HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:46:24 GMT

In article <72482@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>  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.

I disagree; I feel I am working very hard to account for both the same
way.

However, if you disagree, please post your own numbers. State the rules
you want to use and apply to both systems fairly. Then show that Shuttle
is better.

I await your reply.

  allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------117 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil
Subject: Space List Flame Wars
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:06:42 GMT

I subscribed to this list in order to try to inform myself about the latest 
news about US and other coutnries' space programs.  I thought that this would 
be a list of technical discussions, not a religious debate that has turned 
into ad hominem attacks and flame wars as virulent as any I've seen in the 
religious news groups.  Then I see things like this, from Herman Rubin:

>Let those who want to support research decide.  But get the governments
>out of the way, including out of levying taxes on money going to research.
>If the government was not involved in the business of vainly trying to 
>manage charity, which it does in such a way as to make it financially
>advantageous for at least many of those on welfare to do nothing about
>the problem, and in the business of keeping our children very poorly
>educated, and in general making it expensive to do anything of which
>the government diasapproves, there would be the money for space activities.

and this from Henry Spencer:

>We'll be mining in space long before we exploit any of the sea-bottom
>resources.  The socialists rule the oceans and don't want any dirty
>capitalist mining venture making money off the "common property of
>mankind".  The US State Department was on the brink of giving them the
>rest of the universe too, but the L5 Society (may it rest in peace)
>managed to block Senate ratification of the infamous Moon Treaty.

Such political ranting belongs in the alt.talk.politics or alt.religion 
groups.  Could we please take them out of the space list?

In addition, there is much too much signal to noise ratio in the flame wars 
and the ad hominem attacks.  Could we move them out of the list and into 
private emails?  There is too much heat and not enough light coming out 
of them.

I know that I have now left myself wide open to being attacked from all 
sides, but I just thought that, considering the size of the mailings that I'm 
getting, there is too much of this stuff to wade through to get to anything 
worth reading.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Latest Pegasus news?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:33:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.164247.20711@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>And to think, it was only last year that Pegasus was the net's darling
>that was going to bring the cost of space travel down to nil.

I think you will be very hard pressed to find anybody who thought
Pegasus was going to bring the cost of space travel to nil. That wasn't
its goal.

>bandwagons are not only crowded, they also seem to be short lived. It's
>funny that the flaws only show up when something actually flies.

We may all be thankful that the people at OSC are willing to try things
to see if they will work. Left to you, nobody would ever try anything
since everything which doesn't exist today, in your view, can't be done
and won't work. Progress is never made by pesismist.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------118 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Arguments)
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:11:40 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 <n1351t@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>    In comparison, Shuttle costs (depending on your source) about
>$350-500 M per launch. (As a check on this cost/flight range, the FY
>1992 NASA budget numbers for shuttle operating costs came to about $
>3.2 B, and there were a total of 8 flights flown in 1992, which
>gives about $ 400 M/flt, which is within the cost band I'm using).

Of course, in addition to "Shuttle operating costs," there are
ongoing Shuttle product-improvement/development costs.  Eight
flights per year is more than NASA's been able to manage most
years.  And you've conveniently ignored depreciation on the
orbiter and the $32 billion in Shuttle development costs (not
to mention interest on same).

That said, there are some launchers that cost more, per pound
of payload on orbit, than the Shuttle.  But they are very small
launchers that don't have many pounds of payload to spread
their cost across.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 02:16:48 GMT

In article <n1348t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> 
>The Space Shuttle is simply the highest cost (per pound) launch vehicle ever
>operated.

At $37,500 a pound Pegasus is over three times the cost of Shuttle. Care to
venture a guess what Vanguard's cost per pound was? Shuttle *is* expensive
to operate, but it offers capabilities not found on any other current system.
It is not the highest cost way to do some tasks, it's the only way. That
makes it the cheapest way until something better is flying.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle thermal tiles
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:12:39 GMT
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

In article <BzHEJ7.8t6@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>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.
>A lot of people were surprised when the Soviets brought the first Buran
>to the Paris air show -- flying it in atop a Mriya, straight through a
>rainstorm.

A call to the Russian embassy or Glav-whomever, perhaps? Say you're a
researcher and offer 'em $20 bucks (U.S.) for the data. Heck, $30 and shipping
would probably get you a used Buran tile. :)

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: cryptocraft photography, Re: Aurora
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:40:34 GMT
Distribution: sci,na
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <N4HY.92Dec21120246@wahoo.UUCP# n4hy@wahoo.UUCP (Bob McGwier) writes:
#
#From NE by N down to SW by S is <NOT| retrograde.  This is the descending
#half of a normal orbit with inclination less than ninety degrees.  

Wrong. If the object is in a low earth orbit with this motion it would
have an orbit whose inclination is about 113 degrees. If the motion had
been from NNE by N to SSW by S the inclination would be about 101 degrees.

Had the motion been from NW by N to SE by S the motion would be prograde
at an inclination of about 68 degrees.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: NASA's role in space+
Date: 2 Jan 93 02:38:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1993Jan1.183850.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <n1349t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> The Tethered Satellite System should be a case that fits NASA's role perfectly 
> - a research program in a new field. However, even that program was frought
> with the burden of the "old" NASA. The current program managers probably
> couldn't even name the program managers who were responsible for the original 
> design. 
>  
> Howver, there is a big difference between NASA engaging in basic science, and 
> NASA operating a launch system. 
> 
> --- Maximus 2.01wb

Maybe what is needed is a company/organization that acts as a general research
and development, but not as a production organization.. Either NASA become a 
private corp for R&D or a organization that is a clearing house or a R&D corp
for many US corps.. Kind of like having Boing, Lockheed, McDonald Douglas, and
other companies have a single company for their R&D and were all benefit. All
will still have their own directs. But.. Talk about Corp Co-Operation..
Maybe give the US more competition with the Japanese, Koreans, Singapore and
other nations.. 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:35:22 GMT

> Paul Dietz writes:
>
> The mass ratio on an airliner is much less than in a launcher with
> chemical rocket propulsion, for rather fundamental reasons.  It is
> therefore not inconceivable that multistage launchers would be
> appropriate even though multistage aircraft are not.



        If the delta V needed to get to orbit were only 5000 meters per
second rather than the 9000+ meters per second which we have to deal with, we
would never be having this discussion.  No-one would think of building a two
stage rocket.  Clearly, the Earth is no place for a space-faring
civilization.  Time to move to Mars :-)


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
Xref: sparky sci.space:18591 sci.astro:13590
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Date: Sat,  2 Jan 93 18:20:54 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>I heard on Paul Harvey radio two days ago that former Gemini and Apollo 15
>astronaut David Scott had been charged with fraud.  No further information
>was presented.  Does this auction of the piece of tape have something to
>do with the story report on P.H./ABC News?

   It might have something to do with the Apollo 15 stamped-covers
   scandal of 1971. Don't know if Scott, Worden, and Irwin were ever
   charged with any legal violations, though.
   
   -Brian
   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Overhead
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:23:11 GMT


-From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
-Subject: Re: fast-track failures
-Date: 23 Dec 92 23:06:47 GMT
-Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA

-In <1992Dec20.192544.2996@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
->Today's overhead is horrible, but $100,000 1940s dollars is only about
->$2 million 1992 dollarettes.... That's about 20 engineers in a Motel 6 
->for six months, no machine shops, hangers, mechanics, flight test equipment, 
->nada.

-You think a typical engineer earns $100,000 a year?

You're assuming 100% overhead on the engineers' salaries? That may be a 
trifle low.  (I believe the allowance for overhead varies from company to 
company.)

On the other hand, overhead of a Motel 6 might be less than that of an
engineering facility. :-)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff)
Subject: Re: How many flights are Orbiters designed for?
Organization: The University of Iowa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:56:15 GMT

In article <725748565snz@chrism.demon.co.uk> chris@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott) writes:
>From: chris@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott)
>Subject: How many flights are Orbiters designed for?
>Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:49:25 +0000
>What is the design lifetime of a shuttle orbiter?  ie, how many times is
>it designed to be reused?
>
>Chris
>-- 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Chris Marriott                           | chris@chrism.demon.co.uk    |
>| Warrington, UK                           | BIX: cmarriott              |
>| (Still awaiting inspiration              | CIX: cmarriott              |
>|  for a witty .sig .... )                 | CompuServe: 100113,1140     |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

I recall an estimate of 50 flights by a NASA spokesman. This may be a
realistic estimate, or it might be optimistic, it is unlikely to be a
pessimistic estimate. This number is consistent with the statement that
the last shuttle flight will occur in 2007. This statment appears to be
based on the following assumptions: 1) All future shuttle flights will be
successful. 2) The flight rate per year will be increased from three to
four flights per year per shuttle. 3) No further shuttles will be built.
4) The lifetime of a shuttle is 50 flights.
From: DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter)
Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 14:10:24 EST

In article <neff.13.725750112@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu>
neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff) writes:
 
>When JFK gave his speech in 1961 he talked about intangible benefits from
>an effort to put AMERICANS on the moon. I don't recall that he said anything
>about science and technology as a reasons for making the effort. There were
>many benefits including scientific and technical ones from the Apollo
>program. Was the money well spent? I think most people would say yes.
>
  Well, we must keep in mind that the putting man on the moon was part
of the "Space Race", and therefore greatly influenced by the Cold War
attitudes.  Modern critics may need better justification than national
prestige.  All-in-all, though, the nationalism that was/can be generated
is an excellent reason to support the space program.  Unfortunately, the
rhetoric used by Kennedy won't really work anymore.
>Today we have AMERICANS in space on an occasional basis, with the possibility
>of more or less continuous presence of AMERICANS in space within the next
>decade. Is this worth what it costs? If the majority of the people think
>so we will keep on with this program, if not we won't. There is no such
>thing as an inexpensive space program and in particular a manned space
>program. If we worked hard at mundane things like industrial engieering
>we might be able to reduce the cost of placing something in LEO by
>perhaps 50%. That would be a good thing but it will not make it possible
>for Joe Six Pack to vacation in space.
   Space IS a marketable industry in my opinion.
                                -Brad Porter
DRPORTER@SUVM
Anything mentioned as an opinion is an opinion and does not necessarily have
facts to support it.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:59:26 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 <72527@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>  Space Shuttle is also the only system designed to be used repeatedly,
>  is the only system capable of returning very heavy payloads to Earth,
>  and is the second most-powerful booster every made in the U.S. It is
>  also one of only two man-rated systems presently in use.

All of which is irrelevent.  The Shuttle's design goal was to reduce
the cost of space transportation.  Its size, reuseability, etc. were
features decided on to meet that goal.  But instead of reducing costs,
the Shuttle increased them.

It is a failure.

>  Shuttle is also as much a technology demonstrator as it is a launch
>  system. 

I see you've graduated from the Gary Coffman School of Historical
Revisionism. :-)  The Shuttle was not designed as a technological
demonstrator, but an operational vehicle.  If there was a technology
demonstrator for the Shuttle program, it would be the X-15 or X-24.

>  That the technology proved to costly to replace the expendable
>  market is beside the point. 

Yes, to "failure-oriented" managers, the fact that a project failed
is always beside the point.  (After all, don't we expect every
project to fail?)




Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 07:03:41 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <james.726039574@menaik> james@cs.UAlberta.CA (James Borynec; AGT Researcher) writes:
>I disagree.  I submit that a functioning moon colony will be 
>able to dominate Earth orbit.

How?  Earth-based antisatellite weapons are simple and cheap; anything
in Earth orbit can easily be destroyed from Earth.  Unless you assume
a major technology difference -- again, stacking the deck to make the
plot work -- *Earth* dominates Earth orbit, beyond all doubt.

>The depth of the gravity well is just too
>big of an advantage...

Why?  Please explain, in detail.  Remember that a large-scale moon colony
is most unlikely to come into existence without fairly cheap transport
from Earth to low orbit.  Not as cheap as from the Moon, true... but it's
not *that* big a difference if we're talking about military control.

There is a big difference between being the preferred supplier of goods
and services and being the military power in the area.  Delivering a
kiloton of explosive power is a *whole lot* easier, nowadays, than
delivering a kiloton of freight.

>It would form the orbiting equivalent of the
>fabled "unsinkable aircraft carrier"

Remember the numbers.  The "unsinkable aircraft carrier" was a few hours
from the area of operations; the Moon is *days* away from Earth, the
equivalent of North America, not England.

And if you're going to draw WW2 analogies, do bear in mind that the
"unsinkable aircraft carrier" was in grave danger of being invaded
and conquered throughout the summer of 1940.  In particular, if the
Germans had mounted a maximum-effort crash-priority offensive starting
immediately after Dunkirk, it would probably have succeeded (in the
opinion of, among others, the British general staff at the time).
Even with the way they dilly-dallied until midsummer in reality,
they'd have had a good chance if they'd had better intelligence and
target planning:  a few days of determined raids on radar stations
and crucial aircraft plants could easily have changed Britain's
air-defence situation from bad to impossible.
-- 
"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: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs. 2 Stage
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 01:13:50 GMT

In article <1h8ca7INN9nk@news.cerf.net> davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith) writes:
>There's an advantage (I believe) of SSTO vs multi-stage systems that's
>getting left out here.  When launching a DC-1 all the engines are started
>and then throttled up.  This means that if an engine refuses to start,
>OR if there is a major fuel system problem such that none of the engines
>will start you can abort the launch on the pad.  With the two-stager
>enough engines have to start at separation time to assure that the DC-1
>can at least abort.

Well that's true with a vertical stack, but if you use a cluster
stack like Shuttle does, except no solids, then you can fire up
all the engines on the pad and make sure they're running right
before liftoff. Picture the putative DC-0 as a ring structure
with the DC-1 nested in the middle. Your major problem comes
at separation time. If separation fails completely, you just
land the whole thing, if separation succeeds, you're home free,
but if separation *partially* fails, you're screwed.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: funding for Lunar Prospector urgently needed
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:25:46 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <n12cet@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>Again, the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act will provide a solid funding base 
>for a resumption of lunar science flights.

If it passes.

>Congress didn't fund NASA's lunar
>orbiters, because of the fear that a new start for SEI hardware would be an
>implicit new start for a manned return to the Moon ...
>... This new approach alleviates that concern...

How?   I don't think the details of how the data is obtained are going to
make much difference.  It's money for an important SEI precursor mission,
no matter how you slice it.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry