HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: begley@l14h13.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: EVA costs
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:48:17 GMT

In article <BzFxGA.xC.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
writes:
>While it wouldn't be fair to divide the cost of an entire Shuttle mission
>by maximum EVA time to get US EVA costs, I expect a more reasonable
>accounting method would still get a figure up in the millions of dollars
>per hour. Don't the EVA suits have a certain maximum number of hours they
>can be used per flight?
>John Roberts
>roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
>
   The suits have about 7 hours of oxygen in their primary O2 tanks,
and about the same amount in their secondary tanks under normal use
conditions.  But since the secondary tanks are meant to serve as
a supplement should the suit get a leak or the primary system fail,
this does not give the astronaut 14 hours of oxygen.  The real limiting
consumable is battery life, about 8 hours.  But this limit is for each
EVA.  Once the suits are hooked up to the orbiter, the oxygen, water, and
batteries are filled and recharged.  (The secondary O2 tanks are not 
rechargable because they have 3 times the pressure as the primary tanks.)



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:24:12 GMT

In article <ewright.724353431@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>Also note that the cost of one Shuttle flight is about the same
>as the entire DC development program.

One Shuttle flight is a bit less than half the projected cost of DCX
development to flight test. It doesn't even begin to cover costs for
the development of DCY which requires different structures and engines,
or of DC-1. That's not to say that the DCX program isn't worth the cost,
of course it is, even if it fails we'll learn a lot, but it's not as cheap 
as you claim.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: fast-track failures
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:48:57 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec13.182843.9876@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>There are numerous examples of aircraft programs where the fast 
>track success orientation led to unacceptable aircraft. Look at
>all the gaps in the P and F series aircraft. Those gaps represent
>aircraft that never made it past the prototype stage because of
>unacceptable problems that cropped up with the design as development
>progressed...

Actually, if you look at the history of the P/F series, most of the gaps
(at least, in recent times) are aircraft that the USAF simply decided it
did not want as production fighters.  F numbers were assigned at the drop
of a hat, often to projects that never had any guarantee of getting off
the drawing board.  The bulk of them did *not* run into technical trouble
(although some might have if continued).

The F-23, F-20, F-17, and F-12 were all fine aircraft, technical successes,
that the USAF didn't buy because it liked alternatives better or did not
want the capabilities they offered.  The F-19 and F-13 never existed
(unless you believe, as many do, that the stealth fighter was supposed to
be the F-19 -- "F-117" is technically not a proper designation).  There
are no gaps before F-12, although there are some pretty obscure Navy
aircraft in there as a result of the Great Number Unification.

Back before that...  The numbers ended at F-111.  The F-110 was renumbered
F-4 in the G.N.U. (no need for two numbers for one aircraft).  The F-109
never bent metal.  The F-108 and F-103 were cancelled during prototype
construction because they were expensive and the USAF didn't want Mach 3
interceptors; both were technically challenging but, as far as I know,
were on track with no show-stoppers visible.  The F-107 worked fine but
lost to the F-105; the prototypes flew as experimental aircraft for years.
The F-99 and F-98 were "unmanned interceptors" -- missiles -- renumbered
into other code sequences before operational service (I think one was
the Falcon and the other the BOMARC, but my references aren't handy).
I *think* the F-97 was the little delta-wing experimental prototype that
proved the delta concept for the F-102.  That's where my memory gives
out... and we're back into the early 1950s.

Just which aircraft were you thinking of, Gary?  I can think of one
aircraft that had a bad performance shortfall but was redesigned and
continued into a successful program (the F-102).  I can't think of
*any* F-series "gap" in the last 40 years that fits your description.
-- 
"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: loren@pixar.com (Loren Carpenter)
Subject: Re: what the little bird told Henry
Organization: Pixar - Pt. Richmond, CA USA
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:36:00 GMT

In article <Bz0GD5.IHG@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <Bz0890.AxF.1@cs.cmu.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
>>Hmm... every report that seems to come out says that the reason it's possible
>>now is because of the NASP materials research.
>
>>BUT: if the main place where NASP materials seem to be being used is
>>the heat shielding, and its re-entry temperature is lower than the
>>shuttle's, wouldn't shuttle re-entry materials be just as useful?
>
>They'd probably work as well, but there is a durability problem.  Having
>to inspect every last damned tile is the last thing you want to do for a
>vehicle that's supposed to have rapid turnaround.
>-- 

	Indeed.  I have an engineering sample of the white tile material.
	It has a color, density, hardness and stiffness similar to a fine
	grained foamed chalk.  At first it seems like a smooth styrofoam,
	firm and warm, but little white dust particles flake off as you
	handle it.  It would be easy to stick a pencil clear through a tile,
	though it would probably crack.  A moderate hailstorm would require
	replacing all of them.


		Loren Carpenter
		loren@pixar.com

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: what the little bird told Henry
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:16:32 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 <1992Dec11.193826.4590@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>Without researching it much, it seems to me that the time it took USAF to
>build and deploy a new aircraft roughly doubled when he [McNamara] took over. 
>Ditto for price.

If only that was true.  Until the early sixties, the usual time
to design, build, test, and acquire a new aircraft was four years.
A crash program could do it in considerably less time.  (The P-51
Mustang was, literally, a 90-day wonder and the SR-71 was designed
and built in 18 months.)  Today it takes about 15 years.  If McNamara's
reforms *only* doubled the time to acquire a new airplane, we would
be much better off today.

It's estimated that stretching out an aircraft development program by 
one year adds something like 30% to the cost.  

McNamara brought to DoD the skills of scientific management that he 
had used at Ford Motor Company, where he was responsible for such 
successes as the Ford Edsel and singlehandedly remolded Ford into
the modern, scientific company that would dominate the world auto
industry for next two decades.;-)  After leaving DoD, he went on
to the World Bank, making loans to countries that could never repay 
them.  He has, in short, made an entire career out of failure, and
is still considered one of the "best and the brightest" for it.  I
agree, "success-oriented" is probably not one of his favorite words.





Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: what the little bird told Henry
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:22:16 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 <1992Dec13.182843.9876@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Success oriented has always been a pejorative phrase in any complex
>developmental program that isn't tolerant of major program slippages
>and that doesn't have practically unlimited funding to fix problems
>as they appear. IE any non-military or commercial program. 

Actually, commercial projects tend to be very success oriented, 
because (unlike the public sector) failure does not bring in 
more money and when the money's gone, the project's over.  The
failure-oriented, "cover your butt" mentality only ensures
failure, and that doesn't go over big with investors and financial
people.


>Any realistic development program *expects* problems along the way 
>and plans for alternative approaches if one of the developmental 
>technologies fails to live up to it's promise. Apollo took extraordinary 
>risks in the Saturn booster program and suffered near catastrophe at 
>least twice, either of which could easily have been like the Soviet N-1 
>failures instead of the successes they were.

Oh, I see.  You aren't afraid the project will ultimately fail.
You're afraid that someone will get killed along the way.  In
that case, we'd better put an end to all large industrial projects.
Have you ever heard the saying, "every bridge kills a man?"

Better sell your car, too, and put all the money into health
insurance.  Stay home.  But don't go into the bathtub.  Even
that won't ensure perfect safety, however.  There is no absolute
certainty this side of the grave.


>Ask Mary about developmental programs. 

Ask Mary yourself.  My family has been in the aircraft business
since the turn of the century.  We ran the *first* success-oriented 
development program. :-)


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:28:20 GMT

In article <ewright.724353431@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>Also note that the cost of one Shuttle flight is about the same
>as the entire DC development program.

Not quite. It wold take about 1.5 years of Shuttle funding to develop DC. Now
for the cost of a Shuttle flight, you could run a program to answer all the
open technical questions and have enough left over to buy a Titan IV to
launch the payload which would have gone up in the Shuttle.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------131 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space power systems
Date: 19 Dec 92 22:25:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzJ2CM.6Mx.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


-From: pcs@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Paul Schuytema)
-Subject: {pace power systems
-Date: 19 Dec 92 17:50:38 GMT

-Call for help:
-I am a freelance writer and I am currently working
-on an article for Omni on space power systems.
-I am interested in solar, nuclear, and other power
-systems which will be used for basic power
-(life support, computers, etc.) for manned missions,
-especially such things as space stations, Mars runs,
-and deep space xplorations.  I am interested not only in what
-is currently being developed, but also "far flung" ideas.
-I would like to correspond with interested researchers and
-elp.

Just to mention a few of the less obvious systems:

Solar Power: photovoltaic systems are fairly well known, but solar thermal
systems less so. They typically would use huge lightweight mirror systems
to concentrate sunlight, and use the concentrated energy (plus a heat sink)
to drive a heat engine, usually a mechanical closed-cycle device (Stirling
cycle).

Nuclear power: RTGs (radioisotope thermal generators) are fairly common,
and nuclear fission is sometimes used. In both cases, I believe the mechanism
is heat used to operate a thermocouple (inefficient, but there's plenty of
power available). The Atomic Energy Commission used to study a system I haven't
heard about in years - a nuclear battery that uses beta decay (I think) to
generate thousands of volts at perhaps a few microamperes.

Magnetic effects: for spacecraft in non-polar orbit around the Earth, it's
possible to interact with the Earth's magnetic field, to convert orbital
energy to electric power, or vice versa. (The latter is probably more useful -
a satellite can use solar power to boost its orbit.) The Tethered Satellite
System (TSS) recently flown aboard the Shuttle is such a device.

And of course the "futuristic" possibilities include fusion, matter-antimatter
reactions, interactions with the sun's magnetic field or the solar wind,
and power beamed from the Earth or some other site via laser or microwaves.

If you get your article published, please post the date of the issue it's
in - I'd like to see that.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 21:22:45 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)


>That a DC-X and a Titan IV launch could be had for the cost of a Shuttle
>mission I believe.  What I don't believe is that you'd get any knowldgeable
>volunteers to fly a Spacelab mission on a Titan IV.
>
>Mike

Ever hear of the "Manned Orbiting Laboratory"? A Gemini with a very
Spacelab-like module launched together by Titan III.

-Brian
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Orbit Question?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 18:32:55 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <BzBL1E.BJq@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <Bz9wz3.7pu@world.std.com> tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker) writes:
>>11 and a half north of it.  Very efficient.  I wonder why the Canadians 
>>don't lease time on the CIS's satellites?
>Canada doesn't do much in the far Arctic, where Clarke-orbit satellites
>are impractically low on the horizon, so we don't really have the need
>for the extra complexities of moving satellites.



Also, I believe canada does not do much over the pole telecoms stuff.
The US relatively has more phone circuits to Moscow.  I know
a number of US companies are bidding for Soviet transponders because
there is insufficent bandwidth to the CIS and a number of those birds
are good for comms work to asia.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: HANY%JCSVAX1.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Stellar Evolution Research
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 13:38:41 GMT

I am doing a research project at school about star lives, and stellar
evolution. Where can I find good material that is neither very plain and
simple (like Sky&Tel articles), nor extremely technical ?
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:40:49 GMT

In article <ewright.724533084@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>McDonnell Douglas has estimated the total development costs of the DC-1
>at $1.5 billion.  I don't recall exactly how much money has been spent
>on DC-X, but it's in the range of a couple hundred million.  NASA spends
>over a billion dollars on each Space Shuttle flight.  I think you've
>indulged in some creative accounting. 
>
	Gee, they must be investing their moeny pretty well then.  The
budget for shuttle operations last year was between $4 and $5 billion.
There were 8 flights.  Hmm, I don't get over $1 Billion a flight.

>
>
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Freeman Dyson biographies...
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:06:35 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: The Voice of Fate

In article <Bz42F0.F0.1@cs.cmu.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
>/Also, for a good read, check out "The Starship and the Canoe" a biography
>\of both Freeman Dyson and his son Chris.  Talks about Freeman's work on
>/Daedelus.
>
>I've read it. It's passable in most parts, but altogether it's horrible.
>The author feels so much more morally superior to both Dysons but
>apparently especially to Freeman Dyson himself.
>
	
	I must admit it has been years since I've read it, but I do
want to defend it a bit.  I agree taht the author in some ways comes
across believing himself to be morally superior that Freeman.  In the
case of his son Chris, the author seems to be saying "Nice, quaint, but
someday he'll have to grow up."  I disagree with it being horrible
though.  I was greatly intrigued by the idea of canoeing up and
down the west Canadain coast.  The builind og the canoes was interesting
also.
	The author tries to paint a picture in contrasts of the
son exploring "inner-space" and the father exploring "outer-space".
While a neat idea, it falls flat.

>I was also disturbed by the general attitude its author seemed to
>have towards people working in the physical sciences and/or engineering.
>
	This I don't recall to be honest.

>If you want to read a good biography of Dyson, that is fair and
>still (IMHO) doesn't pull any punches, try the biographical parts
>scattered through his own works. They're better written, more fun,
>and also have a lot of good ideas, _firsthand_.
>
	For a good biography, I'd ahve to agree.

On the same token, if you've not yet read any of the books by
Dr. Feynman, I highly suggest them.  The man had a ready wit and
led an interesting life.

>-- 
>Phil Fraering
>"...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat."
><<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
>PGP key available if and when I ever get around to compiling PGP...
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Subject: What is a VSAT?
Originator: mock@benz
Reply-To: mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Organization: MIT Center for Space Research
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:52:49 GMT


Does anyone know what does VSAT (Very Small Aperature Terminal) mean 
in the context of satellite communications?

Thanks
Pat
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle thermal tiles
Date: 19 Dec 92 23:11:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzJ4Ft.7yG.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


-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: Re: Shuttle thermal tiles
-Date: 19 Dec 92 00:54:41 GMT

-Anybody know if anything's been released on Buran's tile technology?
-Allegedly the Buran tiles are not as long-lasting, but they're tougher.

They're also much shinier than Shuttle thermal tiles.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:26:06 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <ggm2ljr@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>	Another question though:  Am I correct in recalling that the goal is
>to use pilots, and not astronauts (at least in the NASA sense) to fly the 
>proposed DC-1? 

Correct.  Astronauts are too expensive and too scarce.

>Who will do satellite repair?

Satellite technicians, who know how to do it right.

Except for a few of the most dedicated and conscientious ones, astronauts
make poor substitutes for people who know what they're doing.  You don't
hear much about the times when astronauts screw things up because they're
sure they know what they're doing even when they don't... but it happens.

>Who pays for training? The
>customer, or will McD (or whoever operates it) have "on-call techs" that
>you can pay extra for...

I don't think McDD plans to be in the operations business for the DCs,
any more than they are for their airliners.

In practice, it would probably make sense to have both.  Some jobs will
be involved enough to require giving specialists a crash course in
spaceflight; for simple things it will be more cost-effective to give
space-trained generalists a crash course in the particular job.
-- 
"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: Micro-g in KC-135
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:15:20 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1gfti1INNaqj@rave.larc.nasa.gov> claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes:
>What causes the microgravity in the KC-135, the centripetal 
>acceleration at the top of the parabola, which may cancel the gravity 
>acceleration,  or something else???

You don't "cancel" the gravitational acceleration, you fall with it.  The
KC-135 flies the exact trajectory that it would follow if it were falling
free in a vacuum.

That trajectory isn't exactly a parabola; it is in fact a segment of an
elliptical orbit (one that intersects the Earth's surface).  It's very
close to being a parabola.  It would *be* a parabola if the Earth were
flat and gravity did not diminish with altitude.
-- 
"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,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary