From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: (new) US Space Program
X-Xxdate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 08:57:39 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:01:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.172143.13881@technology.com> Judy McMillin,
judy@technology.com writes:
>	Norman, you contend that space exploration and development
>	are the next industrial revolution.  Well, the potential
>	is certainly there, but I don't believe we've learned
>	yet how to deal with the more recent industrial revolution
>	-- the one that is destroying this planet faster than we
>	know how (are willing?) to stop it.

Actually Judy, my main contention is that it is a sign of a healthy
society to challenge itself and explore. These types of ambitious
endeavors inevitably lead to larger gains than even the explorers
themselves could imagine. History is riddled with proof of this
phenomenon. 

Furthermore, the WHOLE science and technology budget, including
NASA and the Super-collider is well under 4% of your tax dollar and
this is one of few funded endeavors of the government that returns
a long-term benefit.

However, I certainly understand your frustration with the
present method of doing business. The shuttle is not the
end-all, be-all of manned launch systems. The reasons are many.
First, because the SSMEs are red-lined every flight, they must be
torn down after every flight. The stack must be assembled between
flights. Tiles must be checked and replaced every so often. These
tasks, and many others, cause a huge operations bill to be
tacked onto a shuttle launch that will not be easy to do away with
regardless of improvements and modifications.

Furthermore, the lack of a flexible medium and heavy lift unmanned
capability has added agony and cost to several projects such
as the space station and SEI. The problem is not the size of
the major projects, but the lack of cheap access to space.
We are in dire need of a launch infrastructure.

Despite these problems, we have to make sure we don't throw
the baby out with the bath water. Space is a worthwhile
endeavor. Without too much precognition, I can foresee this
country dominating the commercial launch industry. We
are presently developing a Single-stage-to-orbit capability
through an SDI-funded project called DC. The first non-orbital
prototype (DC-X) will be tested
this spring and the players are very
confident. These vehicles will launch payloads into orbit on
a fully-reusable single-stage vehicle
which then can reenter and land
vertically on legs. The project is attempting to use as
much off-the-shelf technology as possible to cut-down
development costs. The engines will run well under red-line,
the heat shield will be one piece, and there will be no stack
assembly. Operations cost should be two orders of magnitude
less and turn-around times should be a couple of days. Because
the program is building up in stages (DC-X, DC-Y (orbital
prototype), and the DC-1 (first operational vehicle)), we should
be able to achieve cheap and reliable access with less maintenance.
This technology should provide us with manned and unmanned
vehicles and, in time, a wide range of lift capability.
This is the space truck the shuttle was supposed to be.

>
>	I have a vision of the future with Earth as a sort of
>	combination resort and retirement community.  Even though
>	scientists cite all the reasons a spacefaring future is
>	not possible,

The scientists who do this are foolish. Scientists, more
than most people, should understand the dangers of
predicting too far into the future.

> I contend that someone, somewhere may be
>	discovering some little insignificant piece of knowledge
>	that will lead to other more significants pieces, and
>	voila -- eventually, a breakthrough once "known to be
>	impossible."  

Absolutely. This was the point I have been trying to make.

>
>	My problem with the present space program is that there 
>	does not seem to be any goal or direction so why are we
>	being held at gunpoint to pay for NASA to keep doing
>	more and more of the same old things?  

I agree. NASA has become a slave to projects which interest
corporations and the military, and has thus
strayed from their charter as an
organization to perform long-term cutting-edge science and
technology in the regime of Space and Aeronautics. Projects
with commercial application should be
run and funded by corporations, not the government.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc