HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: 18 Nov 92 06:27:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxwF9u.LK1
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <69532@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>>It seems to me that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best
>>returns on investment in the space community!

>Atlas and Delta are providing profits for the companies which build them.
>That means they offer a return on investment.

I agree with Allen that ELVs are better than Shuttle for many things, but I'm 
quite certain that I read that Atlas was actually loosing money for GD and 
had been for a while.  

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

	"Why put off 'til tomorrow what you're never going to do anyway?"
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:37:24 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <STEINLY.92Nov19135044@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>... the operation costs do seem quite optimistic, in
>particular I'd have thought the early years operation would be higher
>while ground support learned some maintenance procedures and
>operational experience was developed on what needs inspection and
>refurbishing between flights? I just don't see any way around that,
>are the DCs really that much simpler?

Wrong question.  There are two ways to go about this.  One is to assume
that between-flights turnaround will be very complex, but it will get
better if we look for ways to improve it.  The other is to assume that
it will be simple, although a few complications may be found.  Oddly
enough, only the second approach ever results in something simple and
cheap.  You can always come up with reasons why complexity is needed,
especially after you've already written the manuals and hired the staff.
Simple systems do not evolve from complex ones.

The right question is:  why should the DCs be much more complex than
high-performance aircraft?
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:2824 sci.space:16274
From: higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Pete Conrad (was Re: SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement))
Date: 23 Nov 92 12:52:03 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalc.fnal.gov

In article <1992Nov23.140757.17622@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <1992Nov20.233848.25016@nuchat.sccsi.com> rkolker@nuchat.sccsi.com (Rich Kolker) writes:
> 
>>Simulator testing for the DC-X/Y/1 pilots is underway.  As you know, DC-X
>>will be flown remotely, DC-Y will be crew-capable.  Among the pilots trainingh
>>is Pete Conrad.  If that name sounds familiar....it should!
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> It sure does! He was one of the actors on the made-for-tv movie Plymouth.
> 
I think he was also a model for some of the works of painter Alan Bean.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:2768 sci.space:16077
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:32:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Nov18.203236.13184
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Nov16.142949.15445@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <69532@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>
>>It seems to me that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best
>>returns on investment in the space community!
>
>Atlas and Delta are providing profits for the companies which build them.
>That means they offer a return on investment.
>
>How can the Shuttle possibly be said to offer ANY (much less the best) return
>on investment? Shuttle has LOST billions.

I suspect Shuttle returned a handsome profit for Rockwell. It has cost
the US Government billions to develop and maintain Shuttle capabilities,
but the US Government isn't a profit making institution. It considers
those costs fully sunk. At $350 million per launch *operating* expense,
the Shuttle is giving launch capabilities unmatched by any other system
at bargain rates per fractional payload.

Gary
Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:2737 sci.space:15986
From: dherity@cs.tcd.ie (Herity D.)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: 17 Nov 92 11:44:46 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin

kentm@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>In article <1e8qk2INNccc@spock.usc.edu> cbehre@spock.usc.edu (Charles Behre) writes:
>>
>>|>   What about the SSTO DC-Y?  It's my understanding that the DC-1 should be
>>|> able to do just about everything that the shuttle can do (with the possible
>>|> exeption of carry the SpaceLab).  And a lot cheapter to boot.

>It will hopefully be able to perform crew transfer and small satellite launches
>more reliably and for less money than the Shuttle or even expendables.  I don't
>see it replacing all of the Shuttle's functions, but it's a start.

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

The main reason the shuttle failed is that it tried to do too much.
It was specced to be a cheap reusable satellite launcher/crew launcher/space
station/satellite retreiver/glider.
Lets not fall into the same trap with DC-1. Lets settle for cheap reusable
satellite launcher and take it from there. The shuttle can be kept flying
for those tasks where their flexibility is needed until the DC-1 or something
else takes over those functions.

>>What level of success would the DCX testing program have to show to make it a 
>>viable candidate?  Does this program have the ability to fascinate congress and
>>Al Gore if it demonstrates what it intendend to do? On the other hand, would a
>>DCX program shifted to taking on the duties of a HL-20 be a disasterous 
>>move in terms of the programs efficiency?

Probably. I wouldn't want to risk it. _Why_ risk it? To get funding? If the
politicians set the technical agenda, the project is in big trouble.

-- 
================================================================================
| Dominic Herity,  dherity@.cs.tcd.ie,                      | Something clever |
| Computer Science Dept, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.| coming soon to a |
| Tel : +353-1-6772941 ext 1720 Fax : +353-1-6772204        |signature near you|
From: dumoulin@titan.ksc.nasa.gov (Jim Dumoulin)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Passes for shuttle launch?
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:11:25 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center

In article <1edk74INNs3v@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, e.l.ellis@larc.nasa.gov () writes:
> 
> Could you tell me a little more about how to obtain passes?  I gather that
> there three types: Press pass, VIP pass, and Causeway vehicle pass.  The
> later two made available by congressional represetitives.  And you 
> recommend the press pass first, causeway second, and VIP third. 
> -- Have I got all that right?
> 
> I have a cousin who will be in FL for the JAN 13 launch of Endevour (sp?)
> and they've asked me to look into passes for a better view.  Also, I 
> work for NASA:  Langley Research Center, Civil Service.  Will that fact 
> give me access to better passes?
> 
> Yeah, yeah.  I know.  "He works for NASA and HE'S asking US?!?!"  Well, I
> work for LANGLEY:   far removed from anything the general public will ever
> hear of (with few exceptions 8*).  If I start asking for shuttle info around
> here, all I get are vacant expressions and "Why're'u askin' me?" 
> type responses. 
> 
   You can't get a press pass unless you are a press person.  Even properly
   badged NASA employees arn't allowed in the Press area without a reason.
   This usually means you need to be part of the Public Affairs team to
   be at the Press site.

   Being a NASA employee, your Langley badge will get you in the gate at
   KSC since all NASA centers use a common badge.  (the badges since 1985
   don't even identify which NASA center you are from).  However, even a
   NASA badge won't get you into the VIP site.  There is a NASA program
   called the Manned Flight Awareness program that provides a limited number
   of VIP passes to NASA employee's at each NASA center.  Your supervisor
   can put you in for that award.  

   As for your cousin, that's more difficult.  At KSC, each office gets
   one launch car pass for viewing at the Causeway.  Employees put there
   name in for a chance at the pass.   If you had your Public Affairs
   office call our Public Affairs they can probably work something out.
   (since I don't think Langley maintains a Residence Office at KSC,
    try sending pouch mail to KSC Public Affairs office KSC PA-VCO)
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Jim Dumoulin                      INTERNET: DUMOULIN@TITAN.KSC.NASA.GOV
   NASA / Payload Operations      SPAN/HEPnet: KSCP00::DUMOULIN
   Kennedy Space Center
   Florida, USA  32899
  
 
Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:2796 sci.space:16141
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: 20 Nov 92 01:44:36 GMT
	<1992Nov19.202302.5796@iti.org> <STEINLY.92Nov19135044@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<BxzLMF.5J6@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: henry@zoo.toronto.edu's message of 19 Nov 92 23:37:24 GMT

In article <BxzLMF.5J6@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:


   In article <STEINLY.92Nov19135044@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >... the operation costs do seem quite optimistic, in
   >particular I'd have thought the early years operation would be higher
   >while ground support learned some maintenance procedures and
   >operational experience was developed on what needs inspection and
   >refurbishing between flights? I just don't see any way around that,
   >are the DCs really that much simpler?

   Wrong question.  There are two ways to go about this.  One is to assume
   that between-flights turnaround will be very complex, but it will get
   better if we look for ways to improve it.  The other is to assume that
   it will be simple, although a few complications may be found.  Oddly
   enough, only the second approach ever results in something simple and
   cheap.  You can always come up with reasons why complexity is needed,
   especially after you've already written the manuals and hired the staff.
   Simple systems do not evolve from complex ones.

   The right question is:  why should the DCs be much more complex than
   high-performance aircraft?

Intrinsically I see no reason why an orbital launcher should be
more complex than that - as a matter of practicality though there is the
fact that you have a lot of energy to be controlled in a very short
time - the SSME's power rating is a respectible fraction of US
capacity! Now, the DCs are not being designed on the margin, 
they have to be robust if they are not to be stripped down and
inspected every time. I guess my question really is whether they've
succeeded in reducing the number of parts _and_ gotten the reliability
of each part to the point where maintenance will be as low as claimed.
There is no intrinsic reason why it can't be done, but it is not clear
that the knowledge base to decide what is necessary refurbishment and
what is waste is there yet. Of course the only way to find out
is to fly the thing :-)

|  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	|
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:53:26 GMT

In article <s#s1_2@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>However, in the current budget climate, I just don't see NASA 
>having the money do pursue these ideas until after SSF has reached the
>Permanently Manned Configuration (PMC). 

Even if then.

What your assessment ignores is the posibility of BUYING from commercial
sources what you need. Each of the Shuttles capabilities can be replaced
with available or near term commercial systems. 

Not only are these systems far cheaper but they don't require a single
dime of development money from the Feds. All that is needed is for the
government to aggree to buy the cheaper service when it is available.

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------158 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:13:43 GMT
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains

In article <1992Nov16.142949.15445@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <69532@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>>It seems to me that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best
>>returns on investment in the space community!

>Atlas and Delta are providing profits for the companies which build them.
>That means they offer a return on investment.

>How can the Shuttle possibly be said to offer ANY (much less the best) return
>on investment? Shuttle has LOST billions.

The measure of the Shuttle's return is in knowledge, not dollars.  You know 
better, Allen...shame on you.
-- 
Matthew DeLuca             "We should grant power over our affairs only to
Georgia Tech                those who are reluctant to hold it and then only
Information Technology      under conditions that increase the reluctance."
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu              - Coda of the Bene Gesserit
From: petej@phred.UUCP (Peter Jarvis)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Hubble
Keywords: lab2.eng.auburn.edu
Date: 16 Nov 92 13:54:44 GMT
Reply-To: petej@phred.UUCP (Peter Jarvis)
Organization: <1992Nov12.232654.4613@news.duc.auburn.edu>o

In article <1992Nov12.232654.4613@news.duc.auburn.edu> forrepr@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>
>I believe there is a Shuttle Flight manifested for late next year that
>will visit the Hububle (uh, I mean Hubble) telescope. From what I've
>heard, the chances of success are pretty good. The defect in the scope's
>mirror is said to be 'perfect', so I *think* they'll just have to replace
>the main CCD camera with one of a different focal length.
>
D
You are correct. They currently have a mockup of Hubble in the neutral
buoyancy water tank at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Al.
Story  Musgrave and Tom Akers are currently in the tank working on repair
procedures.

Peter Jarvis..........
 
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: mcsdc1gs@dct.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Space Shuttle GIF
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:31:41 GMT
Organization: Dundee Institute of Technology



	Does anyone out there have a GIF of the Space Shuttle they
	could post?

	Thanx in advance...
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:07:51 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <STEINLY.92Nov19174436@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>   The right question is:  why should the DCs be much more complex than
>   high-performance aircraft?
>
>Intrinsically I see no reason why an orbital launcher should be
>more complex than that - as a matter of practicality though there is the
>fact that you have a lot of energy to be controlled in a very short
>time...

The engines are the one part of the DC birds that really do have to be
built to much more severe specs than anything found in aircraft.  But
this is a solved problem.  The RL10 (which DC-X will use) has already
demonstrated a dozen (test-stand) firings in a row without maintenance.
Most mature liquid-fuel rocket engines are really quite reliable and
would not need a lot of maintenance.  The SSME is not typical.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: wwxiong@silver.ksu.ksu.edu (Weize Wade Xiong)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Space Station Freedom.
Date: 16 Nov 1992 19:08:29 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: silver.ksu.ksu.edu


Does anybody know if Rassia is being considered to be a possiable partner of Space 
Station Freedom? Are we going to use some of their technology?

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: STS-53 Mission Emblem (crew patch) Now Available
Followup-To: sci.space.shuttle
Originator: kjenks@gothamcity
Keywords: STS-53 emblem patch insignia
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:30:48 GMT

The mission emblem for STS-53 is now available for anonymous FTP at
  ames.arc.nasa.gov:/pub/SPACE/LOGOS/sts-53.*

This batch of files includes all of the usual formats and the text
from the back of the decal.  Check out:
  ames.arc.nasa.gov:/pub/SPACE/LOGOS/README
for the list of available space logo files, graphics formats, etc.

(Hey, I got this one out BEFORE the mission this time.)

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

     "The STS-53 insignia shows the Space Shuttle Discovery rising to
      new achievments as it trails the symbol of the Astronaut Office
      against a backdrop of the American flag.  The five stars and
      three stripes also symbolize the mission number -- STS-53 -- and
      America's continuing commitment to world leadership in space.
      The pentagonal shape of the patch represents the Department of
      Defense and its support of the Space Shuttle Program.  The band
      delineating the flag from space includes the four colors of the
      military services of the crew members."
        -- The STS-53 Crew Patch Description
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:34:07 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Nov19135044@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>...but the operation costs do seem quite optimistic, in
>particular I'd have thought the early years operation would be higher
>while ground support learned some maintenance procedures and
>operational experience was developed on what needs inspection and
>refurbishing between flights? 

That is largely what DC-X & Y are for. Things will change with an operational
system, but not that much. One goal is five flights without major maintenance.
That means all it needs for the second launch is to be re-fueled.

Most of the savings are because we are approaching the problem in a different
way. The old way costs did need to be high because designs where complex
and always pushed the technology. Keeping it simple (the first rule of good
engineering), using existing well tested technology, and not pushing
envelopes reduces costs.

>Hmm, didn't you just say that Congress should just fund the DC-X,Y?

A mis-statement on my part. I ment if Congress properly funds DC-Y. I
do expect that DC-1 would be built by the private sector.

     Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------155 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:05:35 GMT

In article <HUGH.92Nov19200718@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> hugh@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson) writes:
>
>This sounds a lot like Shuttle-C, whatever happened to that idea?

The Shuttle-C and ALS programs were combined to form NLS, then Shuttle-C was
never heard from again.

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92                              Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:58:09 GMT

In article <By32Ix.8Ju@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>It's not an accident that the more farsighted schemes for encouraging
>commercial launchers focus on guaranteeing a market, not on providing
>direct support.

The problem with a 'Kelly act for space' is that the Government can
no longer be trusted to maintain the program long enough to do any
good.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------152 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: e.l.ellis@larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Passes for shuttle launch?
Date: 18 Nov 1992 14:33:08 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Distribution: world
Reply-To: e.l.ellis@larc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac11.larc.nasa.gov
Keywords: passes, launch

 smw@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Steve Welch) writes:
> Even from eleven miles, it is a very moving experience, by the way.  I'm
>sure others have told you about getting vehicle passes and/or VIP passes from
>your congressperson.  DOD launches are a bitch, but I seem to remember they
>used to still give out Causeway viewing passes, which puts you about 7 miles
>away, but with a clear view of the vehicle.  From US1 or the press site or
>the VIP site, you can't see the shuttle until it clears the tower, unfortunately.

Could you tell me a little more about how to obtain passes?  I gather that there
three types: Press pass, VIP pass, and Causeway vehicle pass.  The later two
made available by congressional represetitives.  And you recommend the press
pass first, causeway second, and VIP third. -- Have I got all that right?

I have a cousin who will be in FL for the JAN 13 launch of Endevour (sp?) and 
they've asked me to look into passes for a better view.  Also, I work for NASA:
Langley Research Center, Civil Service.  Will that fact give me access to better
passes?

Yeah, yeah.  I know.  "He works for NASA and HE'S asking US?!?!"  Well, I work
for LANGLEY:   far removed from anything the general public will ever hear of
(with few exceptions 8*).  If I start asking for shuttle info around here, all I get
are vacant expressions and "Why're'u askin' me?" type responses.

Thanks!