HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: I thinI see our problem. (Was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? 
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:43:01 GMT

In article <ewright.725060424@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec20.195520.3587@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>I hope the DC program all works and we get cheap and frequent access
>>to LEO, but I don't think it'll operate at airliner costs or schedules,
>
>Gary, 50 years ago you would've been telling us that jet aircraft
>will never at what you now blithely dismiss as "airliner costs and
>schedules."  Hundreds of flights a day in and out of Dallas-Fort 
>Worth?  Planes carrying hundreds of passengers each?  Ridiculous!
>Do you know how much it would cost to build just one runway for a
>plane like that?  A single airport would cost billions of dollars.
>There just isn't that much money in aviation -- not in the whole
>country. 
>
	I think I see our problem here Edward.  What it sounds like to
me (I'm not saying this is what you said, but this is what I heard) is
that DC-1 will do this and that and this.
	In reality it sounds more like you are talking about DC-10,
DC-12, etc.
	Unless you are saying that a 747 is the same plane as a DC-3
was.
	If your claims are about 50 years from now, or even 20
eyars from now, I'll buy them.  If you claim they will all happen
within 5 years of DC-1 flight 1, I have my doubts.

>>It'll still be more cost effective to assemble and test
>>the bulk of space payloads on the ground and boost them to orbit
>>on larger capacity launchers, especially if some effort is put into
>>designing a heavy lifter for low labor costs.
>
>Just as it's more cost-effective to assemble and test
>office buildings at a central factory, then ship them
>to the worksite.  Especially if some effort is put into
>designing a heavy freighter for low costs. ;-)
>
	Just as it's more cost-effective to assemble and test
off-shore oil rigs ata  cnetral plant, then ship them to
the worksite.  Especially if some effort is put into designing
a heavy freighter for low costs. ;-)
	BTW, I believe Japan about 10 years ago DID build a manufacturing
plant and ship it to the Amazon via sea.  Why? because there
were no facilities in teh Amazon to do it.
	


Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:51:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.143159.4832@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes:
>>
>	Well, Paul, I won't even try to convince you with facts.  We'd
>still have flat-earthers if somebody hadn't run out to the "edge" and
>tried jumping off, despite all the great Greek geometry.  

	Actually, before you start blaming the Greeks, keep in mind
that they had a good idea the earth was curved.  They even developed
a rough approximation of the diameter based on the shadow of the sun.

	It was a Greek (the name escapes me) that described a
heliocentric solar system.  Unfortunately Plotemly had better press.

>
>-- 
>
>Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
>rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.


Xref: sparky sci.space:18096 talk.politics.space:1586
From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: The Real Justification for Space Exploration
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:43:24
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu

It seems to me that all of these spinoff arguments, Malthusian
arguments, and "dinosaur killer" arguments miss the point.

Asking "why explore space?" is like asking "why feed the starving?",
"why create art?", or "why do basic science?"  It all comes down to
basic human drives, and I would argue that the drive to explore is
just as basic as the drive to help, to create, or to learn.

The major achievement of Apollo was not Teflon.  The major achievement
of Apollo was putting a man on the moon.

When Sir Edmund Hillary was asked why he climbed Everest, he answered,
"Because it's there."  The same answer is just as appropriate for why
we explore space -- because the entire universe is out there...

Yes, there are pragmatic near-term benefits of space commerce, but
most of those don't extend far beyond geosynchronous orbit.  And there
are many long-term benefits likely to accrue from interplanetary space
development, but most of those will be _very_ long-term.

At some level, perhaps the most honest answer to the "why explore
space?" question is the simplest -- "If you have to ask, you'll never
understand."
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Aerospike engines/SSTO/DC-?
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:20:29 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 <1992Dec20.011900.4635@titan.ksc.nasa.gov> waterman@titan.ksc.nasa.gov writes:

>Lets make an assumtion here that the military has a super secret
>spy plan (Aurora?) that can go (atleast) mach 8 to 10.  
>An engine such as this would need to be built to support a SSTO
>vehicle. 

Ah, there's nothing like a little raving anti-military
paranoa to fuel a good conspiracy theory.

Aurora, if it exists, uses an airbreathing engine.  Such an
engine is not needed to build an SSTO vehicle.  It's not even
clear that such an engine would help.

On the other hand, an aerospike engine would certainly
not help an Aurora-type vehicle.


>The military could not have some non classified project
>stumble on their working design. What then is the goal of the
>military as it comes to SSTO research?

To keep it out of the hands of Elvis Presley?


>The military will oversee the research in this area. Any designs
>which could work (or would lead to the program developing the
>same engine) will be discouraged or lobbied as non workable
>designs. In short the objectives of the military is to assure
>that this country does not have a working civilian SSTO craft.

No doubt that's why the SSTO is being financed by the military.



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: LEI financing
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:58:04 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec22.083808.19764@sol.UVic.CA> borden@sol.UVic.CA (Ross Borden) writes:
>	However, I have a problem with funding by donation.  I would be willing
>to donate ~$100.  But, if I had a reasonable expectation of getting my money
>back, I would be willing to invest several $1000.  I wouldn't be greedy about
>it either.  I would be satisfied to get the principle back at the end of the
>mission.  Call it a 3-4 year no interest loan.
>	I suspect that there would be many other space enthusiasts who would
>be willing to 'loan' sizable pieces of change on this basis.

There would be absolutely no problem financing something like this if a
reasonable return on investment seemed reasonably likely.  It wouldn't be
necessary to gather a thousand here and a thousand there; it could be done
as a straight commercial venture with venture-capital funding.  Alas, there
is no adequate market apparent right now.  At present, you can't make
*Earth* remote-sensing satellites pay for themselves that way, never
mind lunar ones.

>... Could you talk NASA into buying the whole thing for
>,say, $20M ?

NASA would much rather spend (say) $50M doing it themselves than pay
$20M for the data, given the choice.  (Remember, NASA's first priority
in practice is jobs, not results... and they like to be in control.)

>(I recall a proposed bill called something like "Lunar Resources
>Information Purchasing Act" by which the US government would require NASA to 
>purchase the first available lunar resource map.  What happened to it?  Did it
>die, or is there still a chance of passing it?)

It's in the works; you'll see more about it in the next few months.  I'm
afraid I don't have very high hopes for it passing, although it's worth
a try.
-- 
"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: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: satellite costs etc.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:27:15 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec27.163935.20473@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>...assumption, not a self-evident fact.  Communications networks
>>normally have redundancy to cover predictable single-point failures.
>>Even today's gold-plated satellite networks do, despite the expense.
>
>It's the network reconfiguration costs that get you. When NBC had to
>reconfigure from K2 to SBS 3 due to a control failure on K2, it cost
>NBC $150,000 a *minute* for 4.5 hours until the major ground systems 
>were re-aimed...   Doing it *unscheduled* because of
>a failure of the cheapsat, can be really expensive if it only happens
>once.

Why do you assume that the redundancy will involve repointing?  If you
*plan* for such handovers, you can put the spare satellite in the same
orbital slot as the operational one.  (Those slots are over a thousand
kilometers wide, there's plenty of room.)  Result, no repointing.  Only
the control room needs to even *know* which bird is live.

>>>... and since for most orbits
>>>the satellites aren't retrievable or repairable, and DC won't change
>>>that...
>>Again, your assumption, not a self-evident fact.  Cheap launches change
>>almost everything, including the feasibility of retrieval and repair.
>
>I wasn't aware that DC was planned to have a GEO capability, or a large
>enough cargo bay to retrieve a major comsat.

Why do you assume that DC alone has to do everything?  The big expense
of doing most anything in space is getting into LEO; cutting that cost
massively makes *everything* more feasible.  It becomes much more
attractive to develop a tug capable of bringing things back down from
GEO, or a reentry capsule capable of landing a payload too big for a
DC cargo bay.  Neither of these devices is technologically difficult;
they don't exist at the moment because operations costs -- mostly
the cost of launching to LEO -- are too high.
-- 
"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: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Voyager UVS shutdown
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:30:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.164145.9851@head-cfa.harvard.edu> mcdowell@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes:

>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.]

My salary doesn't come out of this budget, and I still think it's a stupid
thing to cut.

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                        These views are solely those of the author.
Flight Test Engineer                <Looking for Internet access in St. Louis.>
McDonnell Douglas, St. Louis
kentm@pro-applejacks.cts.com        Tute-Screwed Aero       Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Aurora chase planes (was Re: Aurora)
Date: 23 Dec 1992 04:32:38 GMT
Organization: UDSI
Distribution: sci
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1h8beqINN9hv@news.cerf.net> davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith) writes:
>accompanying it?  (Mary's definition of "chase plane" is the standard
>one for testing aircraft but we're really talking about an "accompanying
>plane")  Unless there was some major manuevering going on you can't say
>that the F-15 was "chasing" or attempting to intercept with the intent
>of shooting it down or identifying an unknown plane rather than accompanying
>it as a "chase plane".


Mary, it didn't leap out at me from your post,  but I believe most chase planes
are loaded with a couple of cameras,  in the gun mounts and in the
cockpit, to try and record at or above  24 frames/second the behavior
of the experimental plane.  it is useful to know that a trim tab
tore off,  a minute before the test plane crashed.

I think fighters are preferred in this mode,  because with all the hard points
you have lots of places to stick cameras or sensors.

ALSO  IF, repeat IF  this is a real plane,  running Deep Black,  it may be
very worthwhile to try and conduct interception excercises  using
US front line fighters.  if it's made from stealth equipment  and has an
ECM suite capable of spoofing  the APS-6?  radar in the F-16,  then you
have an idea of wether you want to take the bird deep inside kazakhistan.

if on the other hand,  an F-15 or F-16 pilot is able to somehow get enough
of a skin paint during manuevers to get into visual  and then can jump
all voer the AURORA,  then maybe its not as good as one hoped.

One problem on most stealth aircraft is they still have bright angles.
even teh B-2  is visible at certain angles.
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 20:17:25 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <9gt204c@rpi.edu> <1992Dec23.132824.14131@iti.org>

>Correct. But Shuttle is now flying at or very near its maximum rate.
>A working DC (if it works) will have much higher flight rates and can
>thus amoritze over more flights.

   No, I disagree here. NASA has never had four working shuttles in
   service at the same time (not even late '85, Discovery was down
   for Vandenberg preps) so we cannot yet say Shuttle is flying at
   its peak. Near yes, if you consider three or four more flights
   per year 'near'. I think NASA could easily handle 12 flights
   per year, but politics has forced them to cut down to eight.
   In 1992, all four orbiters flew twice, but Discovery was offline
   from February to November, Columbia offline from January to May,
   and Atlantis offline from August to December. Take away those
   downtime periods and you can add three more flights. This is all
   moot, since NASA apparently does not want to push its luck prior
   to SSF assembly, but it does show that the launch rate is lower
   than it could be.

>>Right now, if you stopped all flights,
>>you could argue this cost (excluding interest) is about $150 million
>>a flight. (10 flights/orbiter, $1.5 Billion per orbiter).
>
>You left out the $34 billion (in 86 $$) development costs which must
>be amortized.

     Which is probably why Boeing has not taken the plunge into the
     SST airliner or a 747 successor. This cost seems to effect just
     about everything except the DC series.

     -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ASTM, Saturn and MOL (Was Re: MOL)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 20:55:08 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <23DEC199220530775@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>>...The third stage (S-V) was to have been powered by 2 RL-10
>>engines. The S-V was NOT Centaur...
>
>I can buy the four engines and 6 engine bit, but according to document I
>have found here and the Book "Rocket Scientist" and Medaris's " Cound down
>to Decision" These were desginated the Centaur, although I will go back and
>look and make sure of this just in case.

Stages To Saturn, NASA SP-4206, says specifically that the original S-V
stage was to be a Centaur.  It was slated to be the third stage of the
Saturn C-1 and the fourth stage of Saturn C-2 (which used the S-IV as
its third stage and was to have a new second stage).  (The Saturn C-3
moved things up one more stage, with the S-IV as fourth stage, the
C-2's second stage as third stage, and another new second stage.)

Incidentally, it's important to understand that (a) there were a lot
of Saturn designs proposed -- the same study that nailed down the C-1-2-3
scheme also recomended against proceeding with the Saturn A-1, A-2, and
B-1, and those were only the most promising survivors from a longer list --
and (b) the same name sometimes got re-used (there were at least three
different vehicles named "Saturn C-3" at various times).

>>The 'C' designation was dropped somewhere along the way, with the Saturn C-1
>>becoming simply Saturn 1...
>
>According to Dr. Sthulinger and Konrad Dannenburg the C-1 designation was
>dropped when the CSM was put on the stack...

The C designation was dropped in Feb 1963 when terminology was tidied up.
Before then, it was a C-1 whether or not it had Apollo hardware on top.
-- 
"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: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:12:53 GMT

In article <30DEC199220055213@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

>I would dearly love to see your cost analysis on this Allen. Since the 
>marginal cost for a Shuttle mission is only 37 million dollars, this is
>what it would cost for a reflight.

I work in the real world Dennis. That means I simply cannot pick and choose,
like you can, which costs I pass on and which I don't. The cost of a Shuttle
flight IS a minimum of $550 million. nothing you say about marginal costs
will change that. Tell us Dennis, exactly who is going to pay the share
of the overhead you have decided not to charge to this mission?

In your world apparently you can simply ignore that flights share of the
overhead. You can['t do that in the commercial world without going out
of buisness.

Do you know what the marginal cost of a Corvette is? I'll bet it's less
than $2,000. When you can persuade General Motors to sell you a new
Corvette for the marginal cost of one then I'll let you use the marginal
cost of a Shuttle flight.

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------114 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sea floor Planetary Protection really.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:18:42 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec31.204838.14165@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
>... After it's mission is finished, MO will be raised to a high
>enough orbit to prevent it's re-entry for X thousand years.

This may be a little academic, since as I recall, as of its shutdown in
1972, Mariner 9's estimated orbital lifetime was only half a century.
-- 
"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: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: 7-for-1 study (was Re: Justification for the Space Program)
Date: 22 Dec 92 10:30:37 -0600
Organization: Fermilab Grossforschungenseinrichtungen
Distribution: usa, world
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <1992Dec22.024127.8990@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> 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.
>>
> 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?

The recent "seven-dollar" study (about 4 years old now) was done by
Chapman and Associates  under contract to NASA.  Goldin cited it in
his talk at the Indianapolis town meeting.  I have a copy somewhere
among my effects, but I haven't read it.  :-(

A summary of the German study *was* posted to sci.space in the past
couple of months.  Perhaps some enthusiastic archive jockey can
retrieve it.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
Newsgroups: sci.space