Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_0/v15no066.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Tue,  4 Aug 92 05:04:38
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #066
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue,  4 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 066

Today's Topics:
                A 12 mile tether that generates 5000v?
      Bono's Politics (was Re: Clinton Space Position) (2 msgs)
              Energiya's role in Space Station assembly
             Mars Observer Mated to Transfer Orbit Stage
                       Soyuz as ACRV (11 msgs)
                     Space Navigation Program(s)
                         What is the ASRM??

    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: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 20:37:06 GMT
From: "R. Cage" <[e-mail]>
Subject: A 12 mile tether that generates 5000v?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <samw.712636367@bucket> [e-mail] (Sam Warden) writes:
>Extracting power: now, that's the real question.  I understand quite
>well how a static p. d. is induced, but not at all how anybody's going
>to get power out of these things, the way folks are talking about.
>From whatever ion current the ends can pick up?

Plasma contactors can, according to the proponents, provide
low-resistance contacts to the ionosphere in LEO.  They require
a few grams of gas per day and a few watts of power.

>What kind of _usable_
>output are these things predicted to be capable of?

Many kilowatts.  How much wire and plasma-gas do you have?

One serious and very intriguing proposal for use of tethers
involves using a tether between the station and a Shuttle to
de-orbit the Shuttle, which leaves the space station in a
very high, elliptical orbit.  An electrodynamic tether is
used to extract the excess energy for on-board use and lower
the orbit for the next visit.  (This also just about eliminates
the need for reboost fuel.)

NASA hasn't gotten as far as proposing such a trick yet, but
they never do anything much out of the ordinary any more.

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 20:56:50 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bono's Politics (was Re: Clinton Space Position)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>     I went to the U2 concert in Albany NY a few months ago, and while
> their, the lead singer, Bono made the following comment:

Speaking of politics, I have heard that Bono is now running for
Senator in California...

Bill Higgins                      | "[Theatregoers], if they did not
                                  | happen to like the production,
Fermi National                    | had either to sit all through it
Accelerator Laboratory            | or else go home.  They probably
                                  | would have rejoiced at the ease
                                  | of our Tele-Theaters, where we
Internet:  [e-mail]  | can switch from one play to
                                  | another in five seconds, until we
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | find the one that suits us best."
                                  | --Hugo Gernsback predicts
Bitnet:      [e-mail]  | Channel-Flipping in
                                  | *Ralph 124C41+* (1912)

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 21:41:28 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bono's Politics (was Re: Clinton Space Position)
Newsgroups: sci.space

On 3 Aug 92 20:56:50 GMT, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) said:

Bill> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>     I went to the U2 concert in Albany NY a few months ago, and while
> their, the lead singer, Bono made the following comment:

Bill> Speaking of politics, I have heard that Bono is now running for
Bill> Senator in California...

Different Bonos.  Both singers, but one sings for U2 and the other
was the Sonny half of Sonny and Cher.  Sonny Bono is the mayor of
Palm Springs.

Isn't the U2 Bono Irish?  You can't be a US Senator if you're not a
US citizen.
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 20:52:19 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assembly
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Dumoulin) writes:
>  Besides, how would you propose something as large as the Energiya would
>  get shipped out of Baikonur.  The US ships its External Tank by barge
>  fromMichoHow would an Energiya get here?

The same way it's shipped to Baikonur now:  by air.  This is what the
Antonov Mriya was built for...
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 03:41:34 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Mated to Transfer Orbit Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

          George H. Diller                                  August 3, 1992
          Kennedy Space Center
          407/867-2468

          Bob MacMillin
          Jet Propulsion Laboratory
          818/354/5011

          KSC Release No. 105-92


          MARS OBSERVER MATED TO TRANSFER ORBIT STAGE AT KSC

               The Mars Observer spacecraft was successfully mated today to
          its upper stage, the Transfer Orbit Stage (TOS), passing a major
          schedule milestone in processing.  An Interface Verification Test
          (IVT) to verify the connections between the two flight elements
          is scheduled for Tuesday, Aug. 4.

               "As challenges in processing have come along, our teams have
          been willing to do what was necessary to have this milestone
          happen as close to schedule as possible," said Glenn Cunningham,
          Mars Observer deputy project manager from the Jet Propulsion
          Laboratory.

               Later this week, the TOS will be fueled with its hydrazine
          attitude control propellant.  Next week, closeout activities of
          the integrated payload stack will begin.  The encapsulation into
          the Titan III nose fairing is scheduled for Aug. 13, and the
          transfer from KSC's Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility to
          Launch Complex 40 for mating to the Titan III is scheduled for
          Aug. 17.

               All activities are currently on schedule for a liftoff of
          Mars Observer at the beginning of the planetary launch
          opportunity on Sept. 16, 1992.  The launch window extends from
          1:02 p.m. to 2:34 p.m.  The planetary launch opportunity ends on
          Oct. 13.

               Mars Observer will be the first U.S. mission launched to
          Mars since the Viking program in 1975.  From a circular Martian
          polar orbit of 250 miles, it will create a detailed global
          portrait of the planet.  The spacecraft will map the surface and
          study Mars geology while profiling its atmosphere and weather.
          The mission is designed to span one Martian year, or 687 earth
          days.

               The Mars Observer project is managed for NASA by the Jet
          Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California and the spacecraft is
          built by General Electric Astrospace Division, East Windsor, N.J.
          NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. is project
          manager for the TOS upper stage, which is built by Orbital
          Sciences Corporation of Fairfax, VA.  The Titan III project is
          managed by NASA's Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio.  The
          launch vehicle and launch services are provided by Martin
          Marietta Astronautics Division, Denver, Colo.  NASA's Office of
          Space Science and Applications at NASA Headquarters in
          Washington, D.C. has overall program management responsibility
          for Mars Observer.

                                       # # #
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | You can't hide brocolli in
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | a glass of milk -
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | anonymous 7-year old.

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

Date: Mon, 03 Aug 92 19:26:12 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>No need. We just use Soyuz to fly the crews up and down. At eight per year
>that's less then two Shuttle flights.

>Not compared to the Shuttle. With Soyuz, Atlas, and one of the Zenith
>Star HLV's we can end the Shuttle program and save big bucks at the
>same time.

>Down the road, we will replace Soyuz with a DC-1 SSTO which transports the
>crew, serves as an OTV, and lifeboat all in one.

It's nice to know you inhale at work.

Shuttle will be running for a long, long time. The same amount of money which
you claim is wasted feeds a quite large infrastructure of jobs and people.
You'll never get it past Congress.

Soyuz should be viewed as a complement TO, not a replacement FOR the Shuttle.
Trying to turn it into the Swiss-army knife of U.S. manned space is stupid, and
would make many U.S. space advocates puke.



       Humility delivered via flamethrower. No, not Croatia, but Usenet.

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Mon, 03 Aug 92 19:36:52 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>
>>Exchanging capsules would be an ASSET; you can return materials on it, and
>>send supplies up on the replacement, and you'd get MORE use out of it than
>>building something here which turns into a one-use porkbarrel project.
>
>I don't think you can fit any usable cargo in a three-man capsule.

So if you don't put men in them, what do you have room for? I'd say that you'd
have at least the weight for oh 200lbs/person x 3 people = 600lbs of cargo.
Strip or fold the seats out...c'mon, you make it sound like it's SOOO
difficult.

Please, that's just... dumb.


       Humility delivered via flamethrower. No, not Croatia, but Usenet.

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 19:43:12 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>It's not the flight certification that is the problem.  There are
>several issues that NASA must address before Soyuz can be used as am
>ACRV.  First it must be adjusted for long term deployment on orbit.
>As it currenly stands, Soyuz has an on-orbit life span of about 90
>days (if memory serves) due to battery constraints.  This is clearly
>not enough for an ACRV.

Sure it is. We just do what the Russians do and use it as crew transport
as well.

>Also, Soyuz will need to be certified for a
>possible water landing.  We do not have areas like the steppes of Asia
>to land in like the Russians.

Soyuz can stay in orbit for days if needed. All the crew need do is
evacuate to Soyuz and wait until they can land on land.

>Finally, four people simply cannot fit in the Soyuz (three is a VERY
>tight squeeze, I understand).

since we will use it for crew rotation we will launch two at a time.

>If we deploy two, there is a problem of where to put the
>second.  There are only so many docking ports on Freedom and most are
>already accounted for (cupola, hyperbaric airlock, logistics
>modules, etc).

So we add another one. Multiple Soyuz is actually an advantage. First of
all, it prevents single point failure. Suppose the module which connects
to the ACRV is on fire and needs to be quickly closed down or is suffers
major structural failure. The way it is now, the crew would have no way
out. With two Soyuz, they could all pile into one, maneuver to the other
and do an EVA to transfer the extra crew.

Soyuz is also better if there is a medical emergency. With ACRV the entire
station would be evacuated just because one guy got sick. Maintenance tasks
wouldn't get done and time lost. With Soyuz, you just pack the sick/injured
person and ship him back.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------263 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 03 Aug 92 20:01:14 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>So we add another one. Multiple Soyuz is actually an advantage. First of
>all, it prevents single point failure. Suppose the module which connects
>to the ACRV is on fire and needs to be quickly closed down or is suffers
>major structural failure. The way it is now, the crew would have no way
>out. With two Soyuz, they could all pile into one, maneuver to the other
>and do an EVA to transfer the extra crew.

Light up a new one, huh? Must be some good ganja you got there, bub.

So you're going to fit 6-8 people, plus at LEAST one suit plus beachballs into
the Soyuz, in a capsule which fits three men uncomfortably?

If you have major structure failure, you're not going to want to stick around
to swap seats.


       Humility delivered via flamethrower. No, not Croatia, but Usenet.

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 20:00:27 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>How do you figure that? The money needed to build know-how and all that
>>is being spent flying Shuttle. That's the problem.

>No, we're getting the knowhow *from* the Shuttle...we've learned more about
>high-speed aerodynamics alone, just as an example, from the Shuttle than
>we've learned in 20 years before that.

At what cost? Sacrificing everything to high-speed aerodynamics just
isn't a good idea.

Let's compromise. I'll earmark a third of my savings to NASP. That will
be enough to build a NASP vehicle which will provide far better data on
high speed flight.

>>1. HLV flights   $400M  (2 flights/year each carries a Soyuz and supplies)

>Since the HLV doesn't exist, this number is pretty meaningless.

On the contrary. 95% of this HLV can be bought off the shelf today. The 5%
that doesn't exist are basically chunks of metal. This is a very conservative
design with a saftey factor of two done by a company with a good track
record at building launchers.

There is some risk associated with this number but it cannot reasonably
be called meaningless. Besides, the builder is willing to take on all
risk, all we need do is buy transport services.

If it works, we save billions, if it fails, we loose nothing. What's
your problem?

>>2. Atlas flights $600M  (75M for Atlas and $25M for Soyuz)
>>3. Cargo Return  $100M  (WAG, stick some Shuttle tiles on a canister and
>>                         teather it down)

>Uh-huh...tether it down?  What are you attaching your tether to?

Space Station Freedon.

>How do you get it to soft-land?

Just like an Apollo capsule; air resistance and a parachute.

>Who puts the thing in the canister?

what thing?

>You need to put a bit more thought into this one.

No, all I need to assert is that the problem can be solved for less
than $3 billion a year. If it can, then we save money.

I assert it can.

>Not to mention, of course, I don't see any development costs in the stuff
>above...engineers don't work for free.

Development costs are included for everything. This also includes the
interest on the bonds issued to fund development.

This is a commercial procurement.

>After how many years?  You can't turn off the Shuttle now and then develop
>this stuff, so you have to support development *and* the Shuttle.  Where are
>you going to get the extra money for this?

As I said, it is a commercial procurement. The contractors have already
offered to do it if the government will buy the services. All we need do
is tell them to go ahead. The government incures no costs until the system
is in place.

>>First of all, doing this makes a market which can be served by private
>>companies. This will work to furthur reduce costs and save additional
>>money.

>Which private companies?  Large-scale manned orbital flight is going to be a
>hell of a big jump for a private company.

Why? An Atlas can carry the Soyuz. You can buy an Atlas.

>It must be nice to know how much stuff you can put on the moon for what
>price with a technology that doesn't even exist yet.  Can I borrow your
>crystal ball?

All in a days work for a good engineer. I routinely estimate the cost
of new technology when I write proposals. If I am wrong, we loose money.

The figures I give are from Max Hunter, another good engineer.

>You are making the fatal mistake of tossing out a current technology for
>one that doesn't exist yet.

Nope. Since we incure no expenses until the system is in place, we aren't
tossing anything until a far cheaper replacement exists.

>Man-in-a-can is no replacement for the
>Shuttle, no matter how much money you might save,

Why?


  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------263 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 20:08:18 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Shuttle will be running for a long, long time. The same amount of money which
>you claim is wasted feeds a quite large infrastructure of jobs and people.
>You'll never get it past Congress.

1. Shuttle production is ended. This puts a maximum life on the fleet.
2. Sure pork is important. We will have the Shuttle workforce available to
   build the moonbase we buy with the savings. Congress will go for that.

>Soyuz should be viewed as a complement TO, not a replacement FOR the Shuttle.

Why?

>Trying to turn it into the Swiss-army knife of U.S. manned space is stupid, and
>would make many U.S. space advocates puke.

Who is talking about making Soyuz a swiss army knife? It is one small part
of an infrastructure which can save billions.

All I use Soyuz for is crew transport. Why do you find that unreasonable?

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------263 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 20:30:05 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>So you're going to fit 6-8 people, plus at LEAST one suit plus beachballs into
>the Soyuz, in a capsule which fits three men uncomfortably?

there are no plans to put more than 4 people on Freedom. Four could fit into
a Soyuz for the short time needed to get to the other vehicle.

If there are ever eight people in Freedom, we can add more Soyuz. Doubling
the number of Soyuz launches still saves money over the Shuttle.

>If you have major structure failure, you're not going to want to stick around
>to swap seats.

which means having a Soyuz nearby is a good idea. If you use ACRV and the
failure happens in the module where ACRV is docked, then you will wait. In
fact, you will wait for the rest of your life.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------263 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 20:48:51 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>1. Shuttle production is ended. This puts a maximum life on the fleet.

Sure it does. Around 2010 or so. Of course, Henry is going to pop up here and
say we'll lose one before then...

>2. Sure pork is important. We will have the Shuttle workforce available to
>   build the moonbase we buy with the savings. Congress will go for that.

It's extremely difficult to believe you're a (successful) lobbyist. You can't
beat established pork with possible contracts. Congress is composed of 535
members looking out for their own districts. Now, go to the district where
Rockwell International resides, and tell the Congressmen representing that
district you're going to pull the plug on Shuttle.

Of course, they MAY have a chance to get contracts for Moonbase Pie-in-the-Sky.
If the savings (wave hands in the billions) don't get sucked into social
programs or deficit reduction.

>>Soyuz should be viewed as a complement TO, not a replacement FOR the Shuttle.
>
>Why?

Why. Shuttle does more than act as a taxi. You have a mobile platform which can
retrieve large structures and carry a whole bunch of people. It has a long-time
duration on-orbit.

If you have to fix Freedom, you can't do it from a tin can. You'll NEED a
Shuttle to do it from. Not a Soyuz.

A quick-launch capability to Freedom to supplement Shuttle would be nice. A
hedge assuming SSTO is funded.

"But the savings will allow us to build a newer space station to replace
everything, and apple pie!" Uh. NOT.

>>Trying to turn it into the Swiss-army knife of U.S. manned space is stupid, and
>>would make many U.S. space advocates puke.
>
>Who is talking about making Soyuz a swiss army knife? It is one small part
>of an infrastructure which can save billions.
>
>All I use Soyuz for is crew transport. Why do you find that unreasonable?

No, I find it unreasonable because you concoct a bunch of other infrastructure
which would be new program starts and new money. Doesn't your experience with
SSTO tell you ANYTHING about new program starts with "unproven" technology? And
you're working with beercan money (essentially) with SSTO.

People are having enough trouble trying to swallow Soyuz for ACRV *alone*.
And you want to convince a bunch of flag-waving aerospace enthuasiasts to ditch
Shuttle for tin cans?

Really. Have a couple of cups of coffee and sober up.

       Humility delivered via flamethrower. No, not Croatia, but Usenet.

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 21:22:20 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>1. Shuttle production is ended. This puts a maximum life on the fleet.
>
>Sure it does. Around 2010 or so. Of course, Henry is going to pop up here and
>say we'll lose one before then...

You don't have to rely on me for this; your own NRC and OTA will tell you the
same thing... if you bother to listen.

>If you have to fix Freedom, you can't do it from a tin can. You'll NEED a
>Shuttle to do it from. Not a Soyuz.

Odd.  Why?  There have been two major space-station-salvage missions flown
to date, both successful, both using Soyuz-type technology.  (One used a
Soyuz, in fact, and the other used an Apollo.)  Can you explain why you
think it is impossible?
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 21:02:43 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>>... With Soyuz, Atlas, and one of the Zenith
>>Star HLV's we can end the Shuttle program and save big bucks at the
>>same time.
>
>Uh-huh.  You get what you pay for.  Using your scheme, we have zero
>independent science capacity, zero cargo return capacity, and zero technological
>advancement.  We're trying to move forward, and you're wanting us to return
>to the 60's in the name of the almighty dollar.

Taking thirty years to admit you made a mistake is indeed deplorable, but
continuing to refuse to admit it is worse.

Trying to do muchos technological advancement on a vehicle that is also
supposed to provide an operational service is a massive mistake, as any
airliner company could tell you.  For all its flaws, the X-30 program got
this one right.  We could be flying *experimental* hypersonic aircraft
for a fraction of the annual shuttle operations costs.

Ballistic capsules for cargo return are well-understood technology which
NASA is now trying to revive, because the shuttle is unsuited to many of
the cargo-return missions the customers want to fly.

Why exactly is "independent science capability" important?  Do remember
that Spacelab, which is a large piece of the shuttle's science capability,
was built in Europe.

>Instead of incurring the massive startup costs and incompatibilities of
>using Soyuz, why not wait the years or two extra and go for Delta Clipper,
>and keep moving forward?

Why not do both?  DC, for all its importance, is still a slightly iffy
project... and it won't yield an *operational* spacecraft for a few years
yet even if it works perfectly.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 21:17:55 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>No, we're getting the knowhow *from* the Shuttle...we've learned more about
>high-speed aerodynamics alone, just as an example, from the Shuttle than
>we've learned in 20 years before that.  The Shuttle has been one of the
>greatest flight laboratories of all time.  Replacing that with a can on a
>rocket is a massive step backwards.

The shuttle actually is a pretty poor flight laboratory, because it can't
treat that as more than a secondary objective.  How many X-planes can we
build for the shuttle operations budget?  Quite a few.  It would be awfully
nice to have more than one data point...

The shuttle is funded as an operational space launcher, not as a flight
research facility.  The proposal is to replace flakey, costly launch
technology with proven, cheap launch technology.  The savings would be
more than sufficient to fund a series of high-speed research aircraft
that would do a far better job on flight research.

I'm not as sold on the whole idea as Allen is, but claiming that the
shuttle is too good to replace is not a viable counterargument.

>You are making the fatal mistake of tossing out a current technology for
>one that doesn't exist yet...

I didn't see Allen saying that.  It makes sense to have the replacement
system operational before phasing out the current one... at which point
you toss out a technology that doesn't do the job very well in favor of
one that does.  It is irrelevant whether the one that does is also old,
unglamorous, and lacking in The Right Stuff.  What matters is whether it
does the job better.  It does.

>... Man-in-a-can is no replacement for the
>Shuttle, no matter how much money you might save...

Name one spaceflight function the shuttle can do that it can't.  (High-speed
airflight research is not spaceflight.)

>... When we have a functional
>replacement for the shuttle, then we can talk.

If you insist on seeing one but won't allow attempts to build one, that
talk may have to wait a long time...
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 3 Aug 92 18:02:07 GMT
From: FRANK NEY <tnc!m0102>
Subject: Space Navigation Program(s)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Greetings:

I am looking for a program or series of programs that can act as a

navigation program for spacecraft, or at least a ballistic calculator,
for simulation purposes using real-world data.  I have a 386-33 with
math co-processor.

I already have the lastest upgrade of the Gravitator simulation, but
have been having problems setting up real-time/real-world simulations.
 Anyone who has ideas on this subject is welcome to chime in.

I do not have FTP capability with this link, though I am told that
email transfer of files is possible.

Thanks in advance.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty,
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
--
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.

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

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 20:50:57 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the ASRM??
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brent Butler) writes:
>If anybody has some info on NASA's Advanced Solid Rocket Motor...

It was (note past tense -- it's dying in Congress as we speak) a project
to build a somewhat improved SRB for the shuttle, including better joint
design, slightly improved payload capacity, and getting Thiokol out of
the SRB business.  (The ASRM plant would have been NASA-owned, to avoid
giving one company such a stranglehold on NASA business again.)

Switching to LRBs would have been better, but if you must stick with SRBs,
it sounded like a good idea.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 066
------------------------------