home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Space & Astronomy
/
Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso
/
mac
/
TEXT_ZIP
/
spacedig
/
V15_5
/
V15NO597.ZIP
/
V15NO597
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1993-07-13
|
10KB
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 05:10:57
From: Space Digest maintainer <digests@isu.isunet.edu>
Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu
Subject: Space Digest V15 #597
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk
Space Digest Fri, 25 Dec 92 Volume 15 : Issue 597
Today's Topics:
DC vs Shuttle capabilities
LEI financing
SSTO vs. 2 Stage
Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to
"space@isu.isunet.edu", 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 space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Dec 92 00:54:51 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1992Dec22.182600.29193@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In <ggm2ljr@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>
>> I think we differ big-time when it comes to DC-1. Allen seems
>>to me to be saying, "Things will work out, and this is how it will be."
>
>From a technical point of view I am saying that a fully reusable SSTO
>vehicle carrying a reasonable payload (10 to 20 K pounds) and operational
>costs of $10 to $29 million per flight *CAN* be built with available
>technology. I also believe that operational costs can drop to $1 to $5
>million range if utilization is high enough.
>
>I believe this partly from my own assessment and the fact that every
>assessment done has concluded that it is possible. Even the internal
>NASA assessment say it can be done and that it could save billions.
>
>Now this doesn't mean that DC-Y WILL work. The biggest problems however
>are managerial, not technical. Using conventional government procurement,
>it will be impossible to build SSTO. Using a commercial like process however
>should work.
Finally, an intelligent position on SSTO from Allen. I would quibble,
however, that while there are no known *theoretical* technical issues
unresolved, there remain numerous practical technical problems to
solve in the DC program. DC is a complex technical vehicle, even if
it is designed to be much simpler than Shuttle, and like any complex mechanism,
teething problems are almost certain to arise. That's the type of contingency
for which less optimistic management systems provide alternative actions
and funding. Whether McDD and any government sugar daddies they can attract
will be willing to continue to fund them through the inevitable setbacks
remains to be seen. I also suspect that cheaper alternatives to SSTO are
technically possible with MSTO expendibles for some missions, though whether
anyone will build them remains unknown. I wish McDD luck, but ask that they
stay away from Hartsfield International until they've developed a good track
record of operations.
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 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
------------------------------
Date: 25 Dec 92 01:52:49 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: LEI financing
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <n12d5t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>
>Daniel Goldin. Under his administration, NASA is saying and doing things that
>would have been hard to imagine years ago. Their Procurement office is talking
>about not only purchasing lunar, but also Martian, data as well. It is
>possible that the LRDPA (what an acronym) may become obsolete next year, as
>NASA may decide, through the President, to request funding for purchase of
>lunar data.
It seems to me that data purchase belongs more under NSF charter than
NASA's R&D charter. Not that data purchase is a bad idea mind you, just
that you're probably looking in the wrong pocket. Of course it's all the
same pair of pants. :-)
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 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
------------------------------
Date: 25 Dec 92 01:13:50 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: SSTO vs. 2 Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1h8ca7INN9nk@news.cerf.net> davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith) writes:
>There's an advantage (I believe) of SSTO vs multi-stage systems that's
>getting left out here. When launching a DC-1 all the engines are started
>and then throttled up. This means that if an engine refuses to start,
>OR if there is a major fuel system problem such that none of the engines
>will start you can abort the launch on the pad. With the two-stager
>enough engines have to start at separation time to assure that the DC-1
>can at least abort.
Well that's true with a vertical stack, but if you use a cluster
stack like Shuttle does, except no solids, then you can fire up
all the engines on the pad and make sure they're running right
before liftoff. Picture the putative DC-0 as a ring structure
with the DC-1 nested in the middle. Your major problem comes
at separation time. If separation fails completely, you just
land the whole thing, if separation succeeds, you're home free,
but if separation *partially* fails, you're screwed.
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 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
------------------------------
Date: 25 Dec 92 01:46:27 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1992Dec23.132824.14131@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <9gt204c@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>
>>If this is teh case, than
>>you have to treat the shuttle development costs as sunk costs.
>
>I have no problem treating the research vehicles which supported
>Shuttle (like X-24) being treated as sunk costs but I don't think
>development costs should be. That simply makes commercial development
>that much harder.
In military procurement, the development costs are charged against
the prototypes, X, Y, etc, and the operational vehicles of the procurement
are charged at "flyaway" cost. Following this model, Enterprise ate the
development costs, and it's retired. Current Orbiters are only liable for
their $1.5 billion flyaway cost and their operational costs.
Payload costs, including mission specialists and their ground support
staffs, belong to the customer for the payload, Now in NASA's case,
these costs all come out of the same pocket, but you're making faulty
conclusions when you insist on lumping them for Shuttle while separating
them, and ignoring large parts of them, for your favorite projects.
Remenber that the data gathered, and techniques developed by the Shuttle
program, the RL-10 development program, NASP materials, etc are available
free to McDD for their program. Are you going to charge these costs against
DC? To be consistent with the way you treat Shuttle, you should, but of
course this is nonsense accounting.
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 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
------------------------------
Date: 25 Dec 92 01:03:42 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <ewright.725060424@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec20.195520.3587@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>It'll still be more cost effective to assemble and test
>>the bulk of space payloads on the ground and boost them to orbit
>>on larger capacity launchers, especially if some effort is put into
>>designing a heavy lifter for low labor costs.
>
>Just as it's more cost-effective to assemble and test
>office buildings at a central factory, then ship them
>to the worksite. Especially if some effort is put into
>designing a heavy freighter for low costs. ;-)
Indeed, modular housing units *are* cheaper than stick built
housing. Most industrial construction utilizes modular building
systems. Some builders are now using modular sections for
multi-story office structures. The problems with widespread
adoption of these methods isn't technical or economic, it's
archaic building codes. Would you prefer that UAW workers
show up in your driveway and build your new Buick, or would
you rather pay a hundred times less for one from a factory?
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 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
------------------------------
End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 597
------------------------------