From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Sabatier Reactors.
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:03:19 GMT

In article <24JAN199320503892@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

>I wonder if people like this are just trying to provoke me? The last I heard
>was that SSF was going to use LOX/H2 thrusters for orbit maintainance.
>Am I wrong? If so, then they are MORE risky than hydrazine.

Yes you are incorrect. According to a friend of mine at the Reston Program
Office they will be using hudrazine thrusters. BTW, these thrusters are the
single heviest items to be returned to Earth. They must be returned intact
since it would be too dangerous to re-fuel them in orbit.

>Also for your information, NASA has been flying station precursors for
>over ten years now. They are called Spacelab.

Spacelab is an experiment carrier. It will tell us nothing about
building large scale structures in space and cannot be considered a
station precursor.

>Also NASA has sponsored COMET, which will
>fly in March, which is a free flying microgravity laboratory with a return
>module for returning samples that have been through their process cycle.

NASA is buying launch services from COMET. NASA woldn't have been able
to build the COMET system itself.

>So NASA, who you think is stupid, IS doing what you are saying there, and
>for a lot more money than a full up program of throwing away hardware.

Since you agree that the NASA program costs a lot more money, why don't
you thing we would be better off with the cheaper program of throw away
hardware?

>All of the Spacelab and Spacehab experiments can be used again for very
>minimal costs,

Buying launch services at three times the price the private sector
pays cannot be considered 'minimal cost'.

>These experiments are all important as precursors to SSF because we can get
>all of the bugs out of the experiments

I would rather get the bus out of the station first and then worry about
the experiments.

>See there NASA ain't half as dumb as the average poster to sci.space.

Dennis, The Wake Shield facility would cost NASA $93 million to build
(according to their cost model). A private company is building it for
$11 million. Spacehab would have costed NASA $1.1 billion (again,
with their costing model). A private company is doing it for $153
million. NASA would have taken eight years and $1 billion to build
the same DCX vehicle which McD is building in two years for $60 million.

Apply those ratios to your everyday life. Would you pay $20 for a
Whopper from Burger King? NASA would. Would you pay $100,000 for
a Ford Escort? NASA would.

Do you consider this intelligent behivior?

>It is also easy to criticize before you find out the facts. I suggest that
>you might take the time to do a little research to find out exactly what is
>going on in NASA before you are so blith in your criticism.

We have Dennis. We have.

>There are many problems at NASA, but there is also a lot of good things
>going on.

Absolutely. But they are overshadowed by the bad things and will continue
to be as long as people ignore the problems.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------141 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space