HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:43:11 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Dec27.160134.20228@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Ask your company's accounting department what they figure it costs to
>keep a productive engineer on the payroll. 

Don't have to.  I already know the figures.


>$100,000 a year is on the low side. Most companies figure it's 
>closer to $250,000. 

The ones that are no longer in business.

If we spent that much on each employee, personnel costs would exceed 
gross revenues.  And that allows *nothing* for manfacturing, materials,
etc. 

But then, I'm not working for Gary Coffman, Inc.


>That engineer not only has salary, insurance, workmen's comp, and 
>paperwork costs, he also has to have office space and the tools of 
>his trade, usually at least a workstation. Plus there are the supporting 
>secretaries, managers, janitors, and of course the accounting department. 

But you just said you weren't going to provide any of those things,
Gary.  The engineers were going to live at Motel 6 and work at home.
And it was still going to cost you over $100,000.

Weasel, weasel.




Newsgroups: sci.space
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:31:51 GMT

In article <BzHH37.9r5@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <b-p254n@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>>	Umm, so?  Tell me, did you see 3 aircraft landing at the same
>>time, or flying in formation?  Did you see baggage transferred between
>>them while in flight?  I'm not talking about on the ground, I'm talking
>>about in space...
>
>Why do you assume that "in the air" is a better analogy for "in space"
>than "on the ground" is?  Flying aircraft in close proximity is vastly
>harder than doing the same for spacecraft, because of the complex and
>unpredictable behavior of the atmosphere.  In-orbit operations resemble
>on-ground operations more than in-flight operations:  the environment
>is simple and predictable and you can take your time.
>--
	I make the analogy for two reasons.  One as you point out may be
invalid.
	Let's handle baggage transfer.  On the ground, you have gravity
and the surface.  You can walk/carry/drive between two planes.  In
air, you have to somehow manevour.  As you point out, the air itself
makes this tricky.  But in space, you don't have something nice like
the ground to use.  So, the astronauts have to use MMU's or make
blind leaps between the three crafts.  

	As for manevouring the 3 craft in close proximity, I partly
agree with you.  It is easier than doing it in the air.  However,
you do have three craft now all with somewhat different velocity
vectors.  I believe that the Intelsat rescue was the first time
both bodies were active in terms of maneuvering.

	I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it won't be done.
Simply that some thought and PRACTICE will have to go into it.

	Perhaps sea operations are a better example.  But I don't think
so. 
>"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,talk.politics.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: University of Rochester
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:29:11 GMT

In article <22DEC199214411374@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

 > I will no longer debate you on this subject. You have your "opinions",
 > which is all your responses to date have been, and I have mine. You
 > work for your worldview and we will work for ours.
 >
 > You speak of quasi-religiousness when the exact same thing can be said
 > of your asserations.

Oh, *please*.  I've posted numerous quantitative arguments in rebuttal
to your claims.  I can even provide references for those numbers, if
you'd like.

 > I have work to do. I live in the real world. If you actually think
 > things are getting better from a world perspective then you are truly
 > blind. This is a simple fact, not a flame.

By most objective measures, the world is getting better.  The world
has never been, on average, wealthier, healthier, better fed, or
better educated than it is today.  These are *facts*.  You can look up
the numbers.  These trends have been going on for decades, in spite of
the continuous (and continuously wrong) doomsaying.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DCX/DC-1/DC-0 and what is it..
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:52:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Dec23.155229.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

I must have missed something, I speak from ignorance, so please forgive me.
What is the DCX or DC-1 or DC-0? Please email me some info on it.. Thank you.

Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:55:53 GMT

In article <22DEC199214490402@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

>>I have read this many times in nasa releases and every time it struck a sour
>>chord. [spinoffs]

>Ed this is not NASA propaganda but from the Wall Street Times somtime in 1989.

So what? The same can be said for any research. A huge research program to
genetically engineer human intestinal bacteria to make flatulence smell
like spearmint would have a similar effect. Spinnoffs sells research in
general, not space research.

BTW, the Annenberg foundation did some focus group studies on the population
attitudes to space. They found people totally unimpressed with the spin-
off arguement. What DID strike a chord was the idea that they as individuals
may be able to participate and even go. My own experience backs this up.
We need to quit selling spinnoffs and sell space for all of us.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------153 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:39:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.200706.29744@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>>prevented from some action.  The government doesn't subsidize mountain
>>climbing; why should it subsidize much more expensive space escapism?

>The fact that you can equate these two things just shows how
>out of touch with reality you really are.

Oh I don't know about that. I see lots of similarities. Both climbers and
astronauts are small groups of well trained people. Both spend lots of
money to do what they do. Both are limited to letting very small numbers
of people do something exciting. After all, I will never climb Mt. Everest,
nor (the way things are going) will I ever go into space.

Now you might argue that space is the future of mankind and that a
spacefaring civilization is more important than rock climbing. I aggree
with that but must point out that if you think current government space
activity has anything to do with that then YOU are the one out of touch.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------115 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments)
X-Sender: newtout 0.03 Dec 29 1992
Date: 29 Dec 92  11:31:24

I *knew* that my assertion would catch your attention.
 
The Space Shuttle is the most expensive launch vehicle (per pound in orbit)
that exists today. I believe this, but cannot prove it.
 
The "official" NASA budget line item for the shuttle operation does not
include all shuttle-related expenses. During the 1990 authorization process,
Richard Truly was asked how much of NASA's budget went towards the shuttle -
his response was "about two thirds". Since NASA's budget then was about $14
million, it isn't hard to imagine shuttle launches at over $1 billion a pop.
 
Using a 50,000 lb. payload for the Shuttle to calculate its cost per pound
does not take into consideration the trivial fact that the Shuttle never
carries 50,000 lbs into orbit. Maximum payload weight for a safe abort is
40,000 lbs, and the shuttle rarely carries that much weight.
 
Finally, all of these figures ignore the development and construction costs of 
the shuttles. Figure those in, and you get an average launch cost of $1.67
billion per pop.
 
I'm sure that Pegasus' launch costs are much lower than the Shuttle's all
things considered.
 
However, I freely that I hold this opinion largely on the basis of a gut
feeling, rather than the available numbers.

--- Maximus 2.01wb
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Air ops vs. space ops (was Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities)
Date: 22 Dec 92 11:31:57 -0600
Organization: Fermilab Grossforschungenseinrichtungen
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <9ls2_fp@rpi.edu>, strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
> In article <BzHH37.9r5@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>In-orbit operations resemble
>>on-ground operations more than in-flight operations:  the environment
>>is simple and predictable and you can take your time.
>
> 	Let's handle baggage transfer.  On the ground, you have gravity
> and the surface.  You can walk/carry/drive between two planes.  In
> air, you have to somehow manevour.  As you point out, the air itself
> makes this tricky.  But in space, you don't have something nice like
> the ground to use.  So, the astronauts have to use MMU's or make
> blind leaps between the three crafts.  

See *2010*.  The first cosmonaut across uses an MMU.  She brings a
rope with her.  Subsequent transfers are straightforward (if the
engineers have done their jobs on handling of this tethered system!).

Crew transfers between aircraft in flight have been done.  See the
career of Ormer Locklear, the greatest wingwalker of all time.  I
believe the first aerial refueling (and if this story is not true, it
damn well *ought* to be) was accomplished when a wingwalker strapped a
jerrycan to his back and climbed from one DH-4 to another.  (DH-4s are
another proud product of the Canadian Aerospace Industry.)

Given proper equipment and training in both cases, an in-space
transfer or refueling operation *is* less dangerous than the
equivalent in mid-air.

> 	I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it won't be done.
> Simply that some thought and PRACTICE will have to go into it.

Right.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
Fermilab                          | until I write the song
Bitnet:      HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | that makes the guys in Detroit
Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | who draw the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Date: 27 Dec 92 16:01:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Dec27.160134.20228
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

In article <ewright.725152007@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec20.192544.2996@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Today's overhead is horrible, but $100,000 1940s dollars is only about
>>$2 million 1992 dollarettes.... That's about 20 engineers in a Motel 6 
>>for six months, no machine shops, hangers, mechanics, flight test equipment, 
>>nada.
>
>You think a typical engineer earns $100,000 a year?
>
>I want to work for your company!

Ask your company's accounting department what they figure it costs to
keep a productive engineer on the payroll. $100,000 a year is on the
low side. Most companies figure it's closer to $250,000. That engineer
not only has salary, insurance, workmen's comp, and paperwork costs, he
also has to have office space and the tools of his trade, usually at least
a workstation. Plus there are the supporting secretaries, managers, janitors,
and of course the accounting department. Engineers aren't cheap to keep
around, even if their take home pay is low.

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
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: University of Rochester
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:41:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.023353.10922@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gcoleman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George Coleman) writes:

>>for every dollar spent in space there is an estimated 7 dollar return in
>> space spin offs.
>
>I have read this many times in nasa releases and every time it struck a sour
>chord.

If this is the study I am thinking of, it used the methodology of
simply assuming that spending by NASA on R&D was as productive as
private industrial R&D.  No attempt was made to actually identify the
spinoffs, or judge NASA's contribution to them.  The more recent
German study showing that space R&D is less effective at creating
spinoffs than private R&D (as judged by patent citations) would tend
to discredit this.

I don't recall who did the study, but it got mentioned in this
newsgroup some years ago...  anyone remember?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:51:57 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <ewright.725755862@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>>chemical rocket propulsion, for rather fundamental reasons.  It is
>>therefore not inconceivable that multistage launchers would be
>>appropriate even though multistage aircraft are not.

>I didn't ask if you could say "It is not inconceivable."  I asked
>if you could prove it.


No, what you did was deride a careful and thoughtful analysis by Bruce
Dunn by offering a strained analogy between aircraft and spacecraft.
I merely pointed out your analogy was flawed.

Since Bruce was the one who posted the quantitative argument, it
seems to me that it is incumbent on *you* to offer concrete evidence
why he is wrong.

	Paul
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA's role in space
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 28 Dec 92  08:59:32

The Tethered Satellite System should be a case that fits NASA's role perfectly 
- a research program in a new field. However, even that program was frought
with the burden of the "old" NASA. The current program managers probably
couldn't even name the program managers who were responsible for the original 
design. 
 
Howver, there is a big difference between NASA engaging in basic science, and 
NASA operating a launch system. 

--- Maximus 2.01wb
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Apollo 13 book
Date: 21 Dec 92 11:54:35 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <BzJ7ou.7tG@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <72000@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>> "Houston, We've Had a Problem" is a NASA/Government Printing Office
>> non-technical account of the Apollo 13 accident. It is about a ten
>> page magazine-sized booklet.
>> 
>> I only know of one other "book" about the accident, that being
>> "13: The Flight That Failed". I think the author was Henry S.F. Cooper...
> 
> Correct.  H,WHaP is pretty lightweight.  Cooper's book is the most detailed
> treatment I've seen.  I'm not aware of any other books entirely on the
> accident.

There exists a multi-volume investigatory commission report on the
accident.  I've seen it in a university library but haven't read it. 
A little work with Internet library catalogs might turn it up.

There's also a made-for-TV docudrama on Apollo 13.  I watched about
twenty minutes of it once.  Not too impressive.  I think it is also
called *Houston, We Have a Problem.*

> Murray&Cox's "Apollo" does a good job on Apollo 13.

Yup.  Apollo spacecraft had a crew much larger than three... but most
of them were not aboard.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Enough marshmallows
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | will kill you 
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | if properly placed."
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | --John Alexander, leader of
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | "disabling technologies"
 [*Aviation Week*, 7 Dec 1992, p. 50]  | research, Los Alamos
From: broberts@wpi.WPI.EDU (broberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Help needed looking for info on Internet!
Date: 21 Dec 1992 17:55:31 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu


	Hi, I'm new to the Internet, and the amount of information
	seems overwhelming! Can anyone help me find some online
	information about space/science info or any other interesting
	stuff. Thanks alot!

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: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:07:15 GMT

In article <71877@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>>NASA spends over a billion dollars on each Space Shuttle flight. I think
>>you've indulged in some creative accounting.

> The Space Transportation budget this year was about $5 billion, if
> memory serves. NASA flew 8 Shuttle missions this year. 

This number does not include NASA overhead, amortization of the orbiter,
amortization of Shuttle development costs, and a host of other costs. Adding
those in puts the cost at well over a billion per flight. Hell, interest
costs on development alone adds over a quarter billion per flight (BTW,
this interest is not a sunk cost since it is part of the national debt and
we are paying for it even now).

>You have done the 'creative accounting' here, I'd say. 

No, it's NASA who is being creative by ignoring billions in cost. BTW,
if a private company ran their books the way NASA does they would be
thrown in jail for fraud.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Aluminum as Rocket Fuel?
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:27:49 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Karl Dishaw writes:
> >Bruce Dunn writes:
> >When the
> >aluminum is melted in the tank, the fuel line, valve, and injector will
> all
> >be heated to above the melting point of aluminum.
>
> I'd hate to see the performance hit from carrying a heater that
> powerful.  Wouldn't it make more sense to pump the aluminum onto the
> rocket as a liquid and only have a heater powerful enough to offset
> cooling?
>


        Sorry for the sloppy wording.  I meant rather "when there is melted
aluminum in the tank".  I am envisioning a system in which aluminum is
premelted, possibly in a solar furnace, and poured into an insulated
tank/valve/combusion chamber unit.  The aluminum will bring the whole system
up to temperature, and melt any residual aluminum from the last firing.  I
expect that it won't be too hard to insulate the assembly well enough to keep
the temperature above the melting point of aluminum for days.  I don't think
that a heater will be required.  If heating is required for long term
operation, the logical thing would be to admit a small amount of oxygen into
the fuel tank to react with the aluminim and heat it.

--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Centaur on Saturn
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 23:38:45 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <72444@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>   ... But wasn't this discussion REALLY about
>   whether Centaur actually flew on a Saturn? Not was it intended to,
>   but did it ever go up on one? It didn't, to the best of my knowledge.

What this discussion was originally about is perhaps debatable... :-)
No Centaur ever flew on a Saturn; the S-V stage was dropped from "mainline"
Saturn planning in June 1961, although Saturn/Centaur persisted until
1965 as the intended launcher for the original Voyager project.  The first
four Saturn I launches (and possibly the fifth, it's not entirely clear
from my references) carried dummy S-V stages with the right shape and
mass, but none was ever real hardware.
-- 
"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: jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell)
Subject: Re: Galileo's high-gain antenna still stuck
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 00:06:19 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta
Keywords: Galileo, JPL

In article <2JAN199323293310@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>The hammering sessions will continue all the way through the entire month
>of January, if necessary.  Even though the first hammering attempt didn't
>open up the antenna all the way, it did have a postive effect.  

This certainly sounds like a spot of good news. My fingers are
crossed. :)

I am curious about one thing: the contingency plans for the 40 bps  
data speed vs the 110,000 (?) bps included a lossy compression
scheme related to JPEG that would allow compression of between 10
to 100 times. If the HGA is freed, allowing the high speed
transmission, will the compression still be used (hopefully with
'a higher Q value') so that even _more_ data than anticipated in
the original mission plan be returned?

Joshua
|         A shimmering net undulating like an infinite borealis.             |
|                                                  - Chapterhouse: Dune      |
|                                                                            |
| jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca  Academic Computing Services, University of Calgary |
Newsgroups: sci.space