HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: People who can't count costs (Was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?)
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Date: 18 Dec 1992 21:28 CST
 <1992Dec7.173321.2812@ke4zv.uucp> <BywyEy.7uE@access.digex.com> <ewright.724698268@convex.convex.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Houston
NNTP-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <ewright.724698268@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes...
>In <BzDKw5.3no@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
> 
>>HE indulged in creative accounting?  I think the contract for DC-X was $58 
>>million, not a "couple hundred million."  
> 
>That sounds right.  McDAC has also spent some of its own money in
>addition to what it got from the Air Force.  I believe the contract
>required McDAC to spend at least an equal amount, so that puts it
>into the hundred-million-dollar range.  *Not* the billion-dollar
>range.
> 
> 
>>The average total cost of a shuttle mission is a little over $500 million 
>>not a billion+.
> 
>Only if you learned math from the "Hitchhiker's Guide."
> 
>Divide the amount of money NASA spends on the Space Shuttle program
>every year by six flights per year.
> 
>$500 million ain't even close.
> 

FLAMETHROWER ON

Hey stupid don't you read this group? The marginal cost for a Space Shuttle
mission is $37 million dollars maximum. This is the cost of fuel, ET and
operations directly chargeable to the mission.

For those who are further mentally deranged and who love to count more of 
the costs to the Shuttle program, the figure is $368 million dollars. This
includes the cost of the standing army at KSC and ranges around the world
and almost all charges to the program.  This rises to $405 million dollars
if you include the cost of the TDRSS program, the ASRM program, all shuttle
upgrades and modifications over the life of the program.

The flight rate by the way oh thou ignorant of basic math is 8 this year
with four flights scheduled in the first four months of next year. It is
beginning to be obvious that the flight rate of 8 per year is more of a
political than technical nature. If you were to account in this manner
the costs are even lower.

ONLY if you take every single budget item in the entire NASA budget that has
any relationship to manned space activities and then divide by the number
of flights per year, then you will get a >$500 million per flight costs.

These numbers come from the Space News article of Nov 29 December 8. Where
the heck do your numbers come from?

By the way, it is too bad Allen did not have the guts to respond to my
previous message relating these figures. I am flat sick and tired of people
simply ignoring any information that is detrimental to their little pet
project, no matter how valuable that project is in and of itself.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Aurora
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:54:33 GMT

I think I may have just solved the Aurora question. Attend the following
press release.

Gary
_________________________________________________________________________
Alice Ann Toole
Aurora Flight Sciences Corp., Manassas, Va.
^^^^^^
(Phone:  703//369-3633)


RELEASE:  92-227

HIGH-FLYING PERSEUS RESEARCH AIRCRAFT READY FOR ROLLOUT


	NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin will make the keynote speech
when a high-flying, unpiloted NASA atmospheric research aircraft called
Perseus is unveiled in Manassas, Va., on Dec. 18.

	When Perseus starts to fly science missions in 1994, it will gather
data to improve knowledge on the atmosphere at very high altitudes, including
the possible effect of exhaust emissions from next-generation supersonic
airliners.

	"Perseus is going to be a valuable new tool for many areas of
atmospheric research, especially understanding the processes that control
stratospheric ozone levels, so NASA and industry can produce future supersonic
transports that are both environmentally safe and economically competitive."

	Perseus, designed and built for NASA by Aurora Flight Sciences Corp.,
Manassas, Va., is the first aircraft designed specifically for atmospheric
science.  It will carry up to 110 pounds (50 kilograms) of instruments to a
maximum altitude of 82,000 feet (25 kilometers).

	Much of Perseus' technology derives from sport aviation and the record-
breaking Daedalus human-powered aircmodeled on the Daedalus design, which had
excellent aerodynamic performance.  The plane is made of lightweight composite
materials, much like sailplanes or gliders.

	Perseus' engine is based on the 4-cycle, 4-cylinder Rotax engine that
powers ultralight aircraft around the world, but is highly modified to burn a
mixture of gasoline and oxygen diluted by recirculated exhaust gas.  Aurora
developed the engine under a $500,000 NASA Small Business Innovation
Research grant.

	Perseus also is breaking new ground in other technologies like the
onboard computer which will guide many of its flights using preprogrammed
flight plans. The autopilot will keep track of the plane's location via signals
from the Global Positioning System constellation of navigation satellites.

	NASA has ordered two Perseus aircraft from Aurora Flight Sciences.
Successful research missions by the planes could lead to more general use of
advanced unpiloted aircraft for Earth science studies.

	"Perseus is not only going to do science to improve the environment,
but also is building an important new industry for the future," said Aurora
Flight Sciences President John Langford.  "It is key to a new generation of in
situ measurement platforms that will lead to discoveries in areas such as
atmospheric science, global warming and the forecasting of severe storms."



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: D-21 recon drones
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 13:23:57 GMT


jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
 >Kelly Johnson claims that SR-71 (and its siblings) would have been 
 >competitive with F-15 and B-1 programs but they were kept out by 
 >political considerations.

Well, the characteristics of the Blackbird series are pretty vastly different
from either of those two other aircraft.  It would not "compete" all that well
with either the fighter maneuverability of an F-15, or the payload capacity
of the B-1B.  The Blackbird was still obviously a fantastic aircraft, with
a most exemplary and enviable development program...

 >>    The drone in that case was quite a package, too. As I recall, the drone
 >>was a Mach 3+ ramjet design, intended to be a drone recon plane for doing
 >>flyovers of hostile territory.
 >Right, though in the SR-71 realm some people say that Mach 3+ is 
 >shorthand for Mach 4.

In the case of the D-21/GTD-21B that would most likely be correct, but few in
the "SR-71 realm" these days would claim it could regularly achieve Mach 4.

 >>It was (bear with me here, it's been a while since I read this) fueled by 
 >>boron hydride, with roughly twice the energy density of regular jet fuel,
 >> built almost entirely of magnesium,

The Lockheed GTD-21A/B was not unlike the Blackbird in being constructed
mostly out of Titanium and fueled by JP-7 with a TEB ignitor, however
unlike the Blackbird's P&W J58, it used a Marquardt RD-43 ramjet engine.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cassini Undergoes Intensive Design Review
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:28:04 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1gbpq3INN3jk@manuel.anu.edu.au> gustav@arp.anu.edu.au (Zdzislaw Meglicki) writes:
>|> ... the U.S. do not have any launch vehicles
>|> that are powerful enough to send Cassini on a direct trajectory to the
>|> outer planets.
>
>Right, can't the US build such a vehicle by then?

Sure, if they tried.  But there's no money for it.

(It's not enough to strap something together.  Given that Cassini is another
bloated megaproject, and that it will be the only Saturn mission for several
decades unless Goldin can turn things around some, and that there is no
backup copy of the hardware, the Cassini mission planners would be crazy
to risk their bird on a brand-new booster; they want something well-proven.
Still could be done, but it does run up the bill.)
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: liquid fuels
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:11:57 GMT

In article <Bz4Hx9.BD9.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>-After the Challenger failure, NASA added a safety requirement that 
>-nothing launched in by a space shuttle may use liquid fuels. That
>-means Cassini must use lower-energy solid rockets instead. 
>
>I think you mean *cryogenic* fuels. Magellan, Galileo, and Ulysses all
>use liquid fuels.
>
>As I mentioned earlier, some of the post-Challenger Shuttle safety rules
>are being relaxed (following intensive review, of course). Perhaps this
>rule will eventually be one of them. Henry has indicated he would favor
>such a change.

The major problem with cryogenic fuels is that they boil off and the
gas must be vented.  This becomes a real problem if the upper stage
is located inside the shuttle cargo bay.  The modifications that must
be made to the shuttle are non-trivial.  
 
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:57:04 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec13.183545.9958@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>... SR71s and U2s that can fly above anything Iraq had right? 

I don't know whether Iraq had any of the Soviet heavy SAMs, but unless
those aircraft have capabilities far beyond what's revealed, they can't
fly above *those* missiles' ceilings.  Remember, 1950s-vintage Soviet
missiles have a proven ability to knock down U-2s.  Quite apart from
the Powers incident, China has parts of several shot-down U-2s on display
in its aviation museums.  Blackbirds reportedly had some close calls over
Vietnam.

>...after 28 years of trying, the SU never managed to down a
>SR71 right?

As far as I know, SR-71s never actually overflew the USSR, although they
did fly around the fringes (presumably close enough for side-looking
sensors) frequently.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:41:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.143834.533@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

> The load on a pump also increases linearly with the volume of material
> it has to move. Naturally I was assuming larger combustion chambers for
> the low pressure design so that the mass flow, and thrust, remained nearly
> the same. The two designs lead to different stresses, though. A low volume, 
> high pressure pump has different failure modes than a low pressure, high 
> volume pump. One is not necessarily better than the other.


But, Gary, while the volume of the combustion chamber is indeed larger
in the low chamber pressure case, the volume rate of consumption of
liquid propellant is very nearly the same, for a given thrust.  The
pumps are pumping liquid fuels -- whose density is independent of the
chamber pressure -- and the low pressure engine needs to pump only
slightly more than the high pressure engine for a given level of
thrust (because of its slightly lower Isp).  You do *not* have to pump
twice as much fuel if the chamber pressure is reduced by half.

Given that the volumes of fuel to be pumped are nearly the same,
the low pressure engine will require less powerful pumps.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: EVA costs
Organization: Motorola
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:35:25 GMT

In article <BzFxGA.xC.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>->In article <1992Dec16.125638.29623@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>->>Last I heard they're
>->>willing to rent Cosmonaut time at $5 million an hour plus launch costs
>->>for any experimental equipment you want them to use.
>
>-Oh. Oh. My source is a post by Nick Szabo Sept 19th of last year where
>-he quotes a Mir Press article on suited time for sale. Since they offered
>-John Denver a ride for $10 million, this must be out to lunch.
>
>per hour. Don't the EVA suits have a certain maximum number of hours they
>can be used per flight?

Some Russian suits have been limited to about 10 EVA's (with suited up
time about 7-8 hours maximum each). When Artsebarski(sp?) had his
problem with fogging on an EVA the press noted that that suit was
on is 14th EVA and no longer considered under 'warranty'. I think 
they literally threw out those suits sometime after that, but don't hold 
me to that story because I don't have my notes with me to confirm that 
sequence of events.

The cost of each Mir guest flight is negotiated individually and can
vary based on the activities. The French have done an EVA and are
the only foreign visitors to do so. I don't believe they paid much more
if any than their previous missions, even though that one lasted a month.
Of course the French were a very valued and trusted customer at that time
as they still are. A visiting mission generally costs about $10-15
million, of course there are exceptions like the Juno flight which
apparently never paid up in full. Also, I expect variations in the 
exchange rate might have some unusual effects. So, to determine what
the NPO Energia would charge for an EVA is very difficult without really
being ready to propose a mission plan.

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL
From: mcdowell@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Voyager UVS shutdown
Date: 20 Dec 92 16:41:45 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


From article <1992Dec17.154409.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, by higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey):
 [ Reacting to:]
>> The Voyager Ultraviolet Spectrometer (UVS) Guest Observer (GO) Program
>> Scientist, Bob Stachnik/NASA HQ and the UVS GO Project Scientist, Ron
>> Oliversen/GSFC regretfully announce the termination of the UVS GO program.
> 
> Ouch!  Bummer.  

You ain't heard nothing yet, Bill. All of the Mission Ops and Data
Analysis programs (IUE, Einstein, EUVE, GRO, ROSAT, etc) were called
to D.C. last week for an emergency review and further major cuts. The usual
Congress smarts - spend half a billion on getting a mission up, then cut
the one percent of that that would let you do a good job with the
results. MO&DA is one of the cheapest and most important things NASA
does but one of the first to get cut. 

[Declaration of interest: of course, my salary comes out of this budget,
so I would say that, wouldn't I.]

 - Jonathan McDowell
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:38:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Dec16.143834.533
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Dec15.200752.13747@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>In <1992Dec11.175719.24880@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>> Snide remarks not withstanding, chamber pressure isn't the only form
>> of stress on a vehicle. While I like Truax's Sea Dragon proposal
>> on several grounds, the low chamber pressures lead to very high
>> loads on the turbopumps because so much more fuel per unit time
>> has to flow to achieve the high thrust required with low pressure
>> engines. Reducing stress in one area can lead to increased stress 
>> in another area when the objective remains to get a vehicle from 
>> surface to orbit in a single leap. The high speed pumps, not combustion 
>> chamber stresses, are the main reliability concern of liquid fuel rockets
>> anyway.
>
>
>Uh, Gary, the Sea Dragon concept used *pressure fed* engines, which
>don't *have* pumps.  Instead, it used big, dumb, strong fuel tanks,
>pressurized with compressed gas.  This limits you to lower chamber
>pressures than in pump fed engines (otherwise the tanks are too
>heavy), but can be much simpler.

Hmmm. I knew that. I must have been thinking of something else at
the time I posted.

>Moreover, your comment is nonsense even without this fact.  Lower
>chamber pressure lowers thrust mainly because it lowers the mass flow
>rate through the engine (the coefficient of thrust also decreases a
>bit, but not enormously).  Viewed another way, the mass flow required
>to get a given amount of thrust is proportional to one over the Isp.
>Isp does increase somewhat with increasing chamber pressure, but
>rather slowly.  The load on a pump increases linearly with the
>pressure it is required to supply, however.

The load on a pump also increases linearly with the volume of material
it has to move. Naturally I was assuming larger combustion chambers for
the low pressure design so that the mass flow, and thrust, remained nearly
the same. The two designs lead to different stresses, though. A low volume, 
high pressure pump has different failure modes than a low pressure, high 
volume pump. One is not necessarily better than the other.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:44:47 GMT

In article <c!m2y#h@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>I think the DC-Y effort was for $1.2 billion (this sounds low to me, but I
>can't dispute it).

That is Max Hunters figure I believe. I figure it will cost about $4
billion.

Note that due to its low operational costs and fast development time
DC could amortize all development costs at current market launch prices.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------129 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSTO Concepts FAQ
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:37:40
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
Distribution: usa
	<1992Dec18.012552.10183@cs.rochester.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dietz@cs.rochester.edu's message of Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:25:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.012552.10183@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:


   In article <STEINLY.92Dec17154113@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   >to handle the fuelling. Consensus was LOX/LH2 trucks carried
   >about 3 tons, we need 300 tons total - that's 100 trips


   That's wrong -- the figure was that LH2 tankers carry 3 to 5
   tons, but we said nothing about LOX tankers.  LOX is much more dense
   than LH2, and most of the mass of the propellant is LOX.

Ok, I can believe that - factor about 15 in fact from CRC,
so we're looking at 3 ton LH2 trucks and 30 ton LOX trucks?
 - I presume if you go much over 30 tons weight you're looking
at new more expensive trucks (what does KSC use?).

Now, DC-1 wants something like 300 tons total, so 75 tons LH2
and 225 tons LOX? That's still 30 fuel trips, maybe doable with
three shifts in 24 hours, but I don't think you can do it in 8 hours?
Not with one crew.

What mass flow rates do LOX and LH2 pumps use? eg the KSC ones?

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:07:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.102412.27942@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>Also note that the cost of one Shuttle flight is about the same
>>as the entire DC development program.

>One Shuttle flight is a bit less than half the projected cost of DCX
>development to flight test.

DC-X from concept to end of flight tests costs $60 million. A Shuttle
flight costs $550 million. 

If you took the cost of a single Shuttle flight, put it in a good
mutual fund for a year, you would make enough money to pay for the
entire DC-X and then use the principle to buy the Shuttle flight.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------129 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: $5 million/hour
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:52:58 GMT


-From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
-Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
-Date: 17 Dec 92 03:37:33 GMT

->>>Last I heard they're
->>>willing to rent Cosmonaut time at $5 million an hour plus launch costs
->>>for any experimental equipment you want them to use.

-	Hmm, I just did a BOE calculation and figure a NASA astronaut costs
-about 1.6 Million an hour (not including training or on-ground costs).

-	Given a figure of $500 Million a flight, useful work can be:
-10 hours/day * 6 astronauts * 5 days = 300 hours.  Divide this into the
-above number nd you get $1.6 Million.  If this is a EDO flight of 10
-days, your on-orbit costs drop in half.  So, I'd assume that 
-the CIS is trying to make a little money.

I believe Gary's first post on the subject mentioned $5 million an hour
for *EVA* time. That's a little more expensive than time inside Mir or
the Shuttle.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: what the little bird told Henry
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:38:26 GMT

In article <ewright.724096589@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>I'd be curious to know the exact date, sometime in the last 20 years,
>when "success oriented" became a pejorative phrase.

I was thinking about that recently. My conclusion was that it was around
the time MacManera (I know that's spelled wrong) became Sec. of Defense.
He put in a bunch of the changes which makes it so hard to get things done.

Without researching it much, it seems to me that the time it took USAF to
build and deploy a new aircraft roughly doubled when he took over. Ditto
for price.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------134 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space