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..
>

DC won't do Long term habitation.

Sorry.

>
>: 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..

Sorry.  NASA has fought the ASRM  for years.  They've also
mis-handled teh SSME turbo-pump upgrade, so we are getting half
of what we need  for the original projected price for both.

Tell me how better comm systems dramatically improve flight safety.

I would be more impressed by Hybrid cycle  Boosters,  or
funding for the STME.


>
>: 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

The spruce goose was a tremendous achievement,  but what proved more
useful in WW2.  the C-47.  an ugly little goony bird.

The hindenburg was beautiful aesthetic engineering  but they never
quite resolved that explosion problem.   Plus airships are
very unstable on landing.  they just don't cope with rough air.

Economics are vital,  otherwise it's not engineering,  it's hobbying.

NASA flies a hobby shuttle.  sorry.

It's like talking about how great the AMERICA 3  racer is.  it's a
great sport boat,   but it does only one thing well,  it needs a massive
crew,  stuff breaks all the time,  and it costs a fortune.

Compare it to any tanker, or shrimper  or cargo boat.  that
s the basic problem.  when you get a little older you will see it.


>beleive the earth is flat and the moon landings were faked.. the shuttle

Ah.  REd Herring.  Try and paint shuttle critics as  Flat earthers.

SOrry.  I am just a smart consumer.


>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..
>

No.  It was a failure then, its a failure now.  It's  victory is as a
monument to bureaucracy.


>: 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..


I don't know.  After a series of Airship accidents,  they were
basically abandoned.  that's why we have that big hanger at
AMES/  foobar navy station.



--

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 11:46:25 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <230i2i$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>: In article <22pjt7$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>
>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


Michael.

        Ask yourself a critical aristotelian question.

        DC-X is a good RESEARCH program.  Why isn't
        NASA chipping in money to support it?  and it's
        not because it's too much money.  it's total
        developement budget is 1/2 of 1%  of NASA's
        annual budget.  and if it's a joint SDIO
        funding  it would be even less.

        Consider that NASA does not want to fund
        anything that may compete against the STS.


>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


Ask yourself why, so many missions for science have opted to
go to ELV's rather then STS?


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 11:55:32 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <233ess$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>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..)
>


Actually to Fund LLNL  Great exploration would mean
shutting down STS and SSF,  and in return getting a Working space station
and a Mars Probe.

Same with  Mars Direct.  Zubrin is looking at 80 Billion dollars
to get a 10 year,  10 Mission,  40 Person year presence on Mars.
add in a couple billion more,  and you get a 10 Mission 40 person year
lunar presence too.

It's called a focusing project.  Plus you get a buinch of enabling
technologies out of the programs.

The money is there.  it just needs to be properly spent.

Goldin actually stated that he wanted NASA to have flat funding.
it would be the only way he could force change onto the system.

Increasing funding only rewards the past underperformers.


as for trade press.  try Space News.  it's pretty good.
--

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

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 18:03:22 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems

> 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
>


Excuse me, but [e-mail] did NOT write the above,
[e-mail] responded very negatively to the above.
Watch the attributions.
--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the           Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 12:02:03 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <230k8o$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>
>: 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.

STS Missions.

        Cargo to orbit.    ELV's do this much cheaper.

        Cargo to earth.    RV's do this much cheaper.

        On orbit science missions (Untended)  GAS cans, SPAS, LDEF
        ELV's with RV's  do this much cheaper.

        ON orbit Manned experiments.  (MIR does this much cheaper)

        ON ORBIT Bio science experiments.  RVs  and MIR do this
        for far less.

        On ORbit system repair (satellitte rescue, etc)
        It is cheaper  or nearly so to AIP the system and launch replacements.
        HST cost 1.6 Billion in DDTE(according to wales.)  the HST
        repair mission is costing 800 Million.  It's a judgement
        call on what's cheaper.


>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>
>

I do, think, you need to read more.  Your postings show a lack of
breadth  in competitive programs  and mission analysis.   when you know
what brilliant condoms is,  i'll think you are keeping
up on your readings.

pat

--

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

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 15:53:39 GMT
From: Andy Testa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Assembly/Factory in Space!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>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
...(stuff deleted)...
>The TUGs would be unmanned (but a one man crew could be added or ??)..
>With soem form of strap on oxygen tanks, and extra propellant (oxygen or other
>===
>Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]
>
A very similar idea was at the core of the original concept for Freedom.  The
Dual-keel concept had extensive satellite servicing bays.  Satellites were
retrieved and returned to high orbit by Orbital Maneuvering Vehicles (OMVs).
The OMV was unmanned and remotely piloted. Trouble was, everyone wanted to
use it, and many of the uses conflicted.  The program became overburdened
with requirements and the sales pitch didn't live up to the expanding cost
and capability (sound familiar?).  The program underwent several redesigns
to bring it back into line with the budget (familiar again?) and was
eventually cancelled. This eliminated one of the big original selling points
for Freedom: satellite retrieval and servicing.  By cancelling OMV, the
servicing mission was cancelled.
OMV had some good capabilities. At one point it was tasked to bring a dual
armed dexterous robot (FTS- Flight Telerobotic Servicer.  Another doomed
station component, but one that still lives in the world of Shuttle tests:
look for a flight with an experimental dexterous arm in the payload bay
in the future. It's FTS) along with it to do on site telerobotic repairs.
I believe HST was built with OMV interfaces on its bottom in anticipation
of future servicing flights.
Anyone who worked on OMV care to shed more light on the situation?

Andy Testa
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co.
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 17:22:24 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle

>       Now, while I tend to agree with most of your points, I have
to
> take exception to this one.  Your desktop amiga system has entirely
> different requirements to a space vehicle's operating computer.
Not
>


Depends on the computers your are talking about. They have just
started using a program called PCDecom running on a laptop.
Astronauts will for the first time have access to the 128KBS data
stream that goes to the ground, and will use this to collect data...
that another laptop will use to plot a course.

Laptop portables have become more and more important as time goes on.
As far as I know, they aren't anything particularly special either.

If you want to talk about the computers used for the critical flight
phases, that is a entirely different story. Although the new orbiter
has modernized computers. Well, computers that aren't quite so

obsolete :-)

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

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 11:48:59 -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] writes:
>
>Hey pat you shoulda read a little closer. As I posted, we ALREADY are firing
>SRB's here at MSFC on the test stands. These are subscale models but they
>are still putting out thier stuff. Also remember that this is also the
>Redstone Arsenal. We fire all kinds of SRB missles here all the time along
>with tank rounds and all kinds of fun fireworks that cause the buildings here
>to go shake in the night and day.


There is a differnece in size between subscale and full scale.

I believe initiation of Full scale motor testing would require
an EIS  and public hearings?  have they done any of that?

and I've fired tank rounds.  the amount of effluent released is
significant'y smaller  then from an SRB.

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 15:11:44 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

jeff findley ([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.

Which is why I hope DC lives up to most of it's claims.. however, it would
be unwise to make the same mistake of apollo and take an operational system
offine BEFORE it's replacement is available.. that cost us Skylab, and
a lot of public support..

: |> : 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.

The point is the more the claims get inflated, the harder time DC will have
selling itself.. the DC-3 aircraft wasn't "pre-sold" as the end-all, be-all
of air transportation, so when it finally was avaiable it was well received
for the achivement it was.. shuttle has always suffered for it's initial
overselling, and I personally would like to see DC not suffer this fate..
and the long range planning is to only use it until we have something
better..

: |> 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.

Loft more people, stay on orbit with more "working room" (ie spacelab/
spacehab), more payload versitility (RMS, attachment points) etc..
personally I do wish we had kept the Saturn V, but we didn't.. and
we have no other heavy lift capability vehicle.. a good reason to
develop Shuttle-C (which I still think is a more efficient use of
shuttle technology, which would work nicely with DC for manned
operations and building of SSF).

: |> 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.

Primarily 'cause the government gave up the Saturn V, and we have no
other HLLV. Get DC working and I'd venture a guess we'd shuffle things
to use IT for lofting payloads up to freedom. The shuttle would be used
to get the EVA guys up for attaching things together, and a couple DC's
could go up at the same time to get a bunch of thigs installed all at
once..

: |> : 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.

Yep.. but since 86, the shuttle can not be blamed for keeping private
industry out of the manned space biz via subsidized rates.. that's how it
is TODAY..

: |> : 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.

Well, I'd point out Apollo had solids, but yes, I'd also prefer to get
rid of the solids, but we need a replacement before I'll support taking
an operative system offline.. I'm strongly against making the mistake
of Apollo/Shuttle..

:
: |> : 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.

You may be correct, but I'm trying to remain hopefull.. the SR-71's are
being used to test the engines apparently right now.. so we might end
upseeing an operative X-30 by the turn of the century IF the funding
stays alive.. we'll see..

: |> : 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.

Actually, there are a few more things than that.. the "operating system"
is more reliable.. the computers are significanly more powerful in "data
bandwidth", and they are generally higher quality in construction and
parts..

:
: |> : 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.

Yep.. again once DC get's flying I'll be in line to have freedom payloads
flown up via DC.. but DC still isn't flying.. so why kill an operative
system?

: |> : 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?

Primarily because it would have cost more in operations and training..
with all "similar" shuttles, you only have to have one training program,
and one maintanance/operations program.. you go to two different vehicles
and you need a new operations and new training setups.. personally I'd
have loved to see the newer design, but the NASA bigwigs made a
economic decision which makes some sence..

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

: I bet the Shuttle is a kludge.  -- Unknown

It is.. though a still useful kluge..

: Jeff

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... ---

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 931
------------------------------