Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO945.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 36KB | 816 lines

Space Digest                Fri, 30 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 945

Today's Topics:
                           Cats in zero gee
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (2 msgs)
                          FTL communication?
          Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here! (4 msgs)
              NASA's planned project management changes
      Spiral spaceplane (was Re: Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X...))
             Text of House DoD Authorization bill on SSTO
                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: 29 Jul 1993 18:03:28 GMT
From: dave moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cats in zero gee
Newsgroups: sci.space

>[e-mail] (Keith Mancus)
> Not a cat you like certainly.  And by the way, cats do not take well to
> microgravity--it's been tried.
>
>  Could you give me a reference to this?  I wasn't aware it had ever been
>tried.
>
One of the old Time-Life Science books has a picture of a cat stuck
to a steel ceiling with, so help me, magnetic boots.  There's a
mouse up there as well, which, as the caption notes, the cat
isn't much interested in.  The scientist in the picture has his
arms upready to ward this cat off his face.
The experiment wasn't much of a success, says the the caption, because
the cat could still feel the gravitational pull.

I can't that short term (minutes) tests like these would prove much of
anything.  They're disorienting enough for humans, who KNOW what's
going on.

The protagonist in Robert Heinlein's short story "Waldo," who lives in
orbit due to the weakness induced by myesthenia gravis, a muscle wasting
disease, owns a canary which is quite happy in null gravity.  However,
it had to be raised from an egg.  Adults introduced to null-g died of
confusion.
(By the way, this story is the source of the name "waldo" for teleoperated
arms.  It also introduces the idea of space as a convenient environment
for invalids. )





         "Real" name:  Dave Moore    --   InterNet Domain:  [e-mail]
          Old BITNET:  DJMoore@UHOU  --  THEnet or DECnet:  UHOU::DJMoore
          ***  Hey, this is just silly old Dave talkin' here;  ***
          ***     don't blame UH for my confused ravings.      ***

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 16:28:42 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <238dkd$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
> 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.

Actually, only TDRSS has data switches on the satellite. It's
considerably more complex than a pure transponder bird.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 17:06:35 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>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.

Yes, but Wales managed to do more than throw up a couple of numbers and say "oh
Look, we save money."  He did a thorough analysis of all the underlying
assumptions and gave detailed engineering justification.

>>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.

I will let Wales's work stand on its on.  He did a thorough job.  Do you want
to rehash old messages?  Fine, I'm sure you have them tucked away somewhere so
you can selectively pluck out the one or two numbers you need.

>>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.

No, you are designing a throw-away.  There's a difference in how things are
structured.  Sure, you'll get cost savings in terms of not having to make
it repairable, but it's going to die sooner.

>Of course, we could cut that to, say, 10 years since we will launch several.
>That would save a few million.

No, you are assuming you can dig up staffing and money to launch several.
"Hi, we'd like to throw away Hubble, which we know works, and dump the money
into these new, cheaper fatellites which we assume will work without bugs,
without costoverruns, and of course will give you whiter teeth and fresh breath
as a side benefit."

>>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.

And here's where you get into your "Gosh, we can do whatever we want with the
savings" mode.

You can't fund a newbie Mir out of any alleged savings from a newbie 'scope.
The Russians wanted how much for a Mir 2 core?  And how much to launch it?

>>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.

It took me to remind you of that.  You need to dance faster.

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

Since you're going to quote me out of context, why don't you provide the full
quote and refresh my memory?

>>You assume that your new replacement will:
>>    A) Won't cost overrun
>
>If it does, we don't pay for it.

It doesn't work that way.  So what happens to the STSI staff?
"We're sorry, we can't buy that new satellite which we alleged would save money
and give you more viewing time. Here is your two weeks notice.  Have a nice
life."

>>    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.

You have to fight to get a follow-on to DC-X funded and you call your little
spreadsheet fantasy possible?  DC-X work should be like motherhood and
apple pie but you guys have hit the panic button twice over the past year. And
it's for chump change money, at that.

It does not cost "a fraction as much."  Maybe, maybe an expendible might cost
as much as the STSI repair one.  That's from Wales's numbers.  Now, we also
derive the added benefit of experience working with a repairable craft in orbit
which would cost some amount of money to buy a psuedo-Mir to replicate.

Basically, we have the precursor to a man-tended free flier and you want to
junk that out of hand and build something new, and then work the bugs out of
it.

>>       with understood characteristics.
>Well, I guess we shouldn't ever build anything new should we.

No, you basically go with what you know and when it comes to the end of
its design lifetime, you build something new.

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

For example, the experience we gain by servicing Hubble.

>>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.

That's incorrect.  How many months ago did you have to start building a new
satellite?  There's training costs involved, having to deal with new hardware
and work out the bugs, setting up new infrastructure, and so forth.

Plus trying to hope that the new program start doesn't get killed, in which
case you are stuck.

>>The royal we, no doubt.
>
>No, we are the people of the country who elect the Congress

YOU do not speak for me. I know it's really tough for you to deal with a
disagreeing viewpoint since you believe you are infallable, but you do NOT
speak for me.

>It is up
>to us to pressure Congress to deliver a better, faster, and cheaper
>space program. In the past few years, we

We, the Space Shiites.

>I know you like to view people as helpless pawns in a game played by
>titanic forces we can't understand or control.

No, I think you have to take a clue from Wales on how to document your numbers.
And that's for starters.

>Yet my experience pushing projects and legislation tell me otherwise.

Your experience seems to be making a lot of noise so you can get stroked.

> We can and have made a difference
>and if you would quit whining and help, we would be that much closer.

I will not support anyone who starts babbling about grand conspiracies and
"enemies of our cause."  Nor will I support any "back of the envelope"
math which you throw up.

>>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.

That's not correct.  If it were "widely accepted" it would be supported without
a second through.

> 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

>>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.

What did I say?  I said big money.  You robbed a small amount ($75 mil) out
of one pot of politicically "incorrect" BMDO radar development funding. That's
easy to sell.

>>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.

If.  So confident are you, hm?

Let me clue you in.  Once you start talking big money, it is going to get ugly.
Do you think Rockwell and Lockheed are going to sit still as you try to pry
loose a billion or two out of NASA's budgetd a full DC prototype? Do you think
NASA will?

Since you've gone out of your way to win friends and influence people at NASA,
especially the managers whom you think so highly of.... I'm sure with your
most brilliant skill at lobbying, you can figure out how much help you're going
to get in that quarter.




     January 1993 - John Scully embraces Bill Clinton.
     July 1993    - Apple Computer lays off 2500 workers, posts $188
            million dollar loss.

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 29 Jul 93 13:48:37 EDT
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: FTL communication?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, WCHAYWARD@CHEMISTRY (Colby Hayward) writes:
>    What if you had an ideal rod (ie. massless, uncompressable,
>unbendable) that was one lightyear long, suspended in space.  You have two
>observers, one at each end (A and B).  So we have:
>
>    A ---------------------<one lightyear>------------------- B
>
>    So, what happens when the observer at A grabs the rod and pulls it
>towards him/her?  Wouldn't the end at B move also?  At the same time?

I don't think "at the same time" has meaning when the two observers are
separated.

>If no, why not?
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 15:39:46 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Big dumb vehicles like Saturn were horrifingly expensive, $500 million
>>per launch and you threw away the vehicle after one use.
>
>Saturn at the costs you give lifted stuff at $2,000 per pound which is
>a third to half what current launchers cost. Not bad for something so
>old.

Unless you're shipping bulk commodities such as grain or water, cost
per pound is a fairly useless metric. Cost per mission is the relevant
measure.

>BTW, since Shuttle costs even more per launch and only delivers a fifth
>as much, then is it also 'horrifingly expensive'? After all, if a vehicle
>which delivers payload for $2,000 per pound is horifing, then another
>vehicle which costs over five times as much must be a lot worse.

You can't just look at pounds, you have to look a the value of missions
performed. For most missions done by Shuttle, Saturn's mass lift
capabilities would be mostly wasted. Missions requiring manned presence
and launch and return capability for high volume, not necessarily high
mass, workspace and experimental payloads, wouldn't efficiently use
Saturn's high mass lift capability.

>>it [Shuttle] still costs $500 million a flight, though flights can accomplish
>>more due to the large crew volume and cargo bay available.
>
>I'll stick my Saturn launched Skylab against your Shuttle any day. Skaylab
>had far more volume than Shuttle and we could get far more utilization
>out of it for a fraction of what we spend on Shuttle.

Except, of course, we didn't. Skylab was a $2.4 billion dollar project,
1973 dollars, plus one Saturn IV launch (unmanned), and three Saturn IB/Apollo
launches with a total of 9 astronauts. It was damaged by the vibration and G
loads of launch. The first manned visit was occupied with repairing and
jury rigging it for use. The second manned visit also did repairs as well
as some good science. And the third mission went on strike due to schedule
overload. They also had to repair an antenna and cope with the failed star
tracker. It was not designed to be resupplied, or re-equipped with new
experimental hardware, not that the Apollo capsules could have accomodated
that anyway.  And it was occupied only 15% of the time it was in orbit.

The second crew did some ground breaking remote sensing experiments,
but nothing more spectacular than the synthetic aperture radar carried
on a Shuttle flight.  And that mission cost a lot less.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 15:51:24 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> Autos are produced by the millions, rockets by the tens. Hand built
>> Ferraris use $1,000/lb exotic composites too.
>
>Hardly that expensive!  The composites used in low volume auto
>manufacturing are mostly fiberglass, which is more expensive than
>steel, but not enormously more expensive.  Commercial E-glass costs
>only a few dollars per pound.  Note, however, that the fiberglass is
>used in places where very high strength is not important.

Ferrari uses carbon-carbon composite clutches and exotic alloy wheels
to reduce rotating inertia.

>> Even Peterbilt is going
>> to carbon fiber, fiberglass, and aluminum for over the road trucks. If
>> GM can save $.01 a car, they make $5,000,000 additional profit per year.
>> But that doesn't apply in small production runs. There, a few dollars
>> one way or the other doesn't make much difference. Most of the cost of
>> building a rocket is in the hand labor, and launch preparation, and
>> launch operations, not the materials.
>
>
>The materials you list for Peterbilt are still nowhere near the
>expense of aerospace composites.  Moreover, I would be surprised if
>Peterbilt is putting them into places where strength is crucial,
>like the major loadbearing members.

Peterbilt is using carbon-carbon for driveshafts and U-joints, aluminum
and fiberglass for body panels, and special alloy wheels and frames. Reducing
dead weight and air resistance are important ways of reducing operating
costs. Saving pennies per mile in fuel costs adds up for vehicles intended
to go millions of miles over their operational lifetimes.

>The fact that things are built by hand does not necessarily make
>expensive materials better.  Consider the experience with the
>prototype steel tanks manufactured (by hand) by Boeing for the cost
>optimized booster project in the late 60s.  They found reduction in
>the per-pound cost of fabricated, tested steel tanks of an order of
>magnitude over then-standard aluminum alloy tanks.  The reduction in
>cost was due to a more forgiving, if lower performance, material, and
>wider margins.  I shudder to think what those tanks would have cost if
>made of aerospace grade graphite-epoxy.

The point remains, however, that materials costs are only a small
fraction of vehicle construction and operation costs. If using a
certain material lowers assembly costs significantly, *then* it
begins to count, such as with stamped auto panels and robot welded
frames. But for hand assembly, that usually isn't the case.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 14:12:17 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>experience we gained with Shuttle. We know how to make one piece SRBs,
>or even liquid fueled alteratives with fly back capability as was orignially


Actually on the STS Aerojet  bid one piece filament wound boosters.

They would be fabbed eiter on the East coast  or at stennis
and barged to KSC.

Aerojet was very un happy when the contract was given to
Thiokol, because segmenteds were cheaper, ha ha.

pat

--
I don't care if it's true.  If it sounds good, I will
publish it.  Frank Bates Publisher  Frank Magazine.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 18:28:16 GMT
From: Mark Grant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> Autos are produced by the millions, rockets by the tens. Hand built
>> Ferraris use $1,000/lb exotic composites too.
>
>Hardly that expensive!  The composites used in low volume auto
>manufacturing are mostly fiberglass, which is more expensive than
>steel, but not enormously more expensive.  Commercial E-glass costs
>only a few dollars per pound.  Note, however, that the fiberglass is
>used in places where very high strength is not important.

Not neccesarily true - I was reading an article a few weeks ago on the Zagato
Hyena (basically a souped up and rebodied Lancia Delta Integrale), which
apparently uses $12,000 worth of kevlar in the interior, both to knock off
a few tens of kilos of mass and because the designer thinks it looks good.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 16:46:13 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA's planned project management changes
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <238l72$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>This system will apparently be implemented on ALL NASA programs and
>projects.. comments?

It's hard to comment much until we see *how* it's implemented.  On paper,
much of this sounds like the way things are theoretically supposed to
run now (or at least, like the way it is theoretically supposed to be
*possible* to run them now).  The overrun caps are about the only item
that is really a serious departure.

Cosmetic changes to the existing machinery would suffice to let people
argue that they are conforming to the new system.  The question is
whether management will let them get away with it, or will insist on
real reform.  (I'm sure Goldin wants real reform, but he can't run the
agency singlehanded; it's the people two or three levels below him who
will really have to crack down if this initiative is to get results.)

The words sound fine, but we haven't heard the music yet.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 15:56:33 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spiral spaceplane (was Re: Buran Hype? (was Re: DC-X...))
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
>
>>"When the decision on the development of the Soviet aerospace system was
>>made, the Molniya Scientific Production Association, which Lozino-
>>Lozhinskiy heads, proposed to take as a basis its "ancient" (13 years
>>had been lost) Spiral design. However, it was rejected with a quite
>>strange explanation: "This is not at all what the Americans are doing." "
>>[Moscow KRASNAYA ZVEZDA (First edition) in Russian 31 Jul 91 p 4, [Article
>>by Colonel M. Rebrov "The Revolutions of 'Spiral'. A Biography and
>>Portrait of the Chief Designer of the Buran Space Plane"]
>>FBIS-UPS-91-004, 8/20/91]
>
>>"[The Spiral] was very good project, but it was one more mistake of our
>>government. They said Americans didn't have a space shuttle and we
>>shouldn't have one [either] and it was destroyed. And then after you
>>made your space shuttle, immediately they demanded a space shuttle.
>>It was very crazy of our government."
>>[Interview with cosmonaut Georgi Grechko by Dennis Newkirk, 4/6/93]
>
>So just what did 'Spiral' look like and why did it make sense where
>Buran/Shuttle do not?  Was it more like the original proposals for the
>Shuttle system?  Just where was it different?

What I write about below comes from several articles, and published
interviews with the designer, but should not be taken as the last word
about Spiral. Much more has been written and these are just the basics.

Spiral was started about 1962 after proceeding work by Korolev
Myashashev into cruise missiles/boost-glide and orbital
spaceplanes. Spiral was to be a X-20 size spaceplane. Different
booster configurations were considered including a Soyuz type
booster and air launch from a Mach ~5 aircraft (together called
project 50-50). Mig was to build the craft which measured 8 meters
long, 7.4 meters wide, 3.5 meters high and eventually weigh
10,300 kg. The craft decended from the Lapot project of Korolev.

Work at Mig's special section at Dubna began in 1967 to build the
EPOS test vehicles. Some were 1/2 an 1/3 scale and designated
105.13 (hypersonic analog), 105.11 (sub-sonic atmospheric tests),
105.12 (supersonic tests). One of the Sprials unique features
was its wings were folded up nearly vertically until after
reentry when they would be folded down into a conventional
delta-wing type aircraft configuration.

Its mission has never been explained fully but could have been a
space bomber or recon platform, ASAT weapon or manned ABM interceptor,
or simpily an R&D project. By about 1969-70 wooden mockups were
rocket launched to evaluate some aerodynamics before burning up
on reentry. By 1976 the 105.11 was tested in flight several
times. It was equipped with a RD-36K jet and began take-off and
landing tests on its own. Later it was drop tested from a Tu-95K
bomber. By Sept. 1978 flights of the 105.11 ended when the craft
was damaged on landing. But by 1976 governmental support for the
project was fading and the shift to support for a Buran exceeded
Spiral support. Several test pilots had flown the craft by then.

In the same period there have been reports of similar proposals
for space planes from NPO Lavochkin, the Chelomei KB and Sukhio's
T-100/101 plane has been reportedly tied to work on an air launcher
for a space plane.

The MiG special branch working on Spiral was transformed into the
Molnyia NPO which later built the Buran orbiters. To save time they
used the Spiral design in the Kosmos spaceplanes launched in the
1980's (BOR-4) to test the Buran thermal protection system. The
design was also used by NASA Langely in their recent HL-20 project.
NASA claims it really originated the design but declines to explain
just how they did this when the Soviets began flying their design
in the late 1960's and Korolev's preliminary design of early 1960's
was apparently used as the basis for Spiral.

The 105.11 prototype is on display at the Air Force museum in Monino.
It's usually over looked, but many photos have been published over
the last few years in Spaceflight, Av. Week and Aerospace America
and more in Russia.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 16:55:16 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Text of House DoD Authorization bill on SSTO
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Below is the language of the House Defense Authorization Bill as relates
to the SSRT program. I don't have the report language but expect to get
it soon. I will summarize that when I get it. Note that this is in the
bill which is much stronger than the statement in the report we where
shooting for.

I also have the Senate bill language and report. It is longer and I
will post a summary tonight.

   Section 217, Single Stage Rocket Technology
   (a) Program Funding. - the Secretary of defense shall establish
    a Single Stage Rocket Technology program and shall provide
    funds for that program within funds available for the Advanced
    Research Projects Agency. That program shall be managed within

    the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition.

    (b) Funding. - Of the amount appropriated pursuant to section 201
    for defense-wide activities, $79,880,000 shall be available for,
    and may be obligated only for, Single Stage Rocket Technology.

  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 17:14:28 GMT
From: Mark Littlefield <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (stephen voss) writes:
|> Newsgroups: sci.space
|> Path: aio!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!usenet.ufl.edu!cybernet!news
|> From: [e-mail] (stephen voss)
|> Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
|> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
|> Sender: [e-mail]
|> Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida
|> Date: Sun, 25 Jul 93 13:10:11 CDT
|> Lines: 29
|>

This is far too good to pass up.

|> 1)It costs way too much for what it does

I wouldn't presume to debate this issure among all of the closet NASA
administrators out there... ;-)

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

Which "manned space exploration objective"s are you referring to?  There are
only three initiatives that I am aware of, SSF, Moon, and Mars.  Another Moon
landing would be politically difficult as the average man-on-the-street would
say "why go to the moon, we've already been there." (if you don't believe me,
just find one and ask).  A Mars mission would resemble Apollo in that it would
largely be a one-shot deal, with little infrastructure in place for routine
trips.  Finally, SSF is often used as a justification for even HAVING a shuttle.
So, where are these thwarted objectives?


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

Which companies are ready to start up their own "manned space exploration
business"?  Where is the profit?

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


I'm not sure what you are getting at here.  Which rockets are "disposable"?  I
won't argue the safety issue, however, as that's a well discussed issue.

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

Manned spaceflight is both dangerous and expensive.  Even with the cheapest
and safest systems (a truely contradiction in terms) that can even be imagined
today, you are still putting people into a hostile environment in complex
vehicles which are pushing the materials that they are built from to their
limits.  Like high performance military aircraft, there will always be
accidents.

|> 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

I'm not even going to comment on that.

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

This warrents several points:

A) This is clearly not true from the literal sense.  The shuttle computers and
the software running on them are among the most "reliable" that have ever been
designed.  "Reliable" does not mean state-of-the-art.

B)  A statement like this makes me doubt that the poster is even OLD enough
to be posting to USENET. (flame intented)


|> 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

Again, I'm not going to start another shuttle/DC-X flame cost flame war over
answering this.  You might also note that this argument was PRECISELY the
one made for the shuttle in the first place  (shuttle vs. Saturn).

|>
|> 9) Richard Nixon started the program

Oh, that's a rational argument.....

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

See my response 7B.


Take some advice.  Go to school, get a degree, and then rethink what you wrote
here.

|>
--
=====================================================================
Mark L. Littlefield              Intelligent Systems Department
internet: [e-mail]
USsnail:  Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
          2400 Nasa Rd 1 / MC C-19
          Houston, TX 77058-3711
====================================================================

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

Date: 29 Jul 1993 18:10:47 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

Mark Littlefield ([e-mail]) wrote:
: |> 2)The failure of the space shuttle to perform as promised has thwarted
: |> every manned space exploration objective for the next 30 years

: Which "manned space exploration objective"s are you referring to?  There are
: only three initiatives that I am aware of, SSF, Moon, and Mars.  Another Moon
: landing would be politically difficult as the average man-on-the-street would
: say "why go to the moon, we've already been there." (if you don't believe me,
: just find one and ask).  A Mars mission would resemble Apollo in that it would
: largely be a one-shot deal, with little infrastructure in place for routine
: trips.  Finally, SSF is often used as a justification for even HAVING a shuttle.
: So, where are these thwarted objectives?

Didn't you know? NASA's failed it's objectives because Joe Q. Public can't
go to his local airport and hop on a flight to the moon for the weekend.
The big bad government doesn't want to let all the tourists into space
for bargin basement prices.. how rude of it..

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

: Manned spaceflight is both dangerous and expensive.  Even with the cheapest
: and safest systems (a truely contradiction in terms) that can even be imagined
: today, you are still putting people into a hostile environment in complex
: vehicles which are pushing the materials that they are built from to their
: limits.  Like high performance military aircraft, there will always be
: accidents.

Oh come on now.. the DC expers assure us that manned spaceflight is as
simple as buying a newer more fuel efficient car.. and can be easily
accomplished with a macintosh and a little mouse work.. you don't really
expect people to believe that spaceflight is a difficlt and complicated
thing do you?

: |> 9) Richard Nixon started the program

: Oh, that's a rational argument.....

Don't forget Pat and Allen hate it.. ;-)

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

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 945