HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: I thinI see our problem. (Was Re: Terminal Velocity of
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 20:19:33 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec20.195520.3587@ke4zv.uucp> <ewright.725060424@convex.convex.com>
  <!jt240c@rpi.edu> <ewright.725129915@convex.convex.com>

>In <!jt240c@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>
>>       In reality it sounds more like you are talking about DC-10,
>>DC-12, etc.
>>       Unless you are saying that a 747 is the same plane as a DC-3
>>was.
>>       If your claims are about 50 years from now, or even 20
>>eyars from now, I'll buy them.
>
>I think it would do you a world of good to go out to your local
>airport and look around.
>
>Do you have any idea how many DC-3s are still flying?  After 50
>years?

        How many Mercury or Vostok are still flying?
        
>And the 747, which you cite as an example of a modern airplane,
>is well over 20 years old!

        747-400 is essentially a new aircraft inside an airframe
        which has been around 20 years. 747-400 debuted in the
        mid-80s. Using this argument, why can we not add new
        engines, a new cockpit, and new materials to the Shuttle
        and keep it flying as the Shuttle-400? :-)

        -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rkolker@nuchat.sccsi.com (Rich Kolker)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Organization: South Coast Computing Services, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:15:57 GMT

In article <ewright.725671037@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec29.202546.12526@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack) writes:
>
>>5. The weight margins on the vehicle are very tight, a historical source
>>of problems in spacecraft and aircraft design.
>

On the contrary, the weight margins are quite generous.  They include not
only a "dry weight" margin, but a margin for lower isp than expected and
a couple of things I don't remember (i'll be getting the report I read soon).
The 10,000 lb to polar orbit, or 24,800 to LEO are based on worst
case of all these margins.  If they turn out better (i.e. if expected
values are reached) the payload increases.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
   rich kolker       rkolker@nuchat.sccsi.com
                         < Do Not Write In This Space> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Aluminum as Rocket Fuel?
Date: Fri,  1 Jan 93 01:38:47 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1370@taniwha.UUCP>

The last issue of _NASA_Tech_Briefs_ announced the availability of
a report describing a proposal for a rocket using a fluidized bed
of solid fuel particles.  Perhaps this would be an appropriate
technology for an aluminum-fueled rocket (as opposed to liquefying
the fuel).
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: People who can't count costs (Was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:39:16 GMT

In article <18DEC199221284228@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

>The marginal cost for a Space Shuttle mission is $37 million dollars maximum.

Since Shuttle is flying at its maximum rate the marginal rate of a flight
is completely irrelevant.

>For those who are further mentally deranged and who love to count more of 
>the costs to the Shuttle program, the figure is $368 million dollars. 

In November of 1992 the Aldridge Commission completed its report on the
future of US space launch capability. Their conclusion (see page 21) was
that a total of about $5 billion is spent each year "being devoted
exclusively to Shuttle operations to support only seven ti eight flights
per year". From this figure it is very easy to show that a Shuttle
flight costs well over half a billion.

Now do you actually consider Mr. Aldridge, president and CEO of The
Aerospace Corporation, and his commission "mentally deranged"? If so
perhaps you could share with us all just how you came to this conclusion.
If not, then how do you justify your own figures?

>ONLY if you take every single budget item in the entire NASA budget that has
>any relationship to manned space activities and then divide by the number
>of flights per year, then you will get a >$500 million per flight costs.

Not according to Aldridge.

>These numbers come from the Space News article of Nov 29 December 8. Where
>the heck do your numbers come from?

I believe you have misread the Space News article.

>By the way, it is too bad Allen did not have the guts to respond to my
>previous message relating these figures. 

Largely because you have misread the article. That article quoted a NASA
spokesperson as saying the cost was $550 million per flight simply by 
dividing flight rate by operational costs. Adding in all manned flight
activites was done by somebody outside of NASA (John Pike?) and produced
not the $500M you quote above but a figure of about $750M.

Sit down, take a valium, and re-read the article. Then read the Aldridge
report (unless of course you actually do think he is 'mentally deranged').

>I am flat sick and tired of people
>simply ignoring any information that is detrimental to their little pet
>project, no matter how valuable that project is in and of itself.

Indeed.


  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------153 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Aurora chase planes (was Re: Aurora)
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<1h8beqINN9hv@news.cerf.net> <1h8q56INNm7u@mirror.digex.com>
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 05:47:02 GMT

On 23 Dec 1992 04:32:38 GMT, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said:

Pat> In article <1h8beqINN9hv@news.cerf.net> davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith) writes:
>accompanying it?  (Mary's definition of "chase plane" is the standard
>one for testing aircraft but we're really talking about an "accompanying
>plane")  Unless there was some major manuevering going on you can't say
>that the F-15 was "chasing" or attempting to intercept with the intent
>of shooting it down or identifying an unknown plane rather than accompanying
>it as a "chase plane".


Pat> Mary, it didn't leap out at me from your post,  but I believe most chase planes
Pat> are loaded with a couple of cameras,  in the gun mounts and in the
Pat> cockpit, to try and record at or above  24 frames/second the behavior
Pat> of the experimental plane.  it is useful to know that a trim tab
Pat> tore off,  a minute before the test plane crashed.

No, we don't do this at all.  The only cameras that we ever carry _in_
the chase planes are in the hands of a photographer in the back seat.
AFFTC (Air Force Flight Test Center, which is what everyone means by
Edwards AFB) doesn't mount cameras on the hardpoints either.

All the air-to-air photography from Dryden, with the sole exception of
some footage from the NB-52B during drops, comes from handheld video
or cameras.

Pat> I think fighters are preferred in this mode,  because with all the hard points
Pat> you have lots of places to stick cameras or sensors.

As I said, we never mount cameras on the outside of the chase plane.
We do mount various cameras on the research planes.  For example,
the HARV has a 35-mm still camera in a faired box on one wing tip
and video cameras, downlinked to the ground, on the other wing tip,
on the vertical stabs, on the turtleback, and on the glareshield.
These are all sufficiently faired that they will not affect the
aerodynamics of the vehicle.

We also have no instrumentation in the chase planes.  We instrument
the research airplane extensively and we would certainly know what
happened to the plane in any incident based on that instrumentation.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Latest Pegasus news?
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:45:13 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

In article <1992Dec27.203327.21241@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>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.

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. That's what
research and development programs are designed to discover. Only a few 
things that pass through development ever reach mass production as
cheap and troublefree as they were on paper.

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: davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSTO vs. 2 Stage
Date: 23 Dec 1992 00:36:23 GMT
Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net

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.

I would assume that engine start is when things are most likely to go wrong.
This means you have to be extra careful to check all the things related to
engine starting, etc.  (I'm not sure how to categorize the risks in 
restarting the engines to de-orbit.  Is it less risky than the initial
start because the engines have already run once or is it equally or
more risky?  There is the option of an EVA to repair engines in orbit
but you don't have all the spares, equipment or trained personnel you would
on the ground)  

The DC-0 stage should also have the capability to abort and land with
an attached DC-1 which means extra fuel that normally won't be used, or
some whomping big parachutes, or ...  


-- 
David L. Smith
smithd@discos.com or davsmith@nic.cerf.net
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: ground vs. flight
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 04:14:52 GMT

In article <BzqKKM.LJ3@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1jt2zfd@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>>	I wasn't aware of this.  What did Michael Collins do while on
>>the Agena?
>
>Apart from just generally evaluating how easy it was to do -- not very --
>he retrieved a micrometeorite experiment package that had been put on
>the Agena in hopes that it could be returned to Earth eventually.
>
	Actually Henry, that supports my original point, that EVA to and
on and unstabilized platform isn't easy.
	However, I do find that this was sone very interesting.  Any
idea how much if any tumbling the Agena was doing?

>>	... what is
>>the maximum mass that the RMS can handle?
>
>I think it's rated for the theoretical maximum shuttle payload, 65klbs.
>It's not rated for the full mass of an orbiter, which is why the station
>arm will eventually take over the capture-for-docking job.
>
	I meant to ask about this earlier.  I thought at one point I
saw a diagram for a special "arm" to do this, basically something that
could pull in and out, and may wiggle the end a bit.  Was this just
a mistake? or was this dropped.

	Also, given that the bottom of the shuttle is covered with
tile, can the orbiter exert a Y+ (i.e. vertically up) translation?
This is something that I've always wondered.

>>	BTW, what has the success rate been with the RMS on grabbing
>>stuff with a handle?  Anyone have any clue? 80% 90%?  Let's
>>not even consider the stuff it's had to attempt to grab that didn
>>have handles...
>
>The arm really *can't* grab anything that doesn't have a proper grapple
>fixture on it, because the "hand" isn't a general-purpose gripper -- it's
>designed solely and only to grab grapple fixtures, and is very specialized
>for exactly that job.
>
	Hmm, I'd have to look over what I was thinking of.  I'm aware
of the design on the end effector, so I should have thought about the
question better. :-)

>As far as I know, the success rate for grapple fixtures is 100%.  They've
>sometimes had to proceed slowly and carefully, but I don't think they've
>ever had to abandon a grabbing attempt.

	Didn't they ahve to manually slow down a rotating satellite
since the arm couldn't grapple the fixture fast enough? (Solar Max?)

>-- 
>"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: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:50:24 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 <1992Dec25.002926.4218@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Nonsense. The Russians have built no space stations and are having
>trouble raising the funds to operate the one they inherited from 
>the Soviet Union. Comparing what was done by a command economy using
>what amounts to slave labor to what's done in an open society where
>people expect to get paid fairly for their work is meaningless accounting.

Well, Gary, some of us have the theory that free societies are 
more efficient than "command economies."
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:29:52
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Dec23.132824.14131@iti.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: aws@iti.org's message of Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:28:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.132824.14131@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

   In article <9gt204c@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:

   >	I thought you said that McDac or SDIO was going to treat
   >development costs of DC-1 as sunk costs.  Or is that just DC-X (in
   >which case, what exactly does that mean?).  

   DCX and DCY are proof of concept vehicles which the government is paying
   for. Nither are operational vehicles. DC-1 will likely be a very different
   sort of craft altogether. It will incorporate lessons learned on DCY, it

   >Right now, if you stopped all flights,
   >you could argue this cost (excluding interest) is about $150 million
   >a flight. (10 flights/orbiter, $1.5 Billion per orbiter).

   You left out the $34 billion (in 86 $$) development costs which must
   be amortized.

Does this include the cost of the Enterprise? If so, why is it not a
sunk cost as you argue the DC-Y should be? Does it include
construction of wind tunnels, the (Grumman?) glide simulator and
operations thereof? What about the software development costs for
doing a lot of the aerodynamic simulations, are they shuttle costs or
generic NASA costs that would have been incurred regardless.
You've said you want to bill all manned space program costs to the
shuttle, does that include suit development? If so, what are the DC
personnel going to wear for EVA?
Hell, will a DC groundstaff include any janitors? Haven't seen
those costed... (and if not, who will mop up spills? ;-)

I think you are quite inconsistent in how you assign costs to
the DC and Shuttle. For instance you explicitly said tank farm
operation for LOX and LH2 should not be included, only the marginal
cost of loading each DC - yet you necessarily inlcude those costs
for KSC operations. Similarly your costs do not include software
support (is the DC going to use JPL or JSC software for trajectory
projecting? are those sunk costs? Will they use whatchamcallits 
database for LEO objects to avoid collisions, and will the DC then
pay for the radars that do the tracking? Amortised over how many
flights?). You also haven't included any cost estimates for ground
support? Will there be TDRS(type) links in-orbit? Will it use existing
groundstations and satellites (with sunk costs) or build its own
(with sunk development costs!).

The DC is a really nice concept, I hope it works, but at least
try to be fair in assigning costs when you compare it with the shuttle!

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|

Xref: sparky sci.space:18157 alt.folklore.urban:32038
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 00:25:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.160715.28828@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <71877@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>
>>>NASA spends over a billion dollars on each Space Shuttle flight. I think
>>>you've indulged in some creative accounting.
>
>> The Space Transportation budget this year was about $5 billion, if
>> memory serves. NASA flew 8 Shuttle missions this year. 
>
>This number does not include NASA overhead, amortization of the orbiter,
>amortization of Shuttle development costs, and a host of other costs. Adding
>those in puts the cost at well over a billion per flight. Hell, interest
>costs on development alone adds over a quarter billion per flight (BTW,
>this interest is not a sunk cost since it is part of the national debt and
>we are paying for it even now).
>
>>You have done the 'creative accounting' here, I'd say. 
>
>No, it's NASA who is being creative by ignoring billions in cost. BTW,
>if a private company ran their books the way NASA does they would be
>thrown in jail for fraud.

This is a tired argument. NASA is not a private company, is not chartered
to work like a private company, and is tasked with missions no private
company will undertake. It's customer is the US taxpayer and that customer
wanted R&D work done on a reusable Shuttle. NASA did it, and the customer
paid for it. Now the customer wants payloads launched into space using
existing hardware, NASA does it, and the customer pays for it. The customer's
Mastercard balance doesn't enter into the equation unless he defaults 
payment.

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: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Payload return from orbit
Date: 31 Dec 92 13:27:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C04LE5.4t1.1
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: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
-Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
-Date: 31 Dec 92 02:05:00 GMT
-Organization: University of Houston

-In article <1992Dec30.205940.28699@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
->>    GRO and UARS are both candidates for return to earth. 
-> 
->Doing that would cost more then they are worth. It would be cheaper to
->build new ones and launch them commercially.

-I would dearly love to see your cost analysis on this Allen. Since the 
-marginal cost for a Shuttle mission is only 37 million dollars, this is
-what it would cost for a reflight. 

I think it would be more fair to use the $400-500 million figure, unless
there just happens to be a time slot where there's an orbiter available
but no other payload ready. It might be more worthwhile to use such a slot
to refly ASTRO or TSS.

-By the way your Titan IV cannot lift
-a payload like HST due to its adverse dynamic envelope. 

So what is the dynamic envelope of Titan IV?

->>    The Hubble repair could still prove too much for orbiting
->>    astronauts and thus require return to Earth for mirror replacement,
-> 
->No for two reasons: 1) it would be cheaper to build another and fly it
->and 2) in testimony before the House the program manager said Hubble
->wouldn't survive the return trip.

-For 1) see the above. For 2) from what I have heard from the HST program
-manager at Marshall, they could bring it back down. That is a contingency if
-the solar array replacement goes awry.

I think the general attitude is that HST could *probably* be returned safely,
but they would greatly prefer not to, for a variety of reasons.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov