HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DC spacecraft capabilities.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:14:56 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan4.023652.11293@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>Would a DC spacecraft (properly provisioned of course) be capable of lunar
>flight? ...

If refuelled in orbit, the capability is theoretically there.  You'd want
to look carefully at the landing-gear issues, life support etc. would need
supplementing for the longer trip, and you'd need a suitable module in
the cargo bay to provide living quarters and an airlock.

>I get the impression that even if a DC isn't capable of a direct ascent flight
>to the moon, extra fuel could be loaded in earth orbit...

Nothing short of nuclear propulsion will give you a single-stage lunar
mission.  Orbital refuelling will definitely be necessary.

>What type of ground facilities would be needed?  I think it was mentioned here
>a while back that the payload would be loaded inside a VAB, so would the large
>shuttle type gantry structures be required, except perhaps for fueling?

No gantry.  A few trucks resembling the elevator trucks used at airports.
Fuel connections would probably be near the base of the craft, avoiding
any need for a gantry for that.
-- 
"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: ground vs. flight
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:43:34 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <zms23rp@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>	I can recall only 1 (possibly 2) examples of astronauts
>transferring between craft via EVA.  And in that case I believe
>the craft were linked...
>	I don't doubt that someday we'll see EVA between
>non-docked craft...

"Someday" was 1966, on Gemini 10.  And the target craft for the EVA wasn't
even stabilized -- it was an old Agena, batteries long since dead.  Apart
from the problems of EVA itself, which NASA was only just starting to
discover, it wasn't a problem according to Michael Collins (who did it).

You might also want to look up the Solar Max retrieval (as originally
planned), the Palapa/Westar retrieval, and the Leasat repair, all of
which involved astronauts interacting with undocked craft.  The Leasat
repair, in particular, was done by the Intelsat method:  slide the
shuttle up close to the satellite and have an astronaut grab it (and
Leasat was spinning, too).

By the way, why do you assume the craft wouldn't be linked before crew
or cargo transfer?  It would make sense to at least have an arm linking
them first.

On-orbit operations are a little bit harder than on-ground operations,
for two reasons:  lack of friction, and the extra dimension of motion.
On the ground, before you refuel (say) an aircraft, you make sure it's
parked with its brakes locked.  The equivalent in orbit is to grab hold
of it with an arm.  Still lots easier than for aircraft in flight.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: erd@kumiss.cmhnet.org (Ethan Dicks)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Newsgroups: sci.space
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 30 Dec 92 12:06:56 EDT
Organization: Not an Organization

Shari L Brooks (bafta@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: 
: In article <1992Dec29.164256.18889@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
: rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes:
: 
: >	By the time you also pay for FICA, pension, benefits, and
: >overhead, a $50,000 engineer can easily cost a company double his base
: >pay!

Don't forget state payroll taxes (if your state has one - paid by the
employer, not the employee) and workman's-compensation (also paid by
the company).  Other figures in he cost can include the rent/lease
payments for the office and the property taxes on the toys that the
engineer gets to play with all day.  These are ongoing costs, not
one time costs like paying for a desk or workstation (unless your
organization rents/leases those as well).
 
: Wow, your lab pays for FICA?  I'm impressed.  It takes up about a third
: of *my* salary, when combined with income taxes.  Right out of my pay.
: I was under the impression it came out of everyone's pay, that that was
: the idea behind "Social Security".

FICA payments come from employee "contributions" and from matching
contributions from the employer.  "Self Employment Tax" is FICA, only
you pay *both* parts.

Take what ever you are paying (~7%-9%, I forget exactly what) and add in
an equal amount from your employer.  Now kiss it goodbye, because anyone
under 50 ain't gonna see it come back :-(

-ethan

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:50:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.014627.4982@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>In military procurement, the development costs are charged against
>the prototypes, X, Y, etc, and the operational vehicles of the procurement 
>are charged at "flyaway" cost. 

Which I suspect is done largely to hide the true cost. I point out that if
the contractors in question ran their accounts this way they would all be
in jail and out of buisness.

>Following this model, Enterprise ate the 
>development costs, and it's retired. Current Orbiters are only liable for 
>their $1.5 billion flyaway cost and their operational costs. 

But why should we follow that model? Hiding costs like you advocate only
encourages waste and inefficiency. How can we possibly make access to space
cheap if we make it impossible to identify those costs and reduce them?

That approach simply has not and will not get us anywhere.

    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: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Re: Acceleration, cats
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 18:06:59 GMT

> John Roberts writes:
>
> I've read that small children often survive long falls with surprisingly
> little injury. It was speculated that they may be more likely to relax
> than adults.
>


        I think that the main cause of differences in the ability of
different creatures to survive falls is our old friend, the square cube law:

        Count a child as having half the linear dimensions of an adult.
Relative to an adult, the "squash room" available for deacceleration is
related to the linear dimension (1/2 of an adult).  If children had the same
body plan as adults, a "half adult size" child would have a mass proportional
to her volume, which is proportional to the cube of her linear dimensions ---
the child would have a mass of 1/2*1/2*1/2 = 1/8 of the adult (real kids hare
probably heavier than this due to the relatively larger sizes of their heads
in the overall body plan).

        Stored energy in a falling body is proportional to mass.  The child
thus has 1/2 the distance for deacceleration, but 1/8 the energy to get rid
of by deformation etc.

        Mice do quite well when dropped a few meters. Dropping an elephant
the same distance would probably create an insurance writeoff.  The
difference is related to body size, not the special body defences that cats
have in addition to their natural size protection (I wouldn't want to drop my
pet lion from the balcony of a 10th story apartment).






--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:07:13 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 <keithley-221292165015@kip2-37.apple.com> keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) writes:

>   What if we don't accept your points, don't want to follow you (blindly)
>and and don't want you to redistribute the $$$ in a way we disagree with?  

We'll do the job anyway, so that a couple decades from now, while
you watch the 6:15 to orbit, you can lie to your grandkids and say, 
"I knew it was a good idea all along."


>        Lets see a straw man proposal that clearly indicates (using the
>published Shuttle schedule for the next few years)...

In other words, let's take NASA's word that it can follow a 
published schedule it has never been able to follow before.

And while we're at it, let's pretend that all the safety problems
uncovered before and after the Challenger crash have been solved.
Let's pretend that there will never be another Shuttle, that Congress
won't shut down the Shuttle program for at least another two years
(and perhaps forever) when there *is* another Shuttle crash, and 
that the Shuttle orbiters will last longer than their 100-mission
design life as NASA is now saying (although the engineers who work
on them say 25-to-50 missions is more realistic).
  

>   If the Shuttle "detractors" wish, produce a schedule that replaces every
>Shuttle flight starting with the next one.  This would used purely as a
>center for discussion, because it would have to ignore the political
>realities with cancelling the shuttle *today*.

And let's see you show how continuing the Shuttle program will lead
to real space development.  When does your flight schedule allow
for a *real* space station.  Not a trivial, insignificant nothing
like SS Freedom, but a modest-sized station (say 50 people) initially,
capable of growing to 500 or more over the following decade.  A return
to the Moon and the establishment of a self-sustaining lunar colony.
Manned missions to Mars, the asteroid belt, and beyond?  The construction
of *big* orbital telescopes, which make Hubble look like a toy.  Large
numbers of unmanned "sailing ships" to probe every part of the solar
system.  A manned station in polar orbit for meteorological research.
Space tourism.  Space manufacturing.  Solar power satellites.

A true space transportation system would make all these things possible.
Since you demand that we show "a long term vision," you must believe
the Shuttle can also.  Please tell us when these flights are planned.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Famous quotes
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 03:59:34 GMT


-From: 0001964967@mcimail.com (Daniel Burstein)
-Subject: numerous/ 1:ASAT 2:Water 3:misquotes
-Date: 23 Dec 92 15:53:19 GMT

-b) On a different topic, some people have given the 
-wrong attribution to the saying "because it's there."
-As per Bartlett's sixteenth edition, p. 593, this quote
-was -not- from "EH", but was by George Leigh Mallory, who
-used it to explain why he wanted to climb Everest.

Don't forget the famous Far Side cartoon:

  A group of climbers, poised at the edge of a deep gorge. The leader,
  apparently responding to a question from one of the other climbers:

  "Because it's *not* there."

:-)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:33:39 GMT


From:
                  AUSROC II : A Post Mortem
                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                        Tzu-Pei Chen

"The  design  of  AUSROC II was in many ways too  "positive".
Much  thought  had  been put into each of the  systems,  but
little  thought had been allocated to possible failures  and
their  consequences.  Obviously,  greater  testing  of  each
component may have shown up some of these problems  earlier.
This simply highlights the very limited resources with which
the  group currently works. The six static firings  were  in
themselves,  major  system tests, but they  were  already  a
major strain on our resources. Hopefully AUSROC II-2 will be
able  to proceed in an environment where financial and  man-
hour   constraints  become  secondary  to  the  process   of
engineering."

Here is an example of what can go wrong with "fast track" programs
where too positive an outlook leads to overlooking simple, and
in 20/20 hindsight, obvious problem areas. The problems were
only obvious in hindsight, however, which is the main risk of
a success oriented program. Pegasus' teething problems stem
from a similar outlook. As Chen notes, financial and manpower
requirements for adequate engineering studies and testing for
the project were overly optimistic leading to complete vehicle 
loss and a major financial and schedule loss to the project.

We hope they'll be able to muster the financial and manpower
requirements to do the job right the next time. It's an
engineering maxim that "There is always time to do it over,
but never time to do it right the first time."

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: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: Manhattan DISTRICT (not Pr......)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 10:09:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.185903.25928@panix.com> dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) writes:
>
>For example, the movie "Beginning or the End" which is a
>semi-fictionalized documentary of the program has the top people sitting
>around the table.  The actor playing General Groves says "You'll be
>working on the Manhattan District.  Project 'Y' is uranium purification,
>project 'X' is the bomb site."  (this is not the exact quote from the
>movie, but the DISTRICT vs. PROJECT distinction is correct)
>  

Actually, I thought it was the Manhatten Engineering District.  I don't
have a copy of "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" handy to check... :-)
 
---
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca


Newsgroups: sci.space
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: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:15:24 GMT

In article <72527@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>  Space Shuttle is also the only system designed to be used repeatedly,

The design goal was to build a vehicle which would provide cheap, routine
access to space. Reusability was simply the method selected. Shuttle failed
all of its major objectives.

>  is the only system capable of returning very heavy payloads to Earth,

Considering that there are no heavy payloads to return to Earth, this
cannot be considered an advantage. Especially for the billions it costs
us.

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

Not according to NASA. To them Shuttle is *THE* Space Transportation
System. To them it is an operational vehicle.

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

Execpt that it's function WAS to replace expendables.

For a long time it even did replace expendables. That was because the
satellite makers found a bunch of suckers willing to fork over the
subsidies.

BTW, another accomplishment of Shuttle was to turn over 60% of the free
world launch market to Airiane. Funny how Shuttle supporters never
mention that one.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------116 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: Greek Science (was Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:29:31 GMT

In article <103151@netnews.upenn.edu> rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff) writes:
>In article <phv203p@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>>It's interesting to listen to how people believe that Columbus proved
>>the world was round.  Actually, he and most people he argued with didn't debate that point.  His claim was that the earth was about 12,000 miles in diameter.
>>Most people believe he was way off and they were right.  
>
>umm...12,000 miles in *circumference*.  The Earth is actually about 8000 miles
>in diameter, 24,000 miles in circumference -- just about twice what Columbus
>thought.
>
>   Robert

	Umm, gee... yeah. Sorry. my mistake. :-)


Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:20:44 GMT

In article <1h7lceINNgtf@transfer.stratus.com> det@phlan.sw.stratus.com (David Toland) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.160234.21852@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>
>>We WILL end up off-planet. However, this process will be a series of small
>>evolutionary steps, rather than Absolutely-Positively-Overnight URGENCY
>>which Dennis insists IS necessary. 
>>
>>Let's cut the crap here, and speak frankly. IF we needed to run out to the
>>Great Beyond to save our butts, we COULD do it. 
>
>Do you *really* believe this?  If we had 12 months notice, we could
>remove enough people for a self-sustaining colony to another body,
>even the moon, before a comet-earth collision?
>
>>We don't NEED to do it. And we can do a whole hell of a lot more in improving
>>the quality of life for all mankind in our own backyards before we step up and
>>off the planet. 
>
	Actually, I think my original point, to which Doug (first
respondee) was responding can still stand.  I wasn't talking about
space mining, or asteroid watches, or power stations.  Simply having
people "go where no man has gone before," while hackneyed to some, is
very valuable in my eyes.  Very little immediate material benefit
comes from frontiersmen (relative to the society as a whole), and
almost never have they found exactly what they expected, but it gives
both immediate social benefit (IMO) and, before long, material benefit
has always streamed from the frontier, in one form or another.  I
don't see exploration as an emergency necessity, nor do I think we can
postpone it until we have "taken care of things on Earth" first.
Asteroidal or supernova catastrophes would be nearly impossible to
prevent (at least in the near future), and I submit that "improving
the quality of life" here is a continuous struggle that will never,
practically speaking, be fully achieved.  Plus, I see no reason why
the struggle here precludes exploration.  However, the ardent
advocates of exploration, and even the occasional fanatic, are needed
to help galvanize the effort against social inertia, both from the
flat-earthers and general apathy.  Otherwise, sooner or later, we'll
likely just smother ourselves (and the planet) in our own stink.
Then, maybe the next species (whatever it be) will get a shot!
	N.B.: this is all my own opinion, so if netheads want
"proof"...screw'em!
-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 08:59:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.080140.24374@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>   Don't flame me for this, but could someone please tell me if any of my post
>ever made it into this newsgroup.  It don't know if they got posted and I
>somehow missed the responses or they just got lost.  I never even saw the
>original messages I posted.
>
>
>Simon
>


looks like it worked this time!

Simon

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:46:01 GMT

In article <ewright.724722060@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>When fighter development from concept to flying prototype cost less
>>than $100,000, normally funded internally by the company, and took
>>less than a year, planes were simpler then, that was an acceptable 
>>approach. 
>
>I think The SR-71 cost a little bit more than $100,000.  Even
>if you fail to account for inflation.

Of course the SR-71 was a black program funded by clandestine government
agencies to the tune of we don't know how many billions of dollars. It
was designed to meet a performance spec dictated by cold war requirements
and was never intended to be a commercial system that was cheap to
produce or cheap to operate. This model of development is so at varience
with commercial practice that it has no relevance to commercial space.
It is similar to Apollo where national prestige was on the line and
the costs and risks be damned in achieving the objective. Nearly any
program can be accomplished if cost is no object, but commerical 
enterprises don't have the limitless deep pockets of the taxpayer
to back them up if the program doesn't live up to it's advanced
billing as a fast track system, and many don't.

>>Now with development costs running into the billions, and 
>>usually taxpayer funded, the financial risks of a failed project have 
>>become too high to take such a cavalier approach.
>
>This is a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Your "failure-oriented
>management," with its army of beancounters and its endless
>review and approval cycle is what caused development costs
>to run into the billions.  It prevented failures, either,
>only reduced the number of successes.  

All technical development programs are subject to failure. You only
have to look at the number of discarded prototype designs in any
industry to see that. Any management program that doesn't plan for
the failure of certain subsystem developments to come in on spec,
on time, and on budget, is going to have programs that fail more
frequently than those that do plan for such contingencies. Now that's 
not to say that *any* program can't be mismanaged, they certainly can. 
With major development programs today costing as much as they do, using 
a management style that doesn't plan for contingencies and have substitutes 
and work arounds for subsystems that don't live up to their promise is an 
invitation to financial disaster for a commercial enterprise. Only if the 
limitless pockets of the taxpayer are underwriting the costs can a fast track
high risk program be undertaken with any assurance of ultimately meeting
performance goals at a profit.


Gary