Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_9/v16no922.txt

Text File | 1993-08-02 | 31KB | 712 lines

Space Digest                Mon, 26 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 922

Today's Topics:
                          3-man Shuttle EVAs
Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India (2 msgs)
                            DC-X (2 msgs)
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (4 msgs)
                   Found your own dark-sky nation?
              Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
             NASA, Space Advertising! PR Work is needed.
                          Perseid publicity
                           Space Movie/PR..
  Space trivia from old days: Aerobee rocket does better w/o booster
            Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
            Test Stands at MSFC (Was Re: Room in the VAB?)
                Why I hate the space shuttle (2 msgs)
                    Why I hate the space shuttle!

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

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 93 01:58:36 +1200
From: Kennelmeister <[e-mail]>
Subject: 3-man Shuttle EVAs
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

Dave Akin <[e-mail]> writes:

> The basic problem is that there are only two servicing mounts for
> the EMUs in the airlock. In a typical EVA, the crew closes out the

Why do the umbilicals points all have to be in the airlock?

Is there any reason why a 3rd or 4th umbilical point couldn't be
rigged within the orbiter, with EV3 (4?) using that inside a sealed
suit, and ducking into the lock just before EV1 & 2 egress,
or following them out later.

In some instances, would there be an advantage having EV3
come out later and possibly doing turnabout with EV1 or 2?
(Is the airlock closed up and repressurised after EVs leave the craft?
 Can it be?)

It just strikes me that once a suit's sealed, there's no reason
that the service point has to be by the front door.

--
Alan Brown
[e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Jul 1993 00:57:50 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <22rg9d$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>I would be surprised if any country  first developes  solids.

Israel's Jericho missiles and launch vehicle (yes, they orbited something
with one) are all-solid, and I don't think they have any indigenous
liquid fueled hardware.

I believe the Australian launch vehicle was all-solid.  So was the British.

More importantly, India already has large-sized solid IRBMs, though
their launch vehicles are at least partly liquid-fueled.

>Realize,  that even though your friends work at lewis,
>the US military Industrial complex  has a strong belief that
>only Americans  have the grace from god  to ever come up with an idea.
>
>They find it hard to accept that smart people are really the same everywhere.

Since my friend is apparently reading this (he emailed me earlier today 8-)
I'll let him respond to this if he likes.  I'll merely comment that in my
experience that's not true with US engineers in general, and would be
particularly out of place with this individual, who spent last
summer at ISU in Japan breaking down nationalistic barriers between
the groups doing space work around the world.

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 03:26:40 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <22va6e$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>I believe the Australian launch vehicle was all-solid.  So was the British.

Um, if there was ever an Australian launch vehicle, I'm not aware of it.
The British Black Arrow program used Woomera as its launch site; perhaps
this is what is being referred to.

Black Arrow used kerosene/peroxide first and second stages; only its third
stage was solid.
--
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: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 00:32:51 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>>> The best DC argeument is that it saves money
>>> and the savings can be spent on social programs.

>>> Now, I personally don't believe that and would fight budget reductions
>>> if they happened. But it is an arguement that will work.

>>I don't think this is a very good argument.  If you just want to
>>reduce the cost of currently planned programs, would not expendable
>>rockets (Proton or BDB) save most of the launch cost, with less
>>upfront cost and risk than DC?

Can't use Proton since most of the applications relate to national
security. As to BDB, if this arguement causes a low cost BDB launcher
to be developed, I will sleep very well at night. My goal is low cost,
not DC.

>I don't think it's a good argument either, but for different
>reasons. I think it's cynical and dishonest.

It's nither cynical nor dishonest. I'm simply telling them why they
should support these efforts by showing that they will support the
goals they themselves have. The fact that I don't share those goals
isn't relevant.

>I think it's acceptable to sell space programs on their own merits,

But what you and I consider merits aren't what somebody else would
consider merits. All I am suggesting is that we show people how space
helps what THEY consider merits. You never change somebody's mind telling
they why you believe something; you only do it by showing them why they
should believe it. That means understanding their point of view and
expressing your arguements in those terms.

As to the funds being transfered to HUD, I would prefer a $10 billion NASA
budget, wisely spent, to the $15 billion budget the way things are today.
I would oppose spending savings on HUD mainly because it is another case
of throwing good money after bad.

    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."             |
+----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 26 Jul 93 01:01:45 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>>I don't think this is a very good argument.  If you just want to
>>>reduce the cost of currently planned programs, would not expendable
>>>rockets (Proton or BDB) save most of the launch cost, with less
>>>upfront cost and risk than DC?

> Can't use Proton since most of the applications relate to national
> security. As to BDB, if this arguement causes a low cost BDB launcher
> to be developed, I will sleep very well at night. My goal is low cost,
> not DC.
...
> It's nither cynical nor dishonest. I'm simply telling them why they
> should support these efforts by showing that they will support the
> goals they themselves have.


J. Liberal Congressperson will respond: but many of the payloads on
which DC-X's projected savings are based are a waste of money.  We
should spend the money on free cheese for homeless mice.  What's left
will not amortize the higher development cost.  What, you were
counting military applications, like brilliant pebbles?  Right.  Well,
thank-you-for-your-input-please-shut-the-door-on-the-way-out.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 18:03:25 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22pofg$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>
>As I understand it, the Delta Clipper is to be crew-optional, not required.
>I.e. it's got automatic systems to fly unmanned missions when no crew
>is needed.  As such, it will only need enough simulator time to support
>the actual manned operations, not the supporting flight operations.
>This should cut at least half of the simulator costs out for manned
>missions and zero them for unmanned flights.

As I understand it, DC is to be *teleoperated* when flown unmanned. Seems
to me that would require even more simulator time since it's arguably
harder to fly remotely than from on board. The simulations might use
cheaper hardware than the flight simulations done for manned missions,
or they might not.

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: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 23:02:32 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:

>As I understand it, DC is to be *teleoperated* when flown unmanned.

DC-X is teleoperated and the SX-2 may be teleoperated but the plan
for DC-1 is that it be fully automatic. Even DC-X isn't so much
teleoperated as telemonitored. All the pilot does is monitor the
situation and select the appropriate mode if a change is needed.

In this sort of mode, the simulations for whatever training is needed
can run on a PC.

   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."             |
+----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 00:19:49 GMT
From: Tommy Nordgren <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
|> >
|> >What is most galling about all this is that cheaper, simpler
|> >alternatives that could have reduced launch costs considerably were
|> >under development in the 1960s.  For 1/2 the price of running the
|> >shuttle for 1 year (in inflation-adjusted dollars) we could likely
|> >have had a Big Dumb Booster that would launch shuttle-size payloads
|> >for 1/10 to 1/20 the cost of the shuttle.  The development risk would
|> >have been much lower.  It would not have been as much of a jobs
|> >program for California, though.
|>
|> Are you sure? You'd be building 8 new vehicles a year instead of
|> 3+1 one time. I'd think you'd have more jobs.
|>
|> 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     |                     |

    Not only that, but except that the designs suggested in the sixties
almost always used disposable tanks for hydrogene, they were basically very
similar to the DC-X design.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Nordgren                     "What is a woman that you forsake her
Royal Institute of Technology       and the hearth fire,
Stockholm                           and the home acre,
[e-mail]                 to go with the old grey widow maker."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 26 Jul 93 01:13:23 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tommy Nordgren) writes:

>|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:

 >|> >What is most galling about all this is that cheaper, simpler
 >|> >alternatives that could have reduced launch costs considerably were
 >|> >under development in the 1960s.

 >    Not only that, but except that the designs suggested in the sixties
 > almost always used disposable tanks for hydrogene, they were basically very
 > similar to the DC-X design.

No, you are very confused.  The designs I am talking about were about
as different from DC as they could be.  Different design philosophy,
different fuels, different materials, different engine type.  These
would *not* have been SSTOs; some were to be completely expendable.

The DC-series is based on the idea of making an expensive vehicle and
reusing it to amortize the cost over many launches.  The Big Dumb
Booster idea was to make a very cheap expendable rocket from low tech
materials, like steel, sacrificing some Isp for lower complexity and
cost (for example, using ablatively cooled engines rather than complex
regeneratively cooled engines, and using pressure-feed instead of
turbopump-feed).

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

    "Absolute stupidity of the worst sort"
       -- Freeman Dyson commenting on the space shuttle.

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 18:20:46 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,sci.space

[e-mail] (Joe Dellinger) writes:

>    Of course, it probably wouldn't work anyway. A while back somebody
>actually tried to found "a libertarian paradise" on some previously unclaimed
>sea-level atolls between Fiji and Tonga, the "Republic of Minerva". Tonga
>simply waited a few days while the "Minervans" built up a seawall for them,
>then invaded, kicked everyone out, and officially annexed the atolls to Tonga.

I read something of more detail about this... apparently the (whatever)
of Minerva was outside of Tonga territorial waters... and more than a couple
days passed before the gov of Tonga let a couple people out of the jails
and said they could stay out if they went and kicked the guys off the
island.

>    But then, Tonga has a lot of chutzpah... recently they claimed ALL

>the remaining geosync slots left unfilled over the Pacific for their own
>communications needs. (If they happen to temporarily have spare capacity,
>they _may_ consent to lease use of their slots to the highest bidders, say
>for people wanting to put in more capacity between the US and Japan.) Hey,
>the international treaty allocating geosync space said countries could claim
>unfilled slots according to their needs. The Tongans must think these
>Westerners are idiots to leave a hole like that for them to exploit!

If they do the same they did to Minerva, they'll just leave the
slots empty. If they have ownership, they don't actually have to
_use_ them...

Of course, they do plan to put sats up there, although I don't know
whether those plans are serious.

>    (Of course, there must be something special about the Tongans... how
>else to explain how they managed to remain independent up to the present, even
>keeping their 1800's-style polynesian royalty, complete with politically
>supreme hereditary monarch? Their King looks like he'd make a good professional
>defensive tackle, too... wouldn't want to argue with him.)

Whether or not they have "independence" is an open question; some
people say the US government put them up to their actions in the
Minervan deal... sometimes those banking havens can be very
inconveinent to some people back on the mainland.

Which is _really_ ironic, because the King and his buddies were
having problems looking for a suitable place to incorporate their
new giant comsat corporation... Minerva would have been perfect for
that.

--
+-----------------------+"And so it went. Tens of thousands of messages,
|"Standard disclaimer"  |hundreds of points of view. It was not called
|[e-mail] |the Net of a Million Lies for nothing."
+-----------------------+

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

Date: 26 Jul 93 02:17:43 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Anyone have sites for getting the info on old tech, low tech that was passed
over for the current high tech stuff..

Reason for uestion: Maybe a way to get commericialization and private use of
space is to take a few steps back from the current high tech ways, and use low
tech ways to get companies started and people into space.. As has been
expressed by the Challenger accident, and the shuttle delays is that high tech,
high complexity launch systems are not reliable enough yet for day to day,
scheduled launches.. When so far most shuttles have had to reschedule for up
to weeks after scheduled launch..

What Im tryign to say is that the new space company on a shoe string just does
not have the money, expertise and tiem to waste on high tech systems that have
delays and over complexity.. They have a dead line, and if there systsem does
not go up, or dies on pad, they loose business and maybe their livelyhood and
shirts..

NASA can afford to have delays, breakages, and delays, but a rocket satellite
launching company can not afford it..

So post low tech ways to get rockets built and and satellites into orbit..and
poople to if possible..

Or maybe some NASA system designers need to take come classes in small business
and economics? Might give them a perspective of how to do things truely on a
shoe string, and a dead line..

===
Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Jul 93 01:58:51 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NASA, Space Advertising! PR Work is needed.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>NASA and other space realted companies/organizations need to do more
>>advertising, and PR work..  Also open up to the 20th Century..
>
> Sadly, because I too would like to see massive space colonization in
> my lifetime, PR is not a viable approach. Space already has a massive
> PR presence for free thanks to science fiction and Startrek and activist
> groups like this one. It's very unlikely that people who would be attracted
> by space PR aren't already on board. What's needed for space exploitation
> to succeed is simple to define and difficult to do; show a profit.
>
> 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     |                     |


Make a profit would be nice to.. But what I ment by PR is the "true" space
exploration and not the fiction side of it..

Maybe have a little notice on products that have a direct NASA connection to
it. Mayeb have NASA sell ideas for royalties (way to make money)..

Also maybe have NASA be a sponsor for Star Trek and other science fiction and
science shows.. Maybe a "NASA wants you"style commercial.. Also open up the
notices for "we need astronauts" or jobs and such to the general public..
Seems the only way to find out info is to have contacts to insiders, or read
trade journals.. (or read here).

NASA needs to coem into the mainlien culture is what I think both you and I
want Gary, maybe expressed in different ways, but basically the same..

===
Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jul 1993 19:11:33 GMT
From: "George F. Krumins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Perseid publicity
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:

>It makes a difference, but not that much since crime in our cities
>is also common in daylight. It's mostly of psychological value.
>But that doesn't make the demand for it any less real.

I agree with this.
I read recently that 80 to 90% of all burglaries happen during the daytime.
I would like to see some concrete evidence to support the premise that
night lighting reduces crime.

Regards,
George Krumins
--
Pufferfish Observatory         |^^^^^\^^^^|     The Universe had its origin
[e-mail]       ^^^/\ \^^^      in two hockeysticks colliding
                                  / /\ \
       "Home of the Hockeystick  /_/  \_\  Memorial Telescope"

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 19:08:52 GMT
From: Jay Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Movie/PR..
Newsgroups: sci.space

What about Ben Bova's 'Colony' for a real inspirational yet movie with a
good plot.

Still, I would like to see a 'Foot fall movie'. When was the last time
there was a realistic alien invasion movie?

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 00:24:02 GMT
From: Robert Casey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space trivia from old days: Aerobee rocket does better w/o booster
Newsgroups: sci.space

A bit of early rocket research trivia:

A small research rocket "Aerobee" was being tested at sea in Jan 1950.
In the North Pacific and Gulf of Alaska.  The Areobee was a small liquid
fuel rocket with a solid fuel booster stage.  One of these at sea (on a
ship) tests "misbehaved in a suprising manor.  Apparently as a result of
a leaking valve, the rocket suddenly took off 10 minutes ahead of schedule
and climbed slowly and quietly by itself, leaving the booster, unignited,
in the launching tower.  ... The defective valve apparently never did
fully open; calculations made as a result of this event indicated that an
Aerobee fired without booster should go about twice as high as one that did.
Of course no Aerobee has ever been fired without a booster on purpose."

Page 286, _Rockets, Missles, and Space Travel_ by Willy Ley, (c)1957
Viking Press.  Library of Congress # 57-11123

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 00:54:57 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>> Ps, Ken, so that you know, my sources inside MacDac indicate that
>>while  the pro-DC forces here are being optimistic, they're within the
>>zone MacDac engineers are willing to defend as reasonable assumptions at
>> this stage of the game.  They also say they're having a hell of a
>>time with internal politics to the point where parts of the company are
>> playing dirty tricks trying to undermine DC because they think...

>I will also back this up. My contacts and discussions with MacDac
>personnel give me the same picture on Alan, ie he is on the
>optimistic side of center but not out of the envelope by any stretch
>of the imagination.

Thanks for the support Paul and Dale. One disadvantage of having Ken
in your kill file is not seeing this; maybe it's an advantage? I wonder
if he has explained just why McD invited me to the launch since they
are so upset with me?

However, I think I am in the middle in my extimates of cost and frequency
of flights. Where I am optimistic, and perhaps too optimistic, is in the
odds of success and the time is will take to susceed. However, I think I
am in good shape. There are several alternatives to each key element of the
effort. If the TPS fails, they can use a Shuttle TPS and they have already
evaluated the impact that would have on cost, payload, and flight
frequency. If the engines don't work, there are several alternatives
available and the impact of those alternatives has already been evaluated.

If a few elements fail, then we simply begin a program of continuous
improvment to bring costs down, payload and frequency up. History is
full of systems and vehicles greatly improved this way. The last LM, for
example, weighed 24% less than the first one. If DC-Y doesn't make orbit
as scheduled, a few years of traversing the learning curve will fix the
problems.

>I had NOT been told about the infighting. But, such things are to be
>expected in large companies.

It was pretty bad for a while but is getting better. It took almost two
years for the DC team to get permission to use the Washington sales office
to push the program in Congress.

The Delta Launch Divison, for example, doesn't like the program (but they
are coming around). If Ken is talking to anybody at MacDac (and I don't
think he is), it must be these people.

   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."             |
+----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 03:16:23 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Test Stands at MSFC (Was Re: Room in the VAB?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
> > ASSRM is more then political. it is also environmental.
> > that sucker kicks out quite a bit of chlorine gas  as a exhaust product.
>
>Just about all the chlorine in an aluminum/AP/polymer solid rocket
>comes out as hydrogen chloride.

Of course, the difference is a little academic, since HCl is just about as
much of a problem to breathe as Cl itself...  Give HCl the slightest trace
of water and it turns into hydrochloric acid.

My understanding of this one is that Pat's right:  the biggest reason not
to test full-scale ASRMs at Marshall was environmental impacts from the
exhaust plume.  They're taking enough static about this at Stennis, which
is out in the middle of nearly-uninhabited nowhere.
--
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: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 18:10:11 GMT
From: stephen voss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

1)It costs way too much for what it does

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9) Richard Nixon started the program

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

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

Date: 25 Jul 93 22:56:13 GMT
From: Ian McCloghrie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (stephen voss) writes:

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

    Now, while I tend to agree with most of your points, I have to
take exception to this one.  Your desktop amiga system has entirely
different requirements to a space vehicle's operating computer.  Not
only is your amiga not hardend against cosmic radiation, but if the
system crashes while you're playing flight simulator, or writing a
paper, hey, no big deal.  Just reboot, at msot you've lost a couple
hours work on your paper.  Now imagine the shuttle's computer crashing
just as you're making a de-orbital burn.  Whoops, left the engines on
too long, billions of dollars of hardware (not to mention a half dozen
people) are now going to burn up in the atmosphere.  The shuttle
computers have to work, 100% of the time, and get the _right_
answers.  Anything else is secondary.

--
 /~> Ian McCloghrie      | Commandant of Secret Police - Cal Animage Beta.
< <  /~\ |~\ |~> |  | <~ | email: [e-mail]               Net/2, USL 0!
 \_> \_/ |_/ |~\ |__| _> | Card Carrying Member, UCSD Secret Islandia Club

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

Date: 26 Jul 93 02:03:29 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Other reasons:

To many projects and systems were made to only be used by the shuttle..
Basically over specialization..  So when the shuttle went boom, and bust, they
were lost with out a launch system and a back log started..

===
Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 922
------------------------------