From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: SPS feasibility and other space development
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.130245.9231@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes...
> 
>Listen, Dennis, a scientist's job is ask questions: and the harder they
>are, and the more skeptical they are, the better they are. That's how
>you get important results!

The job of a scientist is to ask questions, BUT far too many scientist
simply ask questions as a kind of perpetual what if? scenario without rolling
up their sleeves and doing an experiment to check anything out.  Case in
point is Chaos theory.  We now have physical systems to verify a lot of the
theory behind chaos theory. Why do we? Because a EE got a great idea and
hooked up a simple circuit in 30 minutes and with a small power supply and
an oscilliscope proved a great number of the so called scientists who with
their theorys and what ifs wrong.

>I am doing my job. What are you doing?
> 

This is my job.  I build experiments to prove or disprove ideas and 
theorys.  With the flight of our Get Away Special Experiment on STS 46 I 
proved hundreds of aerospace engineers wrong by demonstrating the successful 
operation of Winchester disk drives hooked to a MacIntosh personal computer
in the Cargo bay of the Orbiter.  This little feat will help to drive 
down the cost of experiment controllers in this application by about a 
factor of ten. That is one thing.

Another little thing is that we are the FIRST technology test bed for:

Boeing/Kopin high efficiency (26%) tandem solar cells
Eagle Picher NiMH batteries with twice the energy density of conventional
NiCads
Also we will be the first flight of a super high integration parallel
processing system that has 3 Zoran 32 bit DSP's a Transputer, 4 meg of 
ram and four 20 mbit serial ports on a card that measures 53mm X 73mm X 10 mm.

Why are we able to do this? Because too many engineering managers and
scientist are afraid to fly anthing that was not built in 1960 because they
want to cover their ass far more than they want to get a job done right.
Risk takers are an endangered species in America in large part because too
many "experts" are on the sidelines asking questions to infinity and not enough
engineers have the testicles to tell them to shove off.

>Uncritical acceptance of ideas, no matter how appealing they might
>seem, is harmful to any field. Space is no exception. People will hold 
>you to promises you make, and will hold it against you if you tell 
>them things that aren't right. Undisciplined grand speculation isn't 
>even good science fiction. At best, boosterism (good pun intended) is 
>misleading; at worst, it makes you look kooky. Believe me, kooky is 
>NOT an image you want to project when writing a research proposal, 
>especially not when you get to the budget section!

Blind questioning of everything that anyone tries to do is more harmful
than the other extreme that you posit.  It is far better to do something,
make a mistake, and try again than to sit on your part that you are busy
covering and continually ask questions. If you fear to make mistakes
then you never will do anything of note.  The present American cover your
ass and never do anything that might be percieved as a failure is the 
primary cause of the decline of our once great nation.

PS to this Dr. Ringwald, I include a lot of folk in the above statment.

As for quasi-religious; why are you so hung up on that phrase? Does it
have some special meaning for you? My religion or lack thereof does not
enter in to this discussion.

?
Everthing that I posted about SPS is right out of Dr Criswell (Director
of the Texas Space Grant Consortium's papers that he has presented at
several conferences.  I also posted relavent conference proceedings such
as the ASCE Space 92 conference June 1,5 1992. Where were you when I did
that?

>If you can't provide me with even approximate literature references,
>better than newspaper articles, especially when I repeatedly request
>them, 

Which articles are you talking about? What kind of references do you want.
Heck I can give you a month full if you tell me what the heck you are
talking aobut.

>P.P.S. Your new postings about reviving the Saturn are *much* more like
>it. Not only is this of potential long-term interest, but there's
>nothing like the immediate applicability of the rumble of a rocket
>engine. With all the excitement lately, I'm almost scared to ask
>another question, but ask I will: what are the F1A engines for? Why
>revive the Saturn class? It makes no sense to develop capability for no
>reason; the taxpayers won't like it. So, what are the reasons? More
>interestingly, what are the payloads? SSF parts? Large comsats? Lunar
>or planetary spacecraft?

No if you had looked at my posts you would have seen a progression of
launch vehicles starting with one in the Titan V class and progressing
upward toward and surpassing the Saturn V of the sixties capability.  There
is a demonstrated need for larger lift capability.  I started with the single
engine F1A engined bird as a justification for restarting the line, as was
done for the Delta and Atlas programs at Rockewll after Challenger. The two
engine version would use two F1A's with a Lox/H2 upper stage (as would the 
one engine verison) to double the payload to orbit without major retooling
of the manufacturing jig for the tanks and external skins.  This would
put us up in the real Heavy lift league (110,000 to orbit) for only an
incremental cost, in the spirit of Allen Sherzier. Then as the need generated
the opportunity the second phase would be implemented which would build a
new jig for the larger diameter tanks on the first stage & second stage for
a three engine version with 180,000 to orbit. Then the same incremental 
philosophy would hold for stretching the tanks and adding engines till the
full up Saturn V configuration could be reached with only incremental costs.

That is the reason that is backed up by the same market dynamics that Allen
pursues.  My only argument with Allen is that the HL Delta and Atlas is
fundamentally limited to his next step.  The path that I propose begins with
Allen's next step and goes upward from there as the need and political 
will develops. 

Thats all for now folks
Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics