Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO613.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Sun, 23 May 93 05:00:11
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #613
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 23 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 613

Today's Topics:
                      About the mercury program
                  Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!) (2 msgs)
                   Life on Earth (or elsewhere : -)
                            Life on Mars.
                Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
            Refueling GRO (was Re: HST Servicing Mission)
                    Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
            Space Billboards and Low-Cost Access to Orbit
                        Super ZIp seperators.
           Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin" (5 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 16:16:34 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: About the mercury program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:
>>>Which brings us back to the fellow with the plastic box. At the appointed
>>>time our hero turned the crank. Unfortunately he turned it too hard, and
>>>it broke!
>>
>>Hadn't heard of that one, but it does sound possible.  Such things don't
>>get much publicity, but apparently it is not that uncommon for an experiment
>>to be messed up because the astronaut(s) goofed.  (A lot of those guys are
>>not the type of people you would pick if you wanted careful compliance with
>>procedures laid down in advance -- you don't get to be an astronaut by
>>being humble and obedient.)
>
>A quick check of the Gemini Mid-Program Conference Proc. (NASA SP-121)
>shows that the sea urchin egg growth experiment was carried aboard
>Gemini III and experienced "mechanical failure" during the flight.
>The PI was R.S. Young of NASA Ames.


I think it's wrong to blame the astronaut for this failure, at least not
totally. Instead the PI screwed up in mechanical design. A look at his
3 year old's Jack in the Box would have showed him how to make a box with
a hand crank that even the clumsiest little vandal couldn't easily break.

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     |                     |

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 16:09:23 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>I suppose you could modify an aluminum SST for a short sprint to Mach 3+,
>with active cooling for leading edges and limits on high-speed flight time
>so the rest of the structure wouldn't get too hot, but it sounds a little
>marginal to me.

Is there *anything* about space launching that isn't marginal when
compared to civil aviation? High speed dash capability has been
demonstrated in B-58, SR-71, and of course X-15 without active cooling
systems. Now the latter used special materials, but we've become much
more adept at that in recent years. Active cooling for the necessary
short dashes might be easiest, but even Shuttle tiles or thermal blankets
might do for passive protection. (I know, bite your tongue for mentioning
off the shelf Shuttle pieces.)

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     |                     |

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 22:01:57 GMT
From: "Mark S. Nelson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Chuck Rose) writes:
>
> I remember when I was in high school, one of the other
> history classes had to balance the budget.  What was the
> first thing they cut: NASA.  Completely.  Not one dime.
> This attitude is so prevalent in Americans that it scares me.
> (Even in people I otherwise consider intelligent).
>
> Whenever I encounter this attitude, I speak my mind and try
> to at least make these people aware of the benefits they
> derive from space technology, the most obvious of which is
> their around the world live TV.  Through persistence, I have
> convinced a few who just didn't realize what space research
> has given them.

After reading the above remarks, I thought it would be very useful if
someone could compile a list of the things which are direct results of
space research and exploration that benefit our lives.  Something like
this could be very good for us space advocates.  It could include things
like satelite weather pictures, etc.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you know is wrong.

Mark S. Nelson       [e-mail]      [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 1993 17:15:00 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chuck Rose) writes:
>|> Today US is paying for Carter's petty saving.
>|>
>|>
>|> Pawel Moskalik
>|>
>|>
>
>To sat that the US is paying for Carter's petty saving is
>missing the point that the reason we do not do more in space
>is because Americans, both liberal and conservative, think
>that speding money in space is a waste.  NASA's chunk of


Most people, both liberal and conservative, think that spending
money the NASA way is waste. Shuttle program is visibly wastefull
and this is why people do not like it. One of the reasons why
shuttle is so expensive to operate is that NASA was saving money
in development costs. that happened during Carter years. Now we
are paying for these savings with

a) excessive operational costs
b) lack of publick support (putting it mildly)


b) is actually the biggest harm: because of the shuttle most people
think that manned flights HAVE TO BE expensive nad thus not worth
doing. Or even that all space operations are not worth doing.
Resulting lack of support leads to lack of funding and lack of progress.


Returning to Carter, I do not think that Republican administrations
have been so much better. Reportedly there have been lots of research
in SDIO, but we still have to see this research translated into cheaper
acces to space.

Pawel Moskalik

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 93 13:07:20 GMT
From: Paul Johnson <[e-mail]-mrc>
Subject: Life on Earth (or elsewhere : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:

>Life on other water-covered planets might end up looking
>like some of the Burgess critters; hell, "we" might have.
>The fact that we exist as we do does not imply that this
>was the only possible evolutionary path, or even the "best".
>'Twas a bit of a crap shoot.  As things worked out, we have
>the ability to get into space; why crap it up with billboards ?

I would like to argue that if the Aliens have a carbon-oxygen
metabolism then they are going to be basically similar to us.  Here
goes:

To get intelligent, technological life you need a species with
manipulative ability and enough energy to support a large brain
(something like 20% of your metabolism is required to keep that
lump of grey goo going).

Take the metabolism first.  That means something at least half our
size.  Below that and the overhead (!) of supporting a decent sized
cerebellum becomes prohibitive.  The rest of the brain might be
scalable with body size, but if the cerebellum is responsible for
intelligence then that has an absolute size limit.

For animals of that size, quadruped body plans provide the best
compromise of speed, manouvrability and stability.  Hexapods (like
insects) take less co-ordination because you can always be standing on
three legs, but the design is too clumsy for larger animals.  Bipedal
organisms require a much better nervous system for balance.  Hence
quadrupeds will develop into the large animal niches.  They will have
a front end because a body that can move in all directions equally is
less efficient.  Its better to turn round and run.

These large animals will have internal skeletons for reasons of scale:
chitin does not scale up well.

Putting the brain and a cluster of sense organs at the front top
provides the best compromise.  The sense organs need to go at the
front top, and the brain needs to be near them in order to receive
signals as quickly as possible.  This particularly applies to
steerable eyes and ears.  The number of eyes and ears might
conceviably vary: two eyes are supported by symmetry and the need for
binocular ranging.  They are also the minimum number for all-round
vision.  However one might imagine a third eye in the back of the head
for spotting danger and two for good binocular vision to the front.
A brain placed in the head requires a skull to protect it.  We also
need a spine, partly as the backbone for the rest of the body and
partly to protect the nervous system.  Since it has to be connected
with the head and since everything else in the body hangs off it, we
are going to get the basic vertabrate design.

Breathing need have nothing to do with the head.  An air tube
somewhere else would be better.

By the time we get to roving quadrupeds, eating could also be better
handled apart from somewhere other than the head, but that requires
rather more eye-mouth co-ordination in the early stages, and the
location of the mouth (along with gullet etc) is pretty central to the
body plan.  Hence I suspect that aliens will still ingest food through
a hole in the head.  Its possible that a related argument might be
made for breathing.

Once these quadrupeds start catching and eating things, particularly
if those things are small, then manipulative limbs become very useful.
By now there is a big enough brain and nervous system to handle
bipedal locomotion, and to manage the hands (these things actually
develop together of course, each one encouraging the other).  So we
wind up with a biped with two upper limbs, a head with two frontal
eyes (and maybe one or two others), food hole and maybe air hole in
the head, and all the other minor refinements (flexible neck for
instance, and maybe tails) that go with this basic body plan.
Incidentally, what made the apes lose their tails?

Of course I have skipped over areas I know less about, like the
evolution of nervous systems.  My argument about brain position
presupposes a serious limit on nerve speed.  But I suspect that our
nerve propogation system is probably the best for very simple and
primitive nervous systems like those of nematodes and jellyfish.  By
the time nerve signal propogation becomes a problem it is part of the
basic architecture and cannot change.

This is a very fast tour of an area of speculation with a lot of
detail, but it should make for an interesting thread.

Paul.

--
Paul Johnson ([e-mail]).        | Tel: [phone] ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 18:04:56 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Mars.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

In article <1tjr3n$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Clark) writes:
>>>>   His detector is known as the Labeled Release Experiment. He claims
>>> that in numerous tests of his detector on terrestrial soil samples
>>> he never once got a false positive or false negative response.

>>He never tested it on soil baked with UV light in a 7 mbar carbon
>>diox

>  Before the launch Dr. Levin tested his detector in a "Mars box"
>used to simulate a Mars environment for the Viking missions at the
>NASA Ames Research Center on a sample on which his detector was
>successfully able to detect life. The microorganisms in the sample
>survived the Mars-like environment and again gave positive life-signs
>when subjected to Dr. Levin's experiment.

The pre-Viking "Mars box" didn't include the UV light. I've heard
a little bit of talk about putting together a new Mars box that
would do so...

>>The experiment basically gave positive results (i.e. the sugars
>>added to the sample was converted into carbon dioxide and something, as
>>they had been metabolized) for a short time but then ceased
>>to do so. The general consensus is that the Martian soil contains
>>highly oxidized, normally unstable, chemicals as a result of UV light,
>>and if you add moist carbon compounds, it will react with them vigorously
>>releasing carbon dioxide. Of course, this will only continue for
>>a short time before all the oxides are consumed.

>  To test the idea that oxidized compounds created by UV light were
>causing false positives, the Viking lander was commanded to retrieve
>a sample from under a rock that was presumed not to have moved for
>thousands of years thus shielding the sample from UV light. The sample
>again gave positive life-signs.

While the rock may not have moved, the soil may have: The Martian
soil at the Viking sites was wind-blown sand. It would be reasonable
to assume some mixing of the sand under the rock with other, UV-exposed
sand.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 14:39:28 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Murdering ET (was Re: murder in space)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ben Delisle 02/15/93) writes:


>    Killing an ET would be legal as current law only states people,
>persons, men, women, children. An ET; however, is not classified or
>mentioned. They could be considered as animals (possibility plants) as they
>are non-human lifeforms and may be subject to animal protection laws, but
>not the same protection as humans.
>    Knowing the general human attitude to other people(s) and
>even animals and their past behaviour, any contact with ET's will
>probably end up with us exploiting the ET's irreguardless of any
>technological advantage on their part. New levels of discrimination
>will be seen.

What about going off the deep end away from government law and into
customary law?

For instance: try shooting at a dolphin in my presence if _I_ have
a firearm too... or probably most people in the United States...

>--
>[e-mail]
>A man's reputation may take many years of work to build, and be lost with
>a simple mistake.
--

Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
[e-mail]|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 1993 18:42:52 GMT
From: Dave Akin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling GRO (was Re: HST Servicing Mission)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> John Gladu,
[e-mail]
writes:
>One of the objectives of the EVA performed by Dave Leestma and Kathy
Sullivan
>(I forget the mission number) was a kind of feasibility test for
on-orbit
>refueling.  I don't remember if they actually transferred any
liquids/gasses,
>it was more of a test to see if they could manipulate the connectors and
>hoses, in zero-g, while wearing space suits.

On STS 41-G, Leetsma and Sullivan did a test of hydrazine
refuelling. The test equipment replicated the ground fill port for a
Landsat spacecraft - the focus of the test was on the capability to
perform refuelling of satellites not specifically designed for orbital
refuelling. The task required taking off the dust cover on the
hydrazine line (cutting off safety wire, etc.) and hooking up the
refuelling hoses. Actual hydrazine transfer occurred after the EVA
crew was back inside, and redundant valves isolated the crew from
the hydrazine (and yes, it was actual hydrazine, not an inert
substitute). The biggest concern about hydrazine contamination is
not that it would eat through the suit, but that the stuff is toxic in
PPM quantities. Getting hydrazine into a closed cabin life support
system could spoil everyone's day. The point of this experiment
was to demonstrate that, even on stock existing satellites,
hydrazine refuelling could be performed safely by EVA.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 17:44:16 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz and Shuttle Comparisons
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George Hastings) writes:
>  The Soyuz-TM spacecraft is lifted into orbit by PROTON, which
>has some fairly impressive heavy-lift capabilities.

This is not the case. The Soyuz is launched on the Soyuz (the
Soviet press named launch vehicles after the first spacecraft
they launched...) aka SL-4 aka "Type A-3" launch vehicle. Its
payload is far lower than that of the Proton (It's actually
a close derivitive of the first Vostok launch vehicle designed
in 1958...) Further the Proton is not man-rated, and probably
could not be made so due to vibration problems.

> Here are the specs:
>[...]
>Payload Mass            21 Tons
>Shroud Mass             3 Tons
>Total Launch Mass        698 Tons
>Total Launch Vehicle Langth    59.8 Meters

Payload Mass            7.2 tonnes
Shroud Mass            4.5 tonnes
Total Launch Mass        310 tonnes
Total Launch Vehicle Length    49.3 m

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 May 93 11:37:05 EDT
From: Robert Coe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Billboards and Low-Cost Access to Orbit
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

[e-mail] (Sheaf) writes:

> I think "visiting LEO" would be still be wishful thinking in 100 years,
> let alone 10-20... especially if the only technology we're talking about
> developing here is how to put stuff in orbit more cheaply.  A commercial
> launching venture is not going to put money into R&D for spacetravel,
> which still has major, possibly insurmountable technological barriers.

Er, I think the man means "Low Earth Orbit", not a constellation of the
zodiac.  The barriers to that are obviously financial, not technological.

   ___            _                                           -  Bob
   /__) _   /    / ) _   _
(_/__) (_)_(_)  (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ [e-mail]
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 1993 18:26:45 GMT
From: Dave Akin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Super ZIp seperators.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> fred j mccall
575-3539,
[e-mail] writes:
>Good God!  Real facts!  (finally)  Even if they're still larded with
>his usual flame bait, this may be a miraculous change.  Where did I
>put my calendar?  Where's that red pen?
>
>Ok, now on to the next 'problem' with using these, since you've now
>actually posted something other than sheer assertion and convinced me
>that it's reasonable.
>
>Who drills the holes in the bottom of the HST to attach these things
>into?  Keep in mind that you're going to have to drill those holes out
>again the next time you reboost it.

Maybe what you folks need is a more complete set of facts
- on the aft surface of HST is the MMS (multi-mission
spacecraft) interface, which consists of three bars held off
the surface by stand-offs and oriented parallel to the back
face, radially at 120 deg intervals. (Based on their
appearance, they are usually referred to as "the towel
racks".) When the shuttle captures HST for the
refurbishment mission, these bars will fit into latches on the
FSS (flight service structure), which will allow the
spacecraft to be manipulated in the shuttle bay, and will
support it during the shuttle reboost. During the
development activities for OMV (orbital maneuvering
vehicle), the prime task studied was to dock to the MMS
interface to perform an HST reboost. In fact, if you get a
chance to check out the flat floor simulation facility at
NASA Marshall, their free-floating test vehicle still has the
three-armed MMS docking adapter.

Remember that every satellite in space got there some way,
and so all of them have "hard points" that can be used in
transferring loads into the structure. The trunnions used for
the shuttle are perhaps the most difficult to deal with, just
because they are spread across 15 ft. diameters. Almost
everything launched on an expendable (and many
spacecraft launched on the shuttle) have thrust structures on
the aft end that are accessible for grappling and
maneuvering - some by plan, most just by happy accident
of design.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 13:02:08 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Hart) writes:

> The main priority with the vast majority is cutting the deficit.  If Clinton
> cancelled the Shuttle tommorrow as a highly visible way to help cut
> the deficit, he'd probably get majority support, and help give him
> an image he badly wants, as somebody who cares about cutting the deficit
> not just raising taxes.    In fact, cutting the Shuttle would go much
> farther in terms of that image than cutting just about any other
> comparably sized government program, *because* it is such a visible
> program.


If you look at polling information, the space program comes in next to
last as a priority for funding; only defense is lower (and look at the
hit it is taking).  A large array of social programs have more
support.  And support for NASA has declined in the past few years, as
the kneejerk post Challenger support has ebbed and deficits have
grown.  More people now think the NASA budget should be reduced or
zeroed than think it should increase.

(Source: Gallup polls from the last few years; see the Gallup
organization's magazine for details.)

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 1993 10:11:22 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>Uh, don't look now, but we sure seem to do a lot of business selling
>weapons systems to other countries.  You might also want to examine
>the trade deficit with regard to Europe.  You'll find we sell them a
>lot more than they sell us and that part of what we sell them is
>things like F-16 fighters, radar sets, etc.
>

Of course,  The net contribution to the US GDP by foreign weapons
sales is kind of poor.

We sell front line weapons to unstable third world countries,  then
we have to increase our own military presence,  because these
countries become more dangerous.

Also a number of our client states,  do not pay cash on the barrel,
but rather pay in FOreign military sales credits  (FMCs).

SO thus the US taxpayers are underwriting those sales.

Even with the arabs,  They pay cash,  but then we give weapons to israel
to balance them out.  Not real good for our GDP.

Besides,  I think the europeans  build 80-90% of their weapons platforms,
or  even when we sell them,  it's on a co-production basis, a degraded
value exchange.

I know the reagan administration  boosted foreign military sales
activities,  but I think it just made life more unstable and complex.
>
>[Don't rely on my being 100% objective, either, although I try to be.

What can I say:-)

pat

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 1993 10:37:29 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <1tkjfl$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>Hey, pat, I'm not sure you realize it, but space funding is a social program,
>but instead of only providing for "general welfare", it also
>pays for the "common defense"  So, while we could be paying for people
>to get free homes, free food, free health care, and not work; we could
>alternatively be paying for people to work, pay for their own homes,
>their own food, their own health care, and get a shuttle program or
>space station out of it.  Which is preferable to you?
>

I'd rather have a working space transportation system,
then A flying welfare box.

You live in LA,  How many vital social programs don't get funded.

Tell me ken.   Do you think HEad Start,  Vacinnations  and public
health clinics are less important then the Board of Rockwell?

Believe me,  the SOcial welfare state needs total, reform.

In the 1950's  this country had an enormous social welfare
system,  but it wasn't in a bureaucracy.   WE had subsidized
starter Homes,  Cheap Medical care,  Free QUALITY schools.

Besides you have never worked on a government contract.
I have never seen so many slackers  and make work do nothings
as on a typical contract.  I worked on one Navy job,  we had 200
people on the contract,  and  15 people produced 85% of the effort.

The rest were there  fulfilling paper work requirements.

>BTW, I'm not republican (as someone seemed to infer).  I'm a conservative
>democrat.  Don't misconstrue my arguments, I'm for space shuttle because
>its the most sophisticated and best example of American technology in the
>air-space field.  We need shuttle in order to better understand how

Hardly.  If we need an experimental research vehicle,  it would
be the XTS, and have a research agenda.  If we need a transport
system, it wouldn't be doing research..

THe problem with shuttle is it's a camel.  in trying to be everything,
it does nothing well.

A research vehicle,  produces  massive research data, and evolves
to explore the environment.

A transport vehicle,  provides RELIABLE, rapid sortie rates.

Read the history of the X-15, to see what a real research program was like.
that or read up on the X planes in general.



>we can use the space environment in future scientific and maybe commercial
>development efforts. I still feel that there's no flying machine which
>can match the characteristics of the orbiter.  If anyone can challenge that,
>lets hear it!
>

There are two ways to read that you know.

Most aero-space vehicles don't try to match the STS.

The soviets dropped BURAN,  partly because it was useless, compared
to their other launch systems.

Saagdev, who headed their science missions was scathing about Buran.

>Pat, I took offense to your off-handed comment (maybe in jest?) about
>the poor on welfare and rich people gaining from shuttle.  I was under the
>impression that people in the US were supposed to better themselves and that
>the shuttle program provided that vehicle for social change.
>

People are supposed to better themselves.  Prove how the shuttle
is this vehicle.   Second, if Shuttle is a vehicle for social change,
please demonstrate how it is bettter then Maglev trains,  the SSC,
the Human Genome Project, Bridge and road repair programs......

>Gee, let's see.  My dad grew up in a family that worked on sugar cane
>plantations in Hawaii.  My mom grew up in Manzanar.  Does that qualify me
>as a "rich" kid?  I've been working 80 hr weeks in LA County General hospital.

I never said you were a rich kid.

>Does that make me rich?  I support defense and science R&D by the federal
>government because the fed is the only organization with enough money to back
>those programs.
>

I support Govt R&D, also,  but the shuttle is not R&D.

A standing army of 10,000 people to maintain a 8 sorty/year rate
is not R&D, it's welfare.

Edwards  does lot's of R&D.  Ask Mary  how many people work on the
HAARV, or any of their other programs.

The DC-X  has a team size of appx 100 people.

>To all you DC-er's and shuttle-haters...could you folks please
>ante up with the market that private space launchers are supposed to fill?
>where is the capital supposed to come from in order to support a private
>launch industry and private space hardware development?
>

All missions requiring  25,000 lbs to LEO.   That's  80%
of the existing launch market.  Any Atlas mission,  any
Delta mission  and some Titan missions.

The DC-1 would compete against Ariane  and Long March Soyuz and Proton.

I think we are talking about a 5 Billion dollar market,  and
if the price drops,  look at an explosion in low earth orbit missions.

Look at  Facsimile traffic, or  Air express package services.

>Nobody's out there with 1 billion bucks except the US gov't. guys.
>

Ross Perot is.
:-)

>DC-X ain't cheap either folks.
>

Sure is.  60 million  to build, is real cheap in any aero-space segment.

That's far less then the cost of a jet liner.
 design project.
>DC-X-2 development could reach  600 million according to Dornan's office
>in the House of Representatives.  And, don't say that's only due to
>government intervention either!
>
It's also a much bigger project.

Do you know how much shuttle DDTE was?  35 billion.

>shuttle is the best piece of hardware we've got.  If shuttle haters get
>their way, we'll be out of the manned space business for the rest of the
>century.  boy (smirk), that'd be a great legacy wouldn't that?
>Back to the days of 1976-1979 when skylab fell and shuttle couldn't fly.
>Carter administration II...hope not!
>
>

If shuttle is the best we have,  we might as well
get out of manned space.

Manned space has always had trouble proving it's value,  and i don't see
how the shuttle has helped.

pat

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 14:34:38 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

[e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>BTW, I'm not republican (as someone seemed to infer).  I'm a conservative
>democrat.  Don't misconstrue my arguments, I'm for space shuttle because
>its the most sophisticated and best example of American technology in the
>air-space field.

Tell a lie often enough, and maybe someone will beleive it...

>development efforts. I still feel that there's no flying machine which
>can match the characteristics of the orbiter.  If anyone can challenge that,
>lets hear it!

There are some that can match its glide pattern. If you run the engines
backward.

And there isn't a flying machine in the world that has destroyed
as much money/effort/resources.

>To all you DC-er's and shuttle-haters...could you folks please
>ante up with the market that private space launchers are supposed to fill?
>where is the capital supposed to come from in order to support a private
>launch industry and private space hardware development?

The government market.

>Nobody's out there with 1 billion bucks except the US gov't. guys.

But they'd rather spend 10 billion doing internally what could be
contracted out for 1 billion.

>DC-X ain't cheap either folks.

Compared to shuttle, it has the capability of drawing support from
the public after all the pork barrel politicians get washed out.



>shuttle is the best piece of hardware we've got.  If shuttle haters get
>their way, we'll be out of the manned space business for the rest of the
>century.  boy (smirk), that'd be a great legacy wouldn't that?
>Back to the days of 1976-1979 when skylab fell and shuttle couldn't fly.
>Carter administration II...hope not!

We're out of the manned space exploration business now; have been since
1973. Where the hell were you?
--

Phil Fraering         |"Number one good faith! You convert,
[e-mail]|you not tortured by demons!" - anon. Mahen missionary

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 18:15:29 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Government? Re: Shuttle, "Centoxin"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

On Sat, 22 May 1993 14:34:38 GMT, [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) said, in reference to the Shuttle:

Phil> And there isn't a flying machine in the world that has destroyed
Phil> as much money/effort/resources.

Well, the B-1 program is certainly a close competitor, if not the
victor.  It can't even perform its mission and has spent more time
grounded than Shuttle did after Challenger.

On the other hand, the B-1A, in the white livery, was a great deal
more attractive than the Shuttle.  Not so the B-1B--what a difference
a little paint makes.

I see B-1s and B-2s fairly frequently.  For all the ballyhoo about the
B-2's cost, I'll bet that the B-1 is a great deal more expensive, in
current dollars, over the entire life of the program.  Particularly if
you add in all the lobbying costs.

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 613
------------------------------