HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 17:14:21 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <72332@cup.portal.com> <1992Dec27.204310.21837@iti.org>

>A few years ago I saw some figures on the amount of overtime needed to
>process a Shuttle. It was horendous. Adding more Shuttles will just tax
>the groundcrew even more. Adding staff to eliminate this bottleneck will
>only increase costs.
>
  They've gained alot of experience in a few years... like twenty
  more launches under the belt... Overtime has come way down since
  Return-to-flight, but I haven't the figures to offer you proof.

>Your assuming that orbiter availability is the only bottleneck.

  And your assuming they can't do any better than they are now.

>I'm sure they could add one or two flights a year. But so what? all that
>means is that instead of spending three times what we need we are 'only'
>spending 2.75 times what we need to. I don't consider that much of a
>victory.

  You contradict yourself in this paragraph, Allen. A two flights per year
  increase in the 8-per-year schedule is a 25% increase. I can't think of
  any private firm, as you normally cite, which would not want a 25%
  increase in output. Titan and Ariane would be thrilled with it. It could
  make or break DC-1. But for Shuttle its meaningless? Come on...
 
  You seem to have two sets of measuring systems at work. One which you
  use for DC, Titan, Delta et al, and one which you use for Shuttle.
 
 -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
X-Xxdate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 13:47:49 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:51:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.184656.14629@cs.rochester.edu> Paul Dietz,
dietz@cs.rochester.edu writes:
>	Year		Increase       Same   Reduce   End    No Opinion
>	1984		   21%		48	23	5	3
>	1986		   26		50	14	5	5
>	1989		   27		42	22	4	5
>	1990		   17		37	32     10	4

Thank you Paul, I truly appreciate it.

However, this just proves what I have believed for a long
time. First, in response to questions like this people are going to list
those items which effect their lives immediately first. Second, the
average citizen has no understanding of the benefits derived from
science R&D including space exploration and no real
vision of the future (NASA has failed at public relations). Finally,
note that they support manned over unmanned and they are for
keeping funding the same (not ending it as you have suggested).
I am bothered by the fact that nobody asked the question if funding
should increase at the inflation rate.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Latest Pegasus news?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:24:05 GMT

In <1992Dec31.004513.12224@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>You misrepresent my position. All I'm saying is that new systems are
>rarely as cheap and easy in metal as they are on paper. 

Gary, I refer you to my recent posting where I compared DC costs to 
Shuttle costs. I encoumbered DC with development costs but not Shuttle.
I doubled DC's DDT&E, production and operations costs. It still came up
a winner.

Nobody is saying it will be a piece of cake. Are you saying that a factor
of two isn't enough to cover the risk? If not, then what's your point?

  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----------------------+
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Re: Aluminum as Rocket Fuel?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:53:56 GMT

> Karl Dishaw writes:
>
> --the injector plate is going to need an internal heater to keep the LAl
> from solidifying as it passes through and to keep it clean for restarts.


        I would think that the easiest configuration would be for the
combusion chamber to thermally coupled to the tank of molten aluminum, with
only enough of an intermediate flow passage to insert a valve.  When the
aluminum is melted in the tank, the fuel line, valve, and injector will all
be heated to above the melting point of aluminum.





--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
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
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:21:52 GMT

In article <BzFK5F.Dwn.1@cs.cmu.edu> MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB") writes:

>Wind tunnel test results and CFD simulations are usually sufficient for 
>design of experimental flight vehicles.  Therefore the question remains: 
>If lack of *flight-test* data is seen as the long pole in the tent 
>(holding things up), why isn't it being flown on the admittedly 
>experimental DC-X (and DC-Y)? 

DC-Y is a proof of concept. The first goal must me to achieve reusable
flight with rapid turnaround and some payload (even if only a pound).

After that is achieved, we will have an excellent testbed for doing
research on aerospike nozzles, new materials, and everything else.
This will allow us to continuously improve the system.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Moral Justification
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: sci,na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:43:30 GMT


> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) asks:
> 
>>2) How do you convince that factory worker that lost his job to a robot
>>   that his money should be spent to help put him on the street?

I guess there are two issues here.  First is the question of "fair"
use of tax revenues and second is the question of automation.

While I agree that governments often spend tax revenues foolishly,
I think that subsidies to industry can be good.  If the subsidy is
in some part funded by revenues obtained by taxing those who
become unemployed as a result then it is in the interest of both
the taxing authority (govt) and industry to provide new employment
opportunities.  If the source of revenue (the taxpayer) stops paying
taxes then what?

As for the second implicit point, that of a worker being replaced
because of change, it sort of reminds me of the story of the
farrier who went to court to try to get automobiles outlawed in
his town because it threatned his horseshoeing business.

Or as my grandmother used to say, "Time and tide wait for
no-one."  You can either change along with the world or
let it leave you behind.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: juan@hal.COM (John Thompson Reynolds)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:36:43 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.


I've seen references in the past which suggest using Lunar O2 and Aluminum
as rocket fuels.  Have there been any fairly detailed designs of how such
a beast would be constructed?  Perhaps a hollow cylinder of packed Aluminum
dust into which LOX is pumped?
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Breeder reactors
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 19:14:02 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Distribution: sci
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <1992Dec21.181018.21422@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <BzMDJq.2KJ.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:
>
>> Maybe it's just as well.  The way I heard it, France is already reaching
>> the point where the costs are becoming dominated by uranium ore
>> recovery, as it gets rarer & rarer.  And they've had nukes for what,
>> 15 years?  That's pretty short, especially considering all the other
>> high-tech-costs in reactor operations.
>
>You heard wrong.  Uranium prices are so depressed that mines are
>closing.  Spot market price is around $10/pound; the U-235 in one
>pound of uranium can produce about 20,000 kWh of electricity.  It
>could increase in price by a factor of 20 or more and still not
>dominate costs.

Plus you can get processed stuff Really Cheap from mother Russia these days, IF
you can outbid DoE's contracts :)

Or are we accusing Russia of DUMPING uranium to keep prices down and drive
(inefficient, goverment-subsidized) U.S. companies out of business.


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Media and space
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 15:49:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.045416.15301@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>Concerning public opinion about the space program, IHMO those opinions can
>and are greatly influenced by the media's depiction of space exploration.
>Next time watch news coverage of a shuttle flight.  Invariably some reference
>is made to the cost of that particular mission, plus any important technical
>information is either watered down or omitted.

>I've had people tell me that the media doesn't cover the space program very
>much because people aren't interested.

>But here's somethin to think about: did people lose interest and the media
>reduced it's coverage in response, or did the media cut back coverage and then
>convince people that they weren't interested in it?

How much interest SHOULD there be in any particular shuttle launch?  If we
had an adequate space program, there should be not much more interest than
in a trip of an ocean liner.  As the saying goes, "When man bites dog,
that's news."  

Nor should anyone expect every observation made by a space probe to be
spectacular.  Any research program will have experiments or observations
made which are valueless; if we knew what we would find, it would not be
necessary to look for it, unless we can directly exploit it.

The first landing on the moon was quite properly a big media event, but
it is not at all surprising that the later ones were less so.  
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 11:24:00 PST
Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

miles@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Miles Abernathy) writes:

> I don't know exactly how you will get the hydrogen to fuse in the ramjet.
> So far that problem remains unsolved here on Earth, except for fusion
> reactions catalyzed by atomic explosions.
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>   _     Miles Abernathy, N5KOB        =
>  | |__  miles@emx.cc.utexas.edu       =
> _|    | POB 7580, Austin TX 78713     =
> \  * /  University of Texas @ Austin  =
>   \/    tel. (512) 471-6521           =
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


The H will be highly compressed by the pressures from the rest of the H 
coming in.  It'll be blocked where it stops by magnetic fields...

                                                Jason Cooper
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:41:18 GMT

In article <neff.13.725750112@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu> neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff) writes:

> Most polls show that the public wants a manned space program, and they
> are willing to pay for it.

You have to be careful with polls.  A poll in which people are asked
"do you want a manned space program?" will ellicit a generally
positive response.  However, similar questions on other issues, like
education, health care, and so on, ellicit much more positive
responses.  The *relative* support of the space program is not very
high.

Followup to talk.politics.space.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,misc.education
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Justification
Keywords: gifted talented
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 18:29:45 GMT

In article <BzwqHE.HGB@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blumb@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bill Blum) writes:
>In article <Bzvn8D.JB4.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

>>Has anyone had personal experience with magnet schools? I'm curious about 
>>whether they provide any benefit.

>Well, I did not attend a magnet school, but I was part of a gifted/talented
>program in grades K-8.

>My only complaint was:  Some programs (such as the one I was subjected to)
>do not take into account that not all students will be interested in the
>same things.

>We were taught Spanish, we produced plays, we saw nature films.
>A friend of mine and I grew immensely bored with the material presented and
>spent our time in the library, reading books like Issac Asimov, etc.  I was
>never given a reason to WANT to learn Spanish, or to learn about nature, or
>to care about drama.  

Is what is taught there of interest to anyone other than prospective
dramatists and others with a totally non-scientific approach?  You were
being taught trivia, not important content.  If you were taught linguistics,
so that you could get an understanding of the structure of language, rather
than memorizing vocabulary with no rhyme or reason, it MIGHT have been
worthwhile.  If you were given the mathematics, then the physic, and 
then the chemistry, to understand nature, this might have been worthwhile.
But the garbage given in the gifted/talented programs is at a level far 
below what the typical students were expected to be capable of before 
those responsible for the attitude that "we teach children, not subject
matter" got in control.  What you were taught in these programs supposedly
for those who are capable of a first-class educations should have been
considered recreation, rather than education.

>I'm sure that magnet schools would fare better in this regard---they are
>aimed towards what some students WANT.

Fat chance!  This is the best the teachers are capable of.  There is nothing
in the nature of a curriculum designed to greatly increase the knowledge and
ability of the student.  The attitude that memorizing is education, and that
there is no structure, has effectively killed the system.  We can look things
up in dictionaries and encyclopedias, and on computers.  The good students
need to be exposed to structure and ideas, and they are capable of at least
five times what the typical teachers can handle.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ckp@netcom.com (Charles Pooley)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Summary: a good reason for 2sto
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:15:06 GMT


People keep debating the merits of 2sto vs ssto, and are overlooking what
I think is the main consideration.

In climbing and accelerating to orbit it can be said there are 2 distinct
environments in which the rocket operates.  Near liftoff, there is
substantial atmospheric pressure and aerodynamic loads as the rocket
accelerates through 'max-q' and towards the 2nd environment: near vacuum
conditions at altitudes above about 200,000'.

So, for the 1st environment, the 1st stage should have the durability to
cope with the aerodynamic loads and have engines optimised for use in
atmpsphere.  As the velocity attained by the 1st stage will be less than
the exhaust velocity, the mass ratio and specific impulse will be moderate.

Also, a means of recovery would be built into the 1st stage (but not nec.
the 2nd).  The 1st stage might also have a shroud to contain and protect
the 2nd (for small rockets, at least).

The 2nd stage will have the highest Isp possible, a large nozzle for the
vacuum conditions, and little or no consideration for aerodynamics.

The general idea, it seems, is not to take any component or capability
of the rocket past the point it is needed.  ie, wings, landing gear,
parachutes, rugged construction etc for low altitude conditions not go
beyond staging point.  The Saturn V is a good example--O2/RP1 for 1st
stage and H2/O2 and vacuum operating engines for altitude.
-- 
Charles Pooley                  ckp@netcom.com    GEnie  c.pooley
EE consultant, Los Angeles, CA
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:57:36 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <neff.12.725643434@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu> neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff) writes:
>It is common for the shuttle to fly without a full cargo. In your calculation
>you assumed that the payload was the maximum for the orbit. You figures are
>the lower limit to the cost per pound for the shuttle. 

This is true for all launchers, actually.  It's not that rare for them to
fly with less-than-maximum payload due to other constraints, e.g. payload
volume, limits of deployment mechanisms, or a payload that simply doesn't
want hitchhikers for whatever reason.  It's somewhat more common for the
shuttle only because most shuttle missions are to low orbit and a large
fraction of non-shuttle missions are to Clarke orbit (where propulsion
systems for stationkeeping are invariably needed, so it's possible to
adjust fuel load to fully exploit the launcher).
-- 
"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: Galileo's high-gain antenna still stuck
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:17:20 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <93Jan03.000619.18712@acs.ucalgary.ca> jsbell@acs.ucalgary.ca (Joshua Bell) writes:
>... If the HGA is freed, allowing the high speed
>transmission, will the compression still be used (hopefully with
>'a higher Q value') so that even _more_ data than anticipated in
>the original mission plan be returned?

The on-board computers don't have the horsepower to do serious compression
at 100-odd kbps.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 13:18:33 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1992Dec23.191306.6705@iti.org> <STEINLY.92Dec23121415@topaz.ucsc.edu>
  <1992Dec23.212100.18194@iti.org> <23DEC199220375318@judy.uh.edu>

>Also the Titan SRM's are direct developments from the
>Shuttle program. You gonna include the R & D for the Shuttle SRM's in
>your Titan cost accounting?

   I don't have any references handy, but how in the world are the Titan
   SRMs related to the Shuttle's SRBs? For beginners, the Titan SRM first
   flew in 1965 (Titan IIIC) while Shuttle SRB did not first fire until
   1977 and did not fly until 1981. Titan SRMs are manufactured by
   Lockheed and Aerojet, I think. Shuttle SRBs by Thiokol.
   
   Even if you are referring to the new 7-segment Titan IV SRMs, still
   the answer is no. These were designed, but never built, for the
   MOL program. I believe that if there is any connection, it's vice
   versa.
   
   -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:25:20 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 <BzHFzJ.9EC@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

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

In the long run, I don't think the antitrust laws would allow that,
anyway.  The airplane makers aren't allowed to own airlines any more.
It would be what antitrust lawyers call a "vertical monopoly."
From: yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Date: 4 Jan 93 01:53:12 GMT
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec

In article <72827@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>NASA is chartered as a research organization, not an operational agency.
>>Shuttle is operations, not research.
>
>    Shuttle is the only manned system we have, so it is in large part
>    still a research article. I agree, however, that operations is
>    the major part of the Shuttle system.

I guess I disagree with both of these views.  If I build a custom laser
in my lab, and then operate it purely as a tool to support my research
program, I think I am still doing research.  Likewise, when NASA is
using the shuttle to fly Spacelab, TSS, Hubble, etc, it's doing
research.  Even a TDRS launch is part of the research effort, since the
constellation is used to support various birds doing research
missions.  The Intelsat rescue was a pretty different story, but even
there, they had a defendable position.

The shuttle system itself may not be considered R&D anymore, but it's
the manifest that tells you whether it's doing research  or mere
"operations."

-- 
Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) |  De gustibus et coloribus
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  non disputandum
Departement de Physique                  |          -proverbe scolastique
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |
Newsgroups: sci.space