HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:53:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.150800.14058@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.015312.6224@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>
>>The shuttle system itself may not be considered R&D anymore, but it's
>>the manifest that tells you whether it's doing research  or mere
>>"operations."
>
>No, the Shuttle is always doing operations unless it is Shuttle
>itself which is being experimented on. When Shuttle carries spacelab,
>it is engaged in operations *IN SUPPORT OF RESEARCH* but not research.

Under that definition, spacelab is also operations, the gloveboxes and
cameras on spacelab are operations, etc. Looked at differently, spacelab 
is a research *tool* purpose built to do research, and it can only do
that with support from Shuttle which was built to carry things like
spacelab.

>When somebody flies a roll during re-entry to see what happens, that
>is research.

Well that would be *aeronautical* research, but that isn't the only
kind of research being done with Shuttle. Shuttle itself is a long
term testbed for reusable flight. It's already yielded valuable 
information on the problems and benefits of reusability in manned 
spacecraft. Purportedly, the DC program benefits from that knowledge. 
The continuing Shuttle improvement programs are development efforts. 
So R&D is ongoing with Shuttle. It would be very expensive R&D of course, 
if you were to count all of Shuttle's costs as R&D, but it's the only 
reusable manned testbed that is flying *today*.  And, in the course of 
that flight R&D, other research programs like those on spacelab get 
supported at no extra cost. Or the cost gets split among all the
Shuttle payloads, however you want to look at it. There are no ready
flying alternatives to many of the Shuttle missions today, so you
either fly Shuttle or declare a hiatus in manned space until something
new is developed and tested. We went through that once before after Apollo.
Many people think we should have kept plugging along with Saturn, Skylab,
etc until Shuttle proved itself better, or if it was unable to show itself 
better, until an entirely different approach was developed and tested.
But we didn't, and manned space efforts suffered as a result. We shouldn't
make that mistake twice.

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
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: killing the shuttle
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 16:38:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.134734.15459@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <C0IAA3.Axy@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>>You don't get rid of civil servants and politically-powerful contractors
>>that easily.  If you wipe out the Imperial Deathstar, they'll only start
>>building another one.
>
>Today that's true. However, if the conditions existed where a group was
>powerful enough to end Shuttle then the situation would be so different
>that it is impossible to say what would happen.

The AARP may be that group. The headline in today's Atlanta Journal
Constitution says that Clinton will recommend raising the retirement
age and taxing medical benefits as ways of dealing with the deficit. 
Lot's of cranky old people, who all vote in *every* election, including 
me, are going to be demanding that the government cut spending in other 
areas rather than break the social contract that we've spent our lives 
paying into. "Throwing money away in space" is going to be a prime target.
If the meataxe falls, Shuttle won't be the only space spectacular cut.
Clinton's new Defense Secretary  designate is already telling a cheering
Congress that $60 billion will be *easy* to cut out of DoD's budget. And
you can bet that district pork isn't high on that chopping block. SDI
is likely a goner, and along with it any space programs it funds. DC
better find a private sugardaddy in a hurry. May I suggest the Japanese
or the Saudis?

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
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Post-StarWars Detritus (was: Who can launch antisats?)
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 18:33:19 GMT

F.Baube x554 (flb@flb.optiplan.fi) wrote:
> Doug Mohney <sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu> writes:
> > Actual use of a nuclear weapon .. would result in ..
> > EMP problems you'd cause for commercial sats and 
> > (possibly) electronics on the ground. 
> > It would be bad. And a waste of good fissionables 
> > for other purposes.
> 
> There could also be megabits of nugget-sized space 
> junk to ventilate any later space vehicles.  But also, 

Nope.  The warhead wouldn't be in orbit and its doubtful if any fragments
would attain orbital velocity of any kind during the explosion.

> if plutonium warheads are "destroyed" by Smart Pebbles 
> (or whatever they're being called now), couldn't the 
> atmosphere be filled with enough plutonium dust to 
> give every person on the planet bone cancer ?
> 
A lot of interception technology is based on giving the target enough of
a shock to disable the high-tech firing mechanisms and/or guidance systems.
Nuclear warheads don't explode when intercepted.  They just don't go off 
when they get to the target, if they get there at all.  You just wind up
with a lot of small, very dangerous impact craters on the ground.

--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:16:51 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan5.211253.20530@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>It is my understanding that since the post-Challenger return to flight,
>NASA has been forbidden to fly commercial stuff on the shuttle. Am I
>wrong?

Partly.  They're forbidden to compete with commercial launch suppliers,
which shifted a lot of comsats and the like off the shuttle.  However,
there was a long list of exceptions, and also quite a bit of stuff that
was deemed shuttle-unique for one reason or another.  They still do a
fair bit of commercial business.
-- 
"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: gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Saving an overweight SSTO....
Organization: Burdett, Buckeridge & Young, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:53:46 GMT

Suppose DC-X works more-or-less as planned, and they go ahead and
attempt to build a DC-Y/DC-1.  And suppose the pollyannas are right
and it bloats and the dry mass goes up.

There are a couple of scenarios here:

1) It's overweight by some relatively small amount, say, 5000lbs.  This
leaves 5000lbs payload, still a worthwhile cargo.  And the price/lb is
double projections, but still a small fraction of ELVs.  So the
project is still a win, albeit smaller.

2) The mass overrun is a substantial fraction of payload, or exceeds
payload.  Then a possibility would be to delete the life support and
crew cockpit and use the thing unmanned.  This should get enough mass
back to get to case 1, perhaps with slightly lower reliability (due to
automated operation).  Costs would be higher than case 1 due to the
need to buy replacement DC-1s that the robots have totalled that
manned pilots wouldn't have, but could still be at least competitive
with existing ELVs.  The project is pretty much a wash, but valuable
experience is gained.

3) The mass overrun is much larger than that.  At this point, the
project is lost; however I suspect that (given the findings of the
various reports into the general feasability) this is much less likely
than the previous cases.

And in any case, you know a lot more than when you started, and you
can do it right next time! 

Greg.
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
			Dizzy Gillespie: RIP.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:07:30 GMT

In article <1idkmgINNak1@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>Facilities costs can be paid with the interest on the savings.

>It's statements like this that make me wince when I read your posts. 

>You can't get interest on money just because you don't spend it; 

It's just an expression! All I am saying is that the cost of facilities
is only a few hundred million $$. I realize that nobody is going to
actually collect any interest; I was simply using an expression to show
how small the expense would be compared to the savings.

>Besides, even if we do save all the money you claim, I don't see it being a 
>fair trade for scrapping chunks of the U.S. aerospace industry in favor of 
>the Russian industry.  

Far from scraping, this will SAVE large chunks of US aerospace. The
Russians will get contracts worth maybe $250M per year. In return, the
US commercial launch market will roughly double producing about $1.5
billion in new MLV orders.

More importantly, US space will be working not to maintain an
albatros but to reducing the cost of space access and growing the
space market. We will see a stronger growing space effort to replace
the dying and stagnant one we suffer with today.

      Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------108 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:22:41 GMT

In article <J85swB3w165w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper) writes:
>> Not good enough, alas.  The pressure at the *center of the Sun* produces
>> only the most sluggish hydrogen reaction -- one that will take billions
>> of years to consume the Sun's hydrogen supply.
>> 
>> Ordinary hydrogen burns quickly in thermonuclear reactions only under
>> near-supernova conditions.  The heavier isotopes used in fusion bombs
>> burn like gasoline by comparison, to the point where they are distinctly
>> rare in the universe -- even the small supply existing on Earth requires
>> significant effort to explain.
>> 
>> Building the ramscoop itself is the easy part (difficult though it is).
>> Getting the hydrogen to *do* something useful, once collected, is hard.
>> Using it as reaction mass for an antimatter-powered jet engine is going
>> to be much easier than trying to burn it raw.
>> -- 
>> "God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoolog
>>        -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
>
>Ah, but that would defeat the entire purpose of the ramjet itself!  You 
>are now carrying around a mass of fuel equal to what you are going to tak 
>in in the scoop.  Now we get into all of the standard limitations, as the 
>faster you want to go, the heavier the ship's going to get, the more fuel 
>you'll have to carry, the heavier the ship's going to get, etc. ad 
>infinitum.  The *REAL* advantage of the ramjet is that this is not 
>happening.  The fuel is just waiting out there, and it just so happens 
>that the faster you go, the more you're going to collect.
>
>Of course, I'm not using the p-p fusion until I'm into the speeds where 
>the beta- decomposition involved is not a problem probability-wise, due 
>to the large number of chances it will have.  How's a carbon-catalyzed 
>reaction sound for getting there (except at the lower end, where we'll 
>have to use some conventional engine to attain a speed at which THAT 
>reaction is possible)?
>
>                                                Jason Cooper


Good grief, guys.  Since we're speculating all over the place here about
science-yet-to-come, why not build a quark-catalyzed ramscoop.  All the
advantages of muon-catalyzed fusion except that the Quark doesn't decay.
All you have to do is crack open a hadron!  If you want more details,
please let me know and I'll post them.  (I'm only half joking, by the way.
Quark-catalyzed fusion is a "serious" possibility if quarks can be unbound.
Emphasis on the if.)
 
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: SEI
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: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:54:57 GMT


-From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
-Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
-Date: 5 Jan 93 14:53:12 GMT

-In article <4JAN199322375651@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
->  [model deleted]

-This model fails the test put to it in 89. According to your model, when
-Bush proposed SEI in 89 it should have triggered another increase in
-NASA funds (like Shuttle and station did). It didn't.

That's because SEI didn't sell, largely because of the projected 
horrendous cost (~$400 billion, if I recall correctly). In fact, the
proposal of the SEI "package deal" may have had a negative overall effect
on manned space exploration, because even very small projects that get
the SEI label attached are perceived as committing the government to the
whole program at current projected costs - sort of like someone trying to
sell a $10 million mansion to a person with a middle-class income by setting
the first payment at ten dollars.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Earth-approaching asteroid
Date: 4 Jan 93 12:58:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0BypI.9L2.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


CNN Headline News showed a radar image of the asteroid that flew by the
Earth on December 8. The commentator said that the image had 100 times better
resolution than any previously taken of an Earth-approaching asteroid (it's
still not as good as the Galileo images of Gaspra).

The asteroid appears to be very rough, and is composed of two large chunks
(possibly held together by gravity).

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Xref: sparky sci.space:19069 sci.astro:13804 sci.math:17881 sci.misc:1986 sci.physics:22379 sci.physics.fusion:3227 sci.electronics:22303
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: SEI
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: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:48:28 GMT


-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
-Subject: Re: SEI
-Date: 7 Jan 93 09:41:19 GMT

-roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

->...SEI didn't sell, largely because of the projected 
->horrendous cost (~$400 billion, if I recall correctly). [liability
->to any mission related to SEI, "camel's nose under tent" effect]

-SEI was the ultimate manifestation of the old NASA/Von Braun style 
-of space development, sold honestly.  We're going to tell you today 
-just how we're going to develop space, out into the middle of the next 
-century.  We've got all the Next Logical Steps planned out, just so.  
-Of course there won't be any technological advance before 2030 that 
-would make our plans obsolete.  Of course we won't discover anything on
-the asteroids that would make them better targets than the Moon
-or Mars, or on the comets, or on Jupiter, or anywhere else in
-space; obviously the Moon and Mars are the Next Logical Steps
-and that's that.  Obviously the commercial and military satellites
-are just trivial child's play against our inspiring and ambitious
-Plan.  Obviously Man In Space is central, and robot probes will play 
-only a peripheral role, and no technoligical advance can change that.
-This is a Long Term Plan, so don't expect any sort of applications 
-or payback, except of course there will be Spinoffs.

That was very well argued - clearly, there are problems with promoting
such a technology-dependent program in such an inflexible manner, and in
failing to more clearly define intermediate benefits and the value of
corollary activities (such as unmanned space exploration and resource
exploitation). Any idea where SEI as a political entity originated?
I get the impression that it came from outside the top NASA administration
of the time.

There's another interesting point - many people who post to sci.space on the
topic of space policy say that the main need is for a single coherent plan
that covers all space activity. But SEI shows the pitfalls of such an
approach. I'm inclined to believe there should be several approaches, 
which are fairly non-overlapping in their scope, but which cooperate
with one another. Such an approach might provide greater flexibility
to deal with new developments. Care must still be taken to balance
long-term goals and near-term plans - part of current activity should
be directed toward immediate interests, and part should be preparation
for future activities. The latter should not be so solid that they
can't be readily changed as new information and technology is acquired.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:48:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.190820.1850@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <72526@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>
>Nobody puts people into space just for the hell of it. They are there to
>perform tasks. Given that, one can ask what those tasks are and wonder
>if there are cheaper ways to do those tasks. We can also decide if the
>tasks are worth doing at the price we must pay.
>
>I assert that there are no payloads which must fly on Shuttle and are
>worth flying. If you are going to disagree, please do so with a cost
>analysis or your arguement will be meaningless.
>
	If men are part of the payload, the Shuttle is (currently) the
only way to fly!  Now, we could just discontinue manned flight for the
next few years (I won't argue how many) until the wondrous DC-1 is
available, but some folks would argue there's plenty of value in
medical, operational, etc. research and development in the intervening
years.
N.B.: My opinion, your mileage may vary.

-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hevans@estwm0.wm.estec.esa.nl (Hugh D.R. Evans (ESA/ESTEC/WMA Netherlands))
Subject: Re: future space travel
Reply-To: hevans@estcs1.dnet.estec.esa.nl
Organization: European Space Research and Technology Centre
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:47:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.150737.29688@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary
Coffman) writes:
|>We like to think that life is infinitely adaptable, but what it
|>adapts
|>*into* may not be recognizably human or even terrestrial under extra-
|>terrestrial conditions. A long term space habitat could clarify the 

With all of the talk recently about saving endangered species, why not
create a few from
scratch?  Sure there will be mutations from the Homo Sapiens norm, much
as the various
races on Earth have adapted (in minor ways such as skin tint), but these
mutations will
allow the evolving species to survive easier in its new "natural"
environment.

So, if we decide to send man into space to live, don't expect him to
come back looking
as he did when he left.  Besides, if we can't find another intelligent
species in the neighborhood, 
we may as well make one.

Hugh

--
InterNet -	hevans@estwm8.dnet.estec.esa.nl

 "Alcohol is very important for young people because it provides a sort of 
  'liquid adulthood.'  If you are young and you drink a great deal it will 
  spoil your health, slow your mind, make you fat - in other words, turn you 
  into an adult."
	P.J. O'Rourke - Modern Manners, Etiquette for Rude People
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:25:07 GMT

In article <C0937v.FvM@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)  
writes:
> In article <PqVNwB6w165w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca  
(Jason Cooper) writes:
> >> I don't know exactly how you will get the hydrogen to fuse in the ramjet.
> >> So far that problem remains unsolved here on Earth, except for fusion
> >> reactions catalyzed by atomic explosions.
> >
> >The H will be highly compressed by the pressures from the rest of the H 
> >coming in.  It'll be blocked where it stops by magnetic fields...
> 
> Not good enough, alas.  The pressure at the *center of the Sun* produces
> only the most sluggish hydrogen reaction -- one that will take billions
> of years to consume the Sun's hydrogen supply.

I understand that a pile of human bodies (still alive somehow) as
large as the sun would have about the same mass, but would produce
more heat!! 
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: The Perils of Dante
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 23:32:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

Lessons learned from Dante:

	A) NASA should never work with spools of wire or cable :-)

	B) The more moving parts, quadruple the chance of something breaking.

Hopefully they'll come back next summer and run it without someone spraying
lubricants all over the fiber optic cable, or other human intervention.

Further, I'd hope they'd eventually work out a package 5 years down the
road where they drop the Dante/Carrier combo out of a C-130 and run a TOTALLY
hands-off mission as a dry run to Mars. For that matter, they could/should
run practice runs on rovers down South. ....


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space