HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:46:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.194901.16883@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>Allen, is it concievable that an SSTO vehicle could be built with the same
>payload weight capability as the shuttle with the same base technologies?

As I understand it you can scale up to some degree. Eventually you will
want to lighter NASP materials which aren't being used in DC-Y and more
powerful engines. There is also the tri-propellent engines which have
the potential to greatly increase payload.

I believe that if DC-Y works and can deliver 15 to 20 thousand pounds to
LEO then building a 40K version should be possible.

>By the way, I am in the process of trying to convince Gore to back the
>SSTO and NASP programs as well as the SEI program. Any ideas you could provide
>would be appreciated. Also, let me know if I can be of service to your
>efforts.

Do you have one of our packets? If not, email me your address and I'll
send you one. It will help you with selling Gore. If you can get a meeting
with Gore, let me know. If it helps, offer to meet him anywhere and I'll
get you there (within reason :-)).

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------158 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: eatlv@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (thomas.vandoren)
Subject: Shuttle Bashing
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:55:27 GMT

   All this shuttle bashing has made me think...

   I agree we need a low cost people mover, and a low cost cargo mover
AFTER the space station is built.   I hear a lot of complaining that the
multi-purpose approach to the shuttle was wrong.  Well, when the shuttle
was designed we needed a multi-purpose vehicle to accomplish our long-term
objectives.  At the time, all we had was an expensive way to get people
to orbit, cargo to orbit, or people to the moon.  One shot at a time.

   The main point I want to make is that you NEED the shuttle to build
the space station.  Sure, I think using the shuttle as a science platform
is ridiculous, why bring your lab up and bring it down all the time.  Leave
it up there!  Just bring what you need TO it.  Once the station is built,
then we need some new alternatives.  However the shuttle has done a great
job at being an all-purpose vehicle and has given us the experience in a
multitude of space uses.  Not just one-shots to the moon, now we know
how to build, do science, retrieve satellites, repair satellites etc...

   I think what we need next is, a people launcher, a cargo launcher,
an in-orbit vehicle (for satellite maint. IF economical), and long-term:
moon shuttle, and interplanetary vehicle.  Then we are on our way to
extending the future of the human race.

Lee
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:40:41 GMT

In article <69532@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>I think it was a terrible mistake to offload all those payloads
>from the Shuttle in 1986-88. Of our unmanned boosters, only Delta seems to
>be operating reliably. It is my opinion that NASA should have continued
>using Shuttle for as many payloads as possible, while diverting as much
>booster development money as possible into NLS or some other unmanned
>launch system. 

[Description of Titan IV problems deleted]

>Titan IV has flown 6 times since June, '89. STS has flown 22 missions in
>that time frame. Of course, STS is more expensive. But its already paid
>for, and all that money for Titan IV (not including Martin's Titan III
>program) has bought us little.

[more deleted]

>It seems to me
>that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best returns on
>investment in the space community!

I agree wholeheartedly with that last statement, but I still believe that
removing commercial and non-Shuttle-unique payloads from the Shuttle was a
good idea.  As I explained in my previous post, the Shuttle is a very unique
and versatile vehicle.  It has tremendous capabilities no other vehicle can
touch, but it can only fly eight times a year.  In that situation, using it
to do things that can easily be done on other vehicles (e.g. launching spy
or commercial satellites) is a waste of a valuable resource.  The Shuttle
should be used exclusively for missions like the Hubble revisit, the Intelsat
satellite rescue, Tethered Satellite System, International Microgravity Lab,
Wake Shield Facility, etc.  There are no shortage of payloads to fly.  NASA
has no flight opportunities and less than a half dozen payload opportunities
between now and the start of Space Station operations.

According to the mission control status briefings, the astronauts were working
12 to 16 hour days.  Payload volume may not have been the active constraint
for STS-52.

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92                              Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:52:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.143407.21964@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
...
>Most of the savings are because we are approaching the problem in a different
>way. The old way costs did need to be high because designs where complex
>and always pushed the technology. Keeping it simple (the first rule of good
>engineering), using existing well tested technology, and not pushing
>envelopes reduces costs.
>
>>Hmm, didn't you just say that Congress should just fund the DC-X,Y?
>
>A mis-statement on my part. I ment if Congress properly funds DC-Y. I
>do expect that DC-1 would be built by the private sector.
>
	If you are using well tested current technology, why should
the gov't. pay for any of the craft?  I'll agree that NASA has fumbled
several balls in the arena of routine space tranportation.  One of
its original missions, and the one I hope it returns to is to indeed
"push the envelope".  Do the R&D for NASP; do the R&D (and even
initial construction) for space habitat/labs (I'll leave the question
of Freedom's suitability open); do the lunar/planetary explorations.
But if your claim to fame is that you can do all the transportation
using current technology and are not pushing the envelope, then
convince private concerns that they'll turn a profit, and invest in it
themselves.  If GD, McD, Boeing and the rest really wanted to, they
could put enough heat on NASA to convince NASA to leave the "space
truck" market altogether.
-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:21:54 GMT

Sounds like a good way to get our whole current fleet grounded.  Seriously, 
I think a better approarch might be the cost reductions to EOS that could be
had if we could use a Delta Clipper to launch them.

>>When a project goes from zero visibility to the network news, it makes
>>all the difference in the world because most politicians (and most
>>Americans) don't care about anything that doesn't make the network
>>news.  (Let's just hope the launch happens on a slow news day.)

I'm not so sure that we even want the public to know about it until its ready
to fly.  Skunkworks only works in a low-profile situation.  The minute DC
grabs public attention there will be demands for Congressional oversight.
"To make sure the taxpayers' hard-earned money is spent properly."

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92                              Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:51:45 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov20.155202.16554@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes:
>	If you are using well tested current technology, why should
>the gov't. pay for any of the craft?

The components are mostly well tested.  The combination is not.

>But if your claim to fame is that you can do all the transportation
>using current technology and are not pushing the envelope, then
>convince private concerns that they'll turn a profit, and invest in it
>themselves...

Indeed so.  But the first step to showing profit potential is establishing
that the concept works in practice, and this involves enough up-front
financial risk that the private concerns have not been willing to fund it.
(People have tried.)  Nobody is confident enough in the concept that they
are willing to bet their future plans on it, which means no firm orders
for SSTO launchers... and not even Boeing will build an airliner without
getting at least a few firm orders signed first.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: adamsd@crash.cts.com (Adams Douglas)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: navigation state vectors
Date: 18 Nov 92 06:05:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: crash.adamsd.722066752
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA

In <1992Nov16.194042.10071@erg.sri.com> ple@erg.sri.com (Paul Evans) writes:

>My understanding is that what is usually referred to as
>the state vector is really two vectors, a position vector and a
>velocity vector.  
This is more properly thought of as a single, six-dimensional vector.
Sometimes, it may be a list of orbital elements or even a quaternion
in some applications.

>Are the spacecraft onboard computers continually updating the state
>vector?  I could see where this might be a possibility for the shuttle
>in earth orbit, but what about the Apollo missions?  I can't imagine
>continually solving that kind of n-body problem with the limited
>onboard computing resources available at that time.

The STS computers are indeed continually updating the state vector. This
just consists of reading the data from the INS accelerometers and tweaking
the values. It's a fairly straightforward process to get an orbit out
of a state vector.

On Apollo, you could safely assume the spacecraft had zero mass compared
to the Earth-Moon system. You were thus reduced to a two-body problem 
with a zero-mass object migrating between them. Actually, since the motions
of Earth and Moon could be computed ahead of time and stored in a table,
it was even simpler than that.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: bgoffe@seq.uncwil.edu (Bill Goffe)
Subject: Re: SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement)
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:52:13 GMT

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

[material deleted]

>>When a project goes from zero visibility to the network news, it makes
>>all the difference in the world because most politicians (and most
>>Americans) don't care about anything that doesn't make the network
>>news.  (Let's just hope the launch happens on a slow news day.)

>We need to do other things as well. There was an article on this in
>a recent issue of Design News and the British newspaper The Guardian
>is also working on an article.

I understand that there will be an article in the British newspaper
The Daily Telegraph on Nov. 20.

Bill Goffe
bgoffe@seq.uncwil.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:10:45 GMT

In article <1e8qk2INNccc@spock.usc.edu> cbehre@spock.usc.edu (Charles Behre) writes:

>What level of success would the DCX testing program have to show to make it a 
>viable candidate?  

There are two things which need to be validated. First is the aerodynamics of
the 'flip maneuver' they use on re-entry. The second thing is to verify
their models and simulations on tasks needed for rapid operations (can the
engines be serviced as fast as they think, ect).

>Does this program have the ability to fascinate congress and
>Al Gore if it demonstrates what it intendend to do? 

I hope so. We are working hard on that (again, let me know if you want
to help). We have shown a few key people that there is support for this.

>On the other hand, would a
>DCX program shifted to taking on the duties of a HL-20 be a disasterous 
>move in terms of the programs efficiency?

Depends on who executes it and how.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------158 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:04:00 GMT

In article <ewright.722117294@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>The second goal is vastly more important than the first. If the flip
>manuever proves problematical, the next vehicle could be redesigned 
>to use a more conventional base-first reentry (like Apollo).

Agreed but with one minor nit. The flip maneuver allows DC to use existing
conventional bell nozzles. The GD design could enter base first but had
to have an aerospike nozzle to do it. Since aerospike nozzles have never
flown, that would add another risk to the propulsion system.

>Nothing that doesn't have "ecological disaster" in its title has
>the ability to fascinate Al Gore.  

Hmmm... this gives me an idea. Maybe the way to sell SSTO to Gore is
to emphasize the non-poluting fuel it uses. Deltas and Titans burn
nasty stuff which wold cause problems in large quantities.

>However, Milton Freidman used to tell a story about geese and politicians... 
>[story deleted]

>The critical test, I think, is public opinion.  If the American
>people get really excited about this, Clinton and Gore will quickly
>move into the "I said it was a good idea all along" camp.  

Exactly! And we need to let them do it and thank them for it.

>When a project goes from zero visibility to the network news, it makes
>all the difference in the world because most politicians (and most
>Americans) don't care about anything that doesn't make the network
>news.  (Let's just hope the launch happens on a slow news day.)

We need to do other things as well. There was an article on this in
a recent issue of Design News and the British newspaper The Guardian
is also working on an article.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------156 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:02:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.133412.15599@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>Your saying that since the subcontractors are turning a profit it therefore
>follows that NASA is making a profit. If you think about that for a moment
>you will see that it makes no sense.

I would hope this country could do more with its space program than just keep
its contractors profitable.  But NASA isn't a contractor -- it's a government
agency.  Government agencies don't earn profits, nor should they.  They should
be doing things in the public interest that can't earn a profit.  If it earns
a profit, then it should be done by private industry, not government.

>Profit is when you collect more in fees/sales than you spend. If you add
>up all the money collected in fees and subtract out the amount spent you
>will see that Shuttle has lost billions.

So?  The Shuttle was never supposed to earn a profit -- it's run by a govern-
ment agency called NASA.  The interstate highway system didn't earn a profit
either, but most people consider it money well spent.

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92                              Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hubble
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:06:41 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <wkv102l@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>>The really interesting space
>>telescopes are the small ones, not the megaprojects...
>
>...An optimist would say NASA has gotten out of the
>megaproject mentality.  A pessimist....Henry?

I'd say they're being slowly forced out of it because cost bloat has
gotten so bad that Congress will no longer tolerate it.  They still
see small projects as supplements to the megaprojects rather than
replacements for them, though; it's only just starting to dawn on
them that there won't be any more megaprojects.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: hugh@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson)
Subject: Re: SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Canterbury, New Zealand
	<ewright.722117294@convex.convex.com> <1992Nov19.150400.24961@iti.org>
	<ewright.722279476@convex.convex.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:40:26 GMT

>>>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:11:16 GMT, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) said:

Edward> In <1992Nov19.150400.24961@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>We need to do other things as well. There was an article on this in
>a recent issue of Design News and the British newspaper The Guardian
>is also working on an article.

Anyone know which issue of design news that was?

Edward> Timing is critical.  I know that McDAC isn't spending a lot of money
Edward> on advertising and PR, but I hope they're ready with a good press
Edward> kit to hand out at the first launch.  Space groups supporting SSTO
Edward> should have their own press kits ready also.

My mother tells me that a TV show we get here (NZ) called "Beyond
2000" (its Austrailian, but I believe that lots of countries get it)
had a segment on DC-{X,Y,1} a couple of weeks ago.  I missed it :-(.
Anyway the segment was enough to get my mother excited enough to rave
about it to me.  This leads me to believe that it could have quite an
public appeal if it was sold to the public properly.


Hugh




Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:2808 sci.space:16197
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: 20 Nov 1992 18:23 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov19.144842.23088@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <BxxDL7.9Ly@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
>>>The US shouldn't be putting it's money into the design of ANY expendable
>>>launcher. We have done that for too long and it's hasn't reduced launch
>>>costs by a dime.
> 
>>Actually, this isn't a very sound argument.... [Henry goes on to say
>>that it hasn't been tried and examples from China and Russia show it
>>CAN be a lot cheaper]
> 
>Allow me to rephrase: NASA has shown that it cannot execute large multi-year
>multi-billion $$ projects in a cost effective manner. Some blame for this
>goes to Congress, and some to NASA. Asking them to do it again will simply
>waste more money and delay the creation of a spacefaring civilization.
> 

No Allan, what has been shown is that when you micromanage a program and or 
cut the budget below the request and or stretch the program to "save money"
Nasa nor anyone else for that matter can complete a job in a cost effective
manner.  There are many NASA programs that have been completed on time and
under budget WHEN that whole budget has been provided AND no recissions or
redesigns or other crap has been foisted on the program.

>I don't doubt that much cheaper expendables CAN be build (Zenith Star
>launchers for example cut costs in half). I simply don't believe that the US
>government can build them.
> 

The baby saturn can do the same thing. Funny thing is that the NLS 1 design
ended up in the single engine configuration that we propose for the Baby 
Saturn.  Oh by the way I have confirmed the existence of at least 8 well
preserved Saturn F1 engines at the Marshall Space Flight center. They are
doing some work on them. However it looks like the cost of refurbing the
F1 test stand is a bit high to implement right now.

By the way Henry, I found out some interesting stuff there are three versions
of  the Saturn V first Stage. These are as follows

S1C-T			Test Stage for Manufacturing and Ground firings
                        This is the one at the Alabama Space & Rocket Center

S1C-D			Dynamic Test model. Was later scrapped at the end of 
                        the program.

S1C-1,2,3....           Flight Saturn S1 C stages.