Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO942.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 33KB | 829 lines

Space Digest                Fri, 30 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 942

Today's Topics:
                            Budget figures
                   Consoldiation of NASA stations!
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (5 msgs)
                        Engineering Test Sats.
                GPS in space: Pls change thread title
             NASA, Space Advertising! PR Work is needed.
                          Questions on SETI?
      Refit/Rebuild old Rockets! Low Tech? Standardize! (2 msgs)
   Room in the VAB? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
             Sell Old/Refurbish Rockets, not junk them..
                   Super Gun for Satellite Launch!
                Why I hate the space shuttle (2 msgs)

        Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
        "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
        "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
        (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
        (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 12:34:18 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Budget figures
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>There is no discrepancy. The half billion $$ per flight figure assumes
>>that no development, construction, NASA overhead, or interest in included.
>>In other words, it pretends the Shuttle was developed for free.

>No, of course it doesn't. It assumes that bill is already marked paid,
>which it is. Congress wanted Shuttle developed, they got it, they paid
>for it. Whether Shuttle ever fiies again or not, that cost is sunk.

That doesn't make it a valid way of doing things. We would be much better
off if we ran it like a buisness.

>The government is the ultimate customer. It's not a business, it doesn't
>work by business rules.

Therein lies the problem. The difference between us is that I think that
is a system in need of change and you think it is a system to defend.

>Exactly which commercial launcher offers Shuttle capabilities at
>1/4th the cost?

Atlas, Mir, Titan, Delta, Soyuz, Proton....

   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."             |
+----------------------8 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 12:50:26 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Consoldiation of NASA stations!
Newsgroups: sci.space

HEre is an idea in the current vein of US military base closes.

CLOSE soem of those space related bases that have no real reason to exist (I
know there is soem) and consolidate the rest into since either regional or a
central location space base..

Mayeb deactive the Air Force base at white sands, and make it the main
base/launch site for all further NASA launches.. I have seen a few times in the
past that Cape Kennedy/Cannaveral  is actually one of the worst places for a
space launch, and is only there cause it is closest to the equator int he
continental US.. What benefits does White Sands or another alternate base
provide? any suggestions? and such..

Someone said earlier that we have let the congress dictate the space program.
Well its about time WE THE PEOPLE took it back and decided what WE WANT, and
not what THEY want, they meaning congress and the US Military..

I wonder if Perot is or has heard of this idea..

(sorry if soem of my facts and geographical location are off, Im tired working
two jobs, so Im taking my hard earned free time between work and sleep, to type
this, why because it needs to be said, and I think its important, Im open to
critisism and correction (other than spelling, Im working hard on that).)

We need to cut back the federal governments involvement in space launchs..
Maybe have each state have their own space program and NASA just provide R&D
for them.. Alaska has a fledgeling space program (and don't give me the bull of
we have al this oil, cause we wish we could sell it for more and do more with
it, but congress and the FED say nope.. cause congressmembers in california, ad
texas and such are lining their pockets again)..

Poker Flats is mostly for atmospheric and weather patterns and testing. Norther
Lights and mostly suborbital launches, but we shall see if we can change
that)..

Welfare? aerospace welfare? atleast the aerospace workers are working, instead
of on the dole (bread and circuses (see roman history for this reference))....


===
Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 07:49:13 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <236sj0$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
|Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:
|: 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
|
|       Hmm.. could it be because NASA's already got enough budget
|problems? NASA's being forced into canceling or cutting projects back

Ask YOurself a critical Aristotelian question.

Why is NASA with all it's budget problems  funding  NASP.
200 Million dollars last FY.  it's  cancelled now,  but
why were they not averse to Pour Money into a program
that had no physical chance of success,  while not
even giving TOKEN funding to a highly possible program
like DC-X.

|off elsewhere? I have strong doubts that the costs would really be 0.5%,

DC-X was delivered for 75 Million dollars.  And it's going to fly
next week.


|BUT.. if they were, personally I'd love to see us try and help fund it..

Ask yourself,  if everything NASA does is absolutely 100% efficient,
and no improvements can be made.


|again, tell washington.. IF I could make changes myself I would.. I can't..

I do.  I call my legislator  routinely on DC-X.

|
|: Ask yourself why, so many missions for science have opted to
|: go to ELV's rather then STS?
|
|Many reasons.. first, they can't fly on STS IF they don't require it's
|unique abilities.. secondly, it's faster to fly on expendables.. less
|lead time and less requirements.. thirdly, it's generally cheeper..


Now here we have something.  ASk YOurself a critical aristotelian
question.  What missions really require the unique abilities
of shuttle.  and are those missions worth 4 Billion dollars per year.?



--

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

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 07:51:41 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

 Actually, if you Consider teh TFRSS satellittes,
they are very much built upon the same considerations of
commercial commsats,  yet  they cost a lot more then a HS601.

pat
--

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

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 12:09:16 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Ask YOurself a critical Aristotelian question.

: Why is NASA with all it's budget problems  funding  NASP.
: 200 Million dollars last FY.  it's  cancelled now,  but
: why were they not averse to Pour Money into a program
: that had no physical chance of success,  while not
: even giving TOKEN funding to a highly possible program
: like DC-X.

I'd disagree that NASP is physically impossible.. most of the studies
I've read to date suggest that is is higly possible.. and IMHO well
worth the funding.. now as to why they didn't pour money into
DC, I don't know.. it could be because they are unsure of it's success,
it could be because it's not a government controlled project, who
knows.. personally I wish they gave MD all the funding they wanted to
make DC work.. BUT I also feel we should keep the shuttle, NASP, and other
programs alive too..

: |off elsewhere? I have strong doubts that the costs would really be 0.5%,

: DC-X was delivered for 75 Million dollars.  And it's going to fly
: next week.

And I hope it works.. but there's still no proof of concepts.. perhaps that
has scared off some of those who would otherwise support it.. there is still
a lot of debate over the technical feasability of a SSTO system..

: |BUT.. if they were, personally I'd love to see us try and help fund it..

: Ask yourself,  if everything NASA does is absolutely 100% efficient,
: and no improvements can be made.

Nope.. not even close.. BUT it's improving.. since I first started working
for them, I've seen marked improvements in many areas.. and beleive this
trend will continue for the forseeable future..

Why not look into helping petition NASA HQ in washington with requests for
help with DC? It MIGHT actually work..


: |again, tell washington.. IF I could make changes myself I would.. I can't..

: I do.  I call my legislator  routinely on DC-X.

Good.. now get five friends to do so, and have their five friends do so
also, and keep up the pressure.. the only way to get anything done with
congress is to pester, pester, and pester some more.. ;)

: |
: |: Ask yourself why, so many missions for science have opted to
: |: go to ELV's rather then STS?
: |
: |Many reasons.. first, they can't fly on STS IF they don't require it's
: |unique abilities.. secondly, it's faster to fly on expendables.. less
: |lead time and less requirements.. thirdly, it's generally cheeper..


: Now here we have something.  ASk YOurself a critical aristotelian
: question.  What missions really require the unique abilities
: of shuttle.  and are those missions worth 4 Billion dollars per year.?

You really like those "critical aristotelian" questions.. okay.. what
missions really require the abilties.. well, pretty much those that
are currently flying on the shuttle now.. are they worth 4 billion
to me? Hmm.. I'd say yes. I'm a military brat.. my father served in
the Air Force for many many years and I've lived on numerous air
bases during that time.. I've seen hundreds of billions of dollars
spent on war machines.. I think spending a few paltry billion on
science is a good and healthy thing.. (I WISH we could spend those hundreds
of billions on science.. but it probably won't happen..)

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: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 12:57:40 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>Nevermind.  You're playing monday morning quarterback to kick a system which
>has already been deployed.

Of course. I'm suprised you thought otherwise. The point is to learn from
our mistakes so we don't repeat them. I understand this is an alien concept
to you but many accept it. I ask your indulgence and tollerence.

>Nice of you to pick and choose out of what you like from Wales's numbers.

Well, since I posted first, it was Wales who picked and chose from my
numbers. The rest of the numbers have been documented except for the
price of a Titan IV on the commercial market.

>Basically, his total analysis found that it was a wash between repair and
>fix-its.

Perhaps you could be more specific in where my analysis is wrong? Your
reply is heavy with ad-hominum's and short of facts.

>>This gives us a total cost for a replacement HST at less than $500M
>>which is half to a third of what NASA will spend to repair the old HST.

>For a lifetime of how long?  Hubble was designed for a lifetime of, oh what,
>20 years?

Since we are buying another HST, it could also have a lifetime of 20 years.
Of course, we could cut that to, say, 10 years since we will launch several.
That would save a few million.

>It was designed to be repaired in space, and we also gain experience in
>orbital repair.

At far more cost than it's worth. Let's add in the cost of what it would
take to get the exact same exerience on Mir or a US Mir like station and
we still save hundreds of millions.

>Oh, sorry, forgot you don't have that side of the ledger marked.

You will note that I have. We can use the funds saved to produce far
more EVA experience.

Remember, you yourself, called a system costing 1/5 as much 'horrible
expensive'.

>You assume that your new replacement will:
>       A) Won't cost overrun

If it does, we don't pay for it.

>       B) Will get a new program funding start

Since it costs a fraction as much and returns more data in absolute terms
and several more times as much data per $$ spent, it should be possible.

>       C) NASA & Congress will be happy scrapping working hardware
>          with understood characteristics.

Well, I guess we shouldn't ever build anything new should we.

>>I know it seems magical and mystical to you Doug, but it's just simple
>>arithmatic. You yourself could do it if you got yourself a calculator!

>You emphasize the SIMPLE and tend to overlook the fine print.

For example?

>>As to the value of the downtime, there would be no downtime and we would
>>gain the advantage of having access to multiple telescopes over time.

>No, you wouldn't. A platform would die and you'd have to send up a new one.

HST could die today in which case we would have the exact same amount
of down time. This new HST is no more likely to fail than the current
one. If this is enough to kill this sort of effort, then the first
HST should never have been launched.

>After all, you've bought them from the lowest bidder.

Just who do you think built the HST?

>Your other fallacy assumes that TDRS would support multiple scopes in orbit,
>and infrastructure (staffing, computer time) would grow as well.

We don't use TRDSS if that's the case. We control it from the ground and
the spare instrument can be used by whowever can communicate with it. In
the worse case, we scrap it and simply live with the hundreds of millions
we saved. I can live with that.

>If you
>play the cheap game, you are running one scope and one STSI... not building
>new buildings to support dying hardware.

So be it. I can sleep well with the money saved.

>>There are no gurantees in life Doug. We

>The royal we, no doubt.

No, we are the people of the country who elect the Congress. It is up
to us to pressure Congress to deliver a better, faster, and cheaper
space program. In the past few years, we have had much success but
more needs to be done.

I know you like to view people as helpless pawns in a game played by
titanic forces we can't understand or control. Yet my experience pushing
projects and legislation tell me otherwise. We can and have made a difference
and if you would quit whining and help, we would be that much closer.

>Really? So how many panic alerts have you had to keep it funded? I wouldn't
>call that wide acceptance.

That's the way it works. Politicials are responsive to people, but only
to the last people they talked to. Thus you need to keep pressure up. Note
that where we have put the pressure, we have been successful

>Your smear tactics re amusing, but untrue.

Your the one arguing for the status quo.

>When big money is needed ($1-2 billion), someone is going to have to rob
>Peter to pay for DC, and I'll guarantee you it won't be pretty...

That's already happening. The House bill closes down a radar development
program to pay for the SX-2. Under your model, this would never happen.

>You'll impress me when you manage to rob Rockwell and Lockheed of Shuttle money
>so you can fund DC, not before.

See above. If and when the bill goes through, exactly that will happen.

  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."             |
+----------------------8 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 13:15:50 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>The private sector doesn't buy unique one of a kind space telescopes,

Irrelevant. We are talking about procuremnt practices. There is no reason
Government can't use commercial practice to buy things. In fact, it has
done so with great success with more and more frequency. It is the approach
the NASA procurement office is leaning toward.

>they buy cookie cutter comsats from an established supplier. There's no
>reason to believe that a factor of 6 applies in this case.

That's not what the study was all about. It took unique payloads and
devices built totally by the private sector and compared them with
similar unique payloads and devices built by NASA. SpaceHab, for example,
cost $153 million to build. The NASA costing model said it would cost
$1.1 billion if NASA did it.

The study results ARE very applicable in this case.

>them, the Senators from Lockheed and Rockwell won't see it as a credible
>threat either. Just tell them about 200 flights a year. They'll laugh
>all the way to the conference committee.

They aren't laughing Gary. Lockheed has a very active SSTO effort going
on. Both submitted proposals to SDIO saying it was possible. They think
it can be done, why don't you?

  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."             |
+----------------------8 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX------------------------+

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 07:57:30 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Engineering Test Sats.
Newsgroups: sci.space

AS I see it,  one could  either build  small light sats
and launch on Pegasus.  (10 Million/launch,  10 Million for
satellitte integration,  10 Million for support O&M).

all the parts come free.  the manufacturers provide this.

or  build a bigger bird stick it on an atlas,  with a kick
stage  (30 Million?,  15 Million for Integration (WAG)
and  10 Million for O&M)  definitely far less then a
discovery mission.

Ballpark numbers  i used,   some are total guesses,  George,
you have any idea how realistic this idea is?

pat
--

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

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

Date: 29 Jul 93 11:35:34 GMT
From: John C Sager <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS in space: Pls change thread title
Newsgroups: sci.space

This thread has for a long time now departed from its original subject.
I was hoping it would die soon but this is not to be. For those
of us who are interested in GPS rather than orbital inclinations, please
would you change the title of this thread. Thank you.

John C Sager                                    Mail:   B67 G18, BT Labs
Email:          [e-mail]                        Martlesham Heath
Tel:            [phone]                          IPSWICH  IP5 7RE
Fax:            [phone]                          England
Disclaimer:     This is me, not BT.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 12:28:52 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA, Space Advertising! PR Work is needed.
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>That's not a PR firm's job, that's the job of market research.

Rest assured Gary, PR firms do it as well. You can't sell an idea
without knowing how to put it into terms your target audiance will
accept. That means polling the public.

>The first thing a market research firm does is identify the paying
>customers.

That part is easy; we are the paying customers.

>The public wants Startrek, but Paramount can deliver that and NASA
>can't.

No Gary, the public wants to go. Nither Paramount nor NASA can deliver
that.

>Most of the public just wants us to stop throwing away money
>in space,

That's not what the polling data indicates. The public wants a space
program which involves them and spends its money better.

>Science, the high frontier, that's the province of a few dreamers.

If you look at what was released from the Annenberg Study, you will
see that the high frontier is the province of most of the people. The
problem is that they see no connection between that and NASA.

   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."             |
+----------------------8 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX------------------------+

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

Date: 29 Jul 93 08:50:57 GMT
From: NA Stennett <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions on SETI?
Newsgroups: sci.space

        I have a couple of questions about the SETI program and I was wondering
whether anybody out there on the net could enlighten me.
        Firstly given the equipment that is being used, how far away would
somebody using such equipment be able to detect intelligent life on earth?
I am assuming that the source signal would have been transmitted for a
sufficent length of time to reach the receiver.
        Secondly, I seem to recall a posting on the net which talked about
a coded message that was either transmitted from Arecibo(sp?) or included
on one of the Voyager or Pioneer probes. However this message was given to
a team of "experts" to decode and unfortunately they failed! (I have probably
got the facts completely wrong so prehaps somebody could put me straight). If
this is the case then how do we propose to detect incoming signals with any
degree of certainy. Is it that we could detect the signals quite easily by
measuring the power levels at certain frequencies and if they are continually
above the background levels or varying in a consistent manner then we can
conclude that they must be from a unnatural source. However we would have
great difficulty in trying to decode the signals?
        Finally, in after ten years the project has found nothing. What would
we be able to deduce?

#=============================================================================#
#                       E-mail:  [e-mail]                       #
#=============================================================================#

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 12:22:33 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Refit/Rebuild old Rockets! Low Tech? Standardize!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Here is a possibly wierd idea to NASA and space science.. Its been used soem
what by the US Military, and definitely by fporeign military, and peopel make
good money at it.. And save money to..

Why not take a standard sized rocket, engine, and such.

Maybe standard as in

small

medium

large

heavy lift.

Design a rocket section aroudn these basic ideas, then upgrade and mix and
match as the mission is needed.. When a system is starting to get obsolete,
then upgrade it.. Kind of what is done with now old aircraft (F-4s, P3s, and
such) and also with Tanks, M24, M48, and such.

Or actually more liek refit, rebuild and such.. Its a great idea (or is already
being used??) (in space sciences I mean). why must we redesign the wheel almost
every time we send a satellite or man or what ever into space??

Standardize soem basic components, and go from there..

I bet soem one could make a killing refiting old titan, atlas, saturn and such
rockets and stages..

===
Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 12:43:51 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refit/Rebuild old Rockets! Low Tech? Standardize!
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] wrote:
: Here is a possibly wierd idea to NASA and space science.. Its been used soem
: what by the US Military, and definitely by fporeign military, and peopel make
: good money at it.. And save money to..

: Why not take a standard sized rocket, engine, and such.

: Maybe standard as in
 [stuff deletet]

I beleive this was the plan for the NLS or National Launch System.
The idea as I understood it was to have a "line" of different size
and abiltiy expendables to loft payloads in as cost-effective a manner
as possible.. I think though this project has been placed in statis
due to budget cutbacks.. I do like the idea though.. makes a LOT
of sence.. and gives us a way to loft payloads that don't require
manned attention.

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: 28 Jul 93 21:30:34 MDT
From: Andrew Folkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Room in the VAB? (was Re: DC-X Prophets and associated problems)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>> There is still plenty of
>> room in the VAB for making a new stacker for the Shuttle and other
>> improvements that would support an increased flight rate.
>
>Yes, but then they'd have to move the piles of Mars mission studies
>out of there, and where would NASA put *them*?

How about in the flame trenches at 39A and 39B?  Lotsa room in there, and
all those pesky ideas can be 'forgotten' after the next shuttle launch.

--
  Andrew Folkins  [e-mail]    [e-mail]
                  ...!cs.UAlberta.CA!ve6mgs!cuenews!andrew

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 12:58:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Sell Old/Refurbish Rockets, not junk them..
Newsgroups: sci.space

Yep, peoeple have atendicuty to be conservative..

Case in point, I see almost weekely a DC-3 fly over nome on a cargo runto soem
remote site.. Well if most rememebr DC-3s are generally atleast 50 or so years
old.. Talk about a air craft that is still around.. Also same thing with C-130
Hercules, I still see various configurations of them in my hoem area. From
Older models to the latest stretched models.. Also same thing with old
Beach-18s and other aircraft that are still being used for commerical usage..

So why not keep aroudn soem of the older models, and sell them off to people
who might not have the budget of NASA or other space agencies..


One of the major factor (or thee major factor) for aviation getting off the
ground, was the selling of old surplus Curtis Jennies and liek aircraft after
WW1 and later selling of DC-3s and other aircraft after WW2..

So what if the rocket can also be used as a ICBM, sell it any way.. After all
you have a newer toy.. Let others play..

===
Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 12:58:29 +1200 (NZST)
From: Bruce Hoult <[e-mail]>
Subject: Super Gun for Satellite Launch!
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:
> Also has anyoen read "King Davids Space Ship" by I think "Poul Anderson" about
> a planet where they use a I think a recipricating bommb method to get itno
> orbit..

Jerry Pournelle.  It's called an "Orion" (in the nuke-powered version, anyway)
and also features in "Footfall" by Niven & Pournelle.


> Mainly shoot the space ship into the air, and once there, to drop bombs out the
> ass in in a boom, boom, boom, boom, etc. method..
>
> Is it possible and if so, anyoen doing any work on it?

It's possible.  A scale model was tested in the early 60's.  It worked and is
now in the Smithsonian, I think.

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 08:02:25 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ah.  Welfare,  that's what keeps that car going.

--

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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 13:06:56 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <236tpv$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>: Suppose you had a car which cost you $10 per mile to operate. It was so
>: expensive, that all your available funds went into maintenance and you..

>that's a good hypothetical situation. it's however somewhat inaccurate..
>STS does NOT eat up all our available funds, it des NOt leave little
>for rent, food, and other things..

Fine, let's change the analogy. Your can costs you a third of your income
to operate. Your neighbors car costs him 10% of his income and works just
as well. You however, can't get a car like your neighbors because you
spend too much on your present car. Now, if you scrapped your present
car, you could get a car like your neighbors. But you can't affort to
do both. What would you do?

>and if the car was the only way I
>could go out and see "x" that I really wanted to see and explore, yep..

Your neighbors do just fine with their cheaper cars.

>I'd be willing to do it.. now IF car design B came along and WORKED,

Your nieghbos's car works just fine and is available.

>and was cheaper and worked better, I'd switch of course.. but why
>switch before it's availble..?

It is available: Titan, Atlas, Delta, Mir, Soyuz, Proton...

>: Agreed. However, DC claims are not inflating if you listen to the people
>: working the problem. The original claim was a vehicle which launches 20 to
>: 24 thousand pounds to LEO, requires no more than 7 days for turnaround, has
>: an operational cost of $5 to $10 million per launch and a total cost of
>: roughly $5B to develop. That was the claim two years ago when it got
>: started and it is still the claim today.

>In other words, the first five flights are going to cost me over $1 billion
>each for less payload? (at least that's the cost figuring some would make..)

No, amortizing the development and vehicle construction cost over ten years
at 200 flights per year add roughly $4M per flight.

Again however, you didn't address the main point: the claims made by DC
haven't been inflating as you claim but have remained constant for the
life of the program.

>: Ah, but it WAS pre-sold as having some pretty advanced capabilities. You
>: might well have called those claims too optimistic at the time.

>As did shuttle, as will DC..

Your changing the subject. You asserted that DC-3 wasn't pre-sold and yet
it was. Douglas made claims you would have called un-achieveable and did
it.

The bottom line remains that DC claims haven't been inflating, likely
are acheiveable, and that similar claims have been made about similar
development efforts in the past.

  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."             |
+----------------------8 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX------------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 942