Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO691.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Mon,  7 Jun 93 05:00:12
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #691
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon,  7 Jun 93       Volume 16 : Issue 691

Today's Topics:
                  Case for Mars (Was: Re: Moon Base)
                            DC-X neighbor
                  Detecting planets in other system
              Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO  (Long)
      How would we get back to the moon, if we had to? (2 msgs)
         manifest destiny = US getting uppity again (4 msgs)
                             mass drivers
                          Moon Base (4 msgs)
                        my response to sherze
          Pres/VP go online with Internet Addresss! (2 msgs)
             Why are SSTO up-front costs rising? (2 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: 6 Jun 1993 12:46:42 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Case for Mars (Was: Re: Moon Base)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In following the the Ancient Jewish tradition, one does
not mention the name of the great God H.

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

Date: 6 Jun 1993 13:31:40 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X neighbor
Newsgroups: sci.space

Sure.

    what hardware are theyt running on the bird and on the fround.
What  major systems packages (DBMS,,,,)  what comms protocol do
they use between the bird and ground..  how is the remote piloting
controlled.  i assume all digitally,  could you talk about that?

pat

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 04:21:23 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detecting planets in other system
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Actually, you ought to be able to make a fair guess:  assume that you will
>get a Jupiter-like planet at about the distance where it gets cold enough
>for such a body to retain hydrogen.  Not a sure thing, but the odds ought
>to be fairly good.

Getting line noise like crazy at the moment, so bear with me.
(Maybe it's more evidence we're not in the Slow Zone anyhow).

Anyway, Dennis could probably tell more about this, but there's a
theory of planet formation going around that was done by Hannes Alfven
that explained Jupiter's formation because it was in the right place
to sweep up hydrogen that was dropping out of the T-Tauri wind...
am I remembering this right? I don't know if I have the details right,
just that it had something to do with plasma interactions; I also don't
know how accepted the theory is.

--

+-----------------------+"Somewhere in the back of her mind, she had always
|Phil Fraering          |had a vision of the Slowness as a stifling darkness
|[e-mail] |lit at best by torches, the domain of cretins and
+-----------------------+mechanical calculators." - Vernor Vinge,
                                                 _A Fire Upon the Deep_

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

Date: 6 Jun 1993 13:17:11 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO  (Long)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <1uqrrl$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes...
>
>The Japanese made mucho profits in the 80's, to the tune of hundreds of

There is a great deal of controversy on that.  Their exports were
priced at very low costs, and as the yen kept rising,  they kept
cutting prices.  The japanese real estate Bubble, served to attract enormous
amounts of US capital into Japan to keep their companies flush.
I think it may take more time before we understand exactly what happened.

But Japanese Real estate is down the toilet, and many of their companies
are in terrible thrash mode.


>This is where I HOPE the DC series does its homework. Only if they can
>contain the R&D costs AND contain the unit labor costs can the cost of
>

Oh, DC, has to be buildable on a small R&D budget.   All programs
build on previous R&D efforts.  The shuttle flys on the basis
of lots of electornics advances.  but still DC, needs to be
a small definable budget item by itself.  I have high
hopes for them.  the X vehicle ran $60 million so far,  and
they think the Y will run $200 million.   really small change
even by NASA standards.  Maybe McDAc can get Ross Perot to
invest in the project.

>>
>
>Just shows what moue grande cajones John Young had to fly the beast. I remember
>reading that his heart rate was never over 110 during launch. For Crippen
>it was 165! I remember the first flight and that they did lose a bunch of


And on landing/re-entry it was the other way.  Youngs heart was
screaming,  and crippen was just watching the show.


pat

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 04:28:32 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How would we get back to the moon, if we had to?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>THere was some interest in building new LM's using updated technology
>for  landing science packages on the moon.   The estimate would be that it
>would take 18 months and a billion dollars to crank out LM class vehicles.

>Propulsion hasn't changed at all since the 50's.

Uh, the LM's were built in the 60's. And I have to ask: are they
assuming storable propellants?

>Electronics are much better,  but you don't need much if you look
>at voyager.(for landing and descent control)

I am unaware of any landing options for Voyager. The best it
could do would be a lithobreaking maneuver (unless you mean the
airplane; on it the autopilot broke. Or at least one of them
did).

Anyway, better electronics would be a good improvement on the
LM's; you wouldn't need two people to land one.


--

+-----------------------+"Somewhere in the back of her mind, she had always
|Phil Fraering          |had a vision of the Slowness as a stifling darkness
|[e-mail] |lit at best by torches, the domain of cretins and
+-----------------------+mechanical calculators." - Vernor Vinge,
                                                 _A Fire Upon the Deep_

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

Date: 6 Jun 1993 13:22:06 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: How would we get back to the moon, if we had to?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
|[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
|
|>Propulsion hasn't changed at all since the 50's.
|
|Uh, the LM's were built in the 60's. And I have to ask: are they
|assuming storable propellants?
|

Yes, but it was still vintage 50's  propulsion approaches.

|>Electronics are much better,  but you don't need much if you look
|>at voyager.(for landing and descent control)
|
|I am unaware of any landing options for Voyager. The best it


AAARRGGHHH Viking.... damn, i hate when my make that kind of slip.

pat

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

Date: 6 Jun 1993 15:36:08 GMT
From: "Bruce d. Scott" <[e-mail]>
Subject: manifest destiny = US getting uppity again
Newsgroups: sci.space

Henry Spencer:

"Our biggest problem will be how to cope with a sudden 1000% growth in
Canada's population and wealth."

You will drown yourselves in decadent luxury and metamorphosise into
Americans, just as in the case of the Mongols and China.

After the next dynasty change, we will be back in charge of N Am.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

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

Date: 6 Jun 1993 12:54:21 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: manifest destiny = US getting uppity again
Newsgroups: sci.space

The House here was built in 1941, and with the clouds of War on the Horizon,
It was actually designed to withstand aerial bombardment.  14" thick
Reinforced concrete walls.  Brick backed up by effetively 2x8's.

But if you all want to reduce the property damage,  why not
Get a hold of an enhanced radiation Warhead.  Fire it at 10:00 am.
when the bureacrats are all at their desks.

now some of the stuff in the NASM may neeed a few years to cool off, but
the exhibits should all be intact.

:-)

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 17:17:20 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: manifest destiny = US getting uppity again
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Ward) writes:
>>>We plan to rectify that this time.  Blasting the entire area within
>>>the Beltway clear down to bedrock ought to do it...
>>>
>>Sounds OK to me--as long as you stop at the Beltway (which lies two
>>miles to the west of my house)...
>
>Given the nature of the fireworks, I'm afraid I'd suggest watching from
>a considerably greater distance, unless you truly have implicit faith in
>the USAF's statements about their missiles' accuracy.  Personally, I think
>I'd prefer to watch it on TV.  Australian TV.

    Too bad  my list of the various nuclear arsenals  got lost when my
previous account died. What *do* the Americans have in the Province
of North Dakota? Nuclear weapon-wise,I mean;  I know they  lack  Barney.

    Minutemen IIIs  have a CEP of about 300 meters (~1000 of those
quaint feet  the  rustics use).  I don't  think ICBMs and precision
bombing are compatable.

    Leave FEMA intact; that should  cripple their ability to
respond.


                            James Nicoll

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 17:44:23 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: manifest destiny = US getting uppity again
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1ut7ft$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>The House here was built in 1941, and with the clouds of War on the Horizon,
>It was actually designed to withstand aerial bombardment.  14" thick
>Reinforced concrete walls.  Brick backed up by effetively 2x8's.
>
>But if you all want to reduce the property damage,  why not
>Get a hold of an enhanced radiation Warhead.  Fire it at 10:00 am.
>when the bureacrats are all at their desks.
>
>now some of the stuff in the NASM may neeed a few years to cool off, but
>the exhibits should all be intact.

    Alas, reinforced concrete begins to be damaged at 470  millibars
overpressure, and  is crushed  by 1700 millibars OP:  If the rehabilitation
units are the three-hundred-fifty kt warheads, that  means the museum
is totalled if it  is less  than 1900  meters from ground zero,  and
damaged if less than 4000 meters away.  What's the nearest  hardened
target?

                            James  Nicoll

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

Date: 6 Jun 93 11:10:21 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: mass drivers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

> a practical system.  SSI's first prototype mass driver, built out of the
> MIT EE junkbox, demonstrated 30G.  A practical lunar system would almost
> certainly run at 1000G or more, making it only a few hundred meters long.


However, remember that the acceleration portion was only one part of
the system: there was also to be a part downstream of the accelerator
where (lateral) velocity errors were measured and corrected.  I've always
had the impression that was one of the more problematic parts of the
system (the mass catcher at the far Lagrange point was another).

    Paul

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 14:09:18 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>
>    Northern Canada, Siberia,  and Antarctica also offer places
>relatively free from massive  population build-up and industrialization,
>yet the flow of people pole-ward appears limited. Is there a reason
>why?

The dogs have fleas?

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: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 14:23:33 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1uq6o8$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>
>This may sound stupid, but couldn't there bea synergistic
>combination between lunar ops  and  Comet/asteroid ops?
>
>Mine  comets  by crashing them or parking them close to the moon.
>THe volatiles are used to support a lunar base.  The lunar base
>is a large stable platform for  complex operations.
>
>Does Lunar/asteroid ops need to be an either or proposition?
>
>Realistically,  returning volatiles to earth is a loser.
>same thing with  most elements except He3.   But the
>presence of these volatiles on the moon will allow
>significantly cheaper operations, for supportinga  large
>science base and for leveraging industry.

You could do it the way you suggest, but there's no good reason
to incur that gravity well penalty when the materials you want
are available cheaper from asteroids and comets. Luna doesn't
offer anything unavailable in open space except a large compact
mass and it's associated gravity well. Unless that's *necessary*,
such as for shielding of a farside radio observatory, then there's
no good reason to incur the penalty it imposes.

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: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 15:29:49 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>> That's why water from comets is so attractive. Extraction is simple,
>> and can scale from small to large by bootstrapping. So the investment
>> is never extreme at any given point in the development of the market.
>> Water is the Holy Grail in space. It can be used as reaction mass
>> in nuclear/steam, or even solar/steam, rockets. It can be electrolyzed
>> with solar electricity to hydrogen and oxygen for more energetic
>> rockets, or for breathing needs. ...
>
>
>Let's not exaggerate here.  Yes, extracting water from a senile comet
>is likely to be easier than extracting oxygen from lunar regolith.
>But it is still nontrivial.  And the volatiles must be filtered and
>purified before use in rockets.

Yes, Nick and I went around and around on this in the Mud Pump discussion
a few months ago. However, then we were looking at actually scooping
up material and batch processing it for all it's constituents. If we
treat a comet fragment as a whole body problem instead, we can use
fractional distillation to extract light volatiles and capture them
in the bag's cold trap. If moderately fine temperature control is
possible, well refined materials will result.

>Another point.  Water is nice, but it is hardly ideal as reaction
>mass.  If you had your choice of a propellant for nuclear or solar
>thermal rockets, hydrogen, methane, ammonia, hydrazine or methanol
>would be superior -- ammonia would deliver an Isp more than twice as
>high, for example, as the molecular weight of the exhaust is much
>lower (it decomposes to nitrogen + hydrogen) and, being reducing, is
>compatible with higher temperature materials.  If you are shipping
>stuff up from earth, you can afford to ship up a better, if harder to
>make, material, since making things down on earth is so easy.

Water, methane, ammonia, and carbon monoxide are known to exist
in comets. And of course water can be electrolyzed to hydrogen
and oxygen. We have to beat Earth launched materials costs of
course, and that's really a function of volume. For very small
volumes, Earth launched wins, for moderate volumes, cometary
sources look attractive, for large volumes, large launch cost
reductions from Earth start to look promising. For huge volumes,
ET looks better again. It's a horse race.

One of the more interesting solar-steam rocket engines is the
one developed by AMSAT. It's designed to be low thrust but long
duration. Solar cell powered electrical resistance elements in
a combustion chamber superheat injected water to steam yielding
a low steady thrust as long as the craft is in sunlight. Battery
assist can be used for stronger thrusts of short duration.

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: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 17:50:28 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>
>>    Northern Canada, Siberia,  and Antarctica also offer places
>>relatively free from massive  population build-up and industrialization,
>>yet the flow of people pole-ward appears limited. Is there a reason
>>why?
>
>The dogs have fleas?

    There's a fine allegory possible concerning manned exploration
of harsh  environments centered on the use of dog-sleds  vs  the use
of man-hauling.  One of the two techniques uses a cheaper expendible
propulsion unit. Heck, in a  pinch, you can eat the dogs.

                            James Nicoll

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

Date: 6 Jun 93 07:11:00 GMT
From: Kevin Bauer <[e-mail]>
Subject: my response to sherze
Newsgroups: sci.space

-=> Quoting Ken Hayashida to All <=-

KH> .@SUBJECT:My response to Sherzer, McCall, Fraering
KH> N .@FROM   :[e-mail]
KH> N .@MSGID  :<1uk8sd$[e-mail]>
KH> N From: [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida)
KH> Newsgroups: sci.space
KH> Subject: My response to Sherzer, McCall, Fraering
KH> Date: 3 Jun 1993 00:22:53 -0700
KH> Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
KH> Message-ID: <1uk8sd$[e-mail]>

KH> As some of you may know, I have come under fire from Mr. Sherzer, Mr.
KH> Fred McCall, Mr. Phil Fraering.  They object to my support for the
KH> shuttle program and are engaging in what appears as a protracted
KH> personal attack against my views.  In coming weeks, I will be
KH> attempting to clarify my support  for the shuttle program through
KH> well-documented posts with cross- references to NASA documents or
KH> congressional hearing documents which should be accessible to all
KH> sci.space readers at a good government collection at their local
KH> library.
KH> If you share my enthusiasm for the shuttle program, please
KH> send me your views at [e-mail].  It appears that shuttle
KH> program supporters will need to organize themselves in order to defend
KH> the program from critics such as Mr. McCall, Mr. Fraering, and Mr.
KH> Sherzer.

KH> We need to ensure that incorrect, unreferenced, and undocumented
KH> numbers and calculations with regard to the shuttle
KH> program will always be answered with solid posting and good
KH> questions.  If we do not counter their attempts at
KH> over-simplification, some will begin to believe their attempts at
KH> discrediting the work of tens of thousands of aerospace workers from
KH> across the US.
KH> I have not received any criticism of the shuttle program from
KH> individuals  other than Mr. Fraering, Mr. Sherzer, Mr. Spencer, and Mr.
KH> McCall.   To those, like Joe Hopkins at Boeing, who are interested in a
KH> technical and historical discussion of space vehicle economics, thank
KH> you for your support.  Joe, your email has been the most
KH> thought-provoking and insightful that I have received.  Although we do
KH> not always agree, I can always depend on you for a good letter and a
KH> great discussion.
KH> I don't have time to waste reposting the more biting comments which
KH> Mr. Fraering, Mr. Sherzer, and Mr. McCall have made against me, but if
KH> you want you can read their statements yourselves.  It is
KH> disappointing that one needs to post their credentials in order to
KH> defend oneself from personal attack.

KH> In response to their charges of my lack of insight, judgement, or
KH> experience in spaceflight; I do need to state that I have worked on the
KH> shuttle program at Rockwell International's STS Division in Downey.
KH> During those 3 summers I helped to develop the mathematical models
KH> which engineers use to calculate the heating loads on the orbiter.

KH> My views of launch system economics is based on my experience working
KH> on the shuttle program.  Having viewed and helped to solve the
KH> technical issues involved in spacecraft operations, I am aware of the
KH> volume of work which is required to successfully complete one manned
KH> mission in low Earth orbit.

KH> In addition, I was trained by NASA in the space life sciences at
KH> Kennedy Space Center in 1988 where we were thoroughly briefed on
KH> shuttle operations and space science opportunities aboard shuttle.  I
KH> don't  believe that my 4 critics have had the opportunity to
KH> obtain this first-hand information or to develop this range of
KH> experience in engineering, medicine, and space biology.

KH> Mr. Fraering:
KH> I hope you will understand that this board is only a hobby of mine.
KH> So, I will no longer be responding to your responses.  It has taken me
KH> days to address the inaccuracies in just one of your posts.  Mr.
KH> Fraering, your posting trajectory has hit perigee several times, like:

>>I'm sure you're a nice, interesting boy, but you don't know how absurd
>>some of your arguments have sounded.

KH> Folks, it concerns me that anyone would be so bold as to make the
KH> statements  that he makes.  Mr. Fraering, your information sources for
KH> shuttle are poor.  In the coming weeks I will be attempting to set the
KH> record straight with a series of posts.

KH> I urge any individual who is interested in the technical workings of
KH> the space shuttle orbiter to obtain a copy of Rockwell International's
KH> Space Transportation System Press Information folder.  Another book
KH> which is  available to the general populous, and may be located in your
KH> local library, is The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual, by Kerry Mark
KH> Joels and Gregory P. Kennedy (Ballantine Books, New York, Libary
KH> of Congress Catalog Card Number:  82-90220).

KH> Because of the magnitude of the charges which these individuals have
KH> leveled against myself and, more importantly, against the shuttle
KH> program, I am ging to be making a series of posts.  These posts will
KH> be organized by the STS system or orbiter subsystem as defined by the
KH> National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Rockwell
KH> International, the prime contractor for the space shuttle.

KH> Thanks for reading.
KH> I hope you will enjoy the series.

KH> Ken
KH> [e-mail]

Dear Mr. Hayashida,

I find myself also in general disagreement with the majority of your
posts. The only reason I have not said anything before is that I, like
you am in school and I don't really have the time to post replies,
another reason is that your four 'antagonists' say the things I would
like to much better especially since their technical knowledge about
the subject is much better than mine and IMO yours as well. Even in
my first year of college I know that a vehicle's weight does not
contribute at all to the net payload it will carry to orbit. The
moving van analogy directed to you by one of your 'antagonists' in a
previous post was an excellent example, also you continue to think that
the STS program does not deserve critical analysis from the people
who would know exactly how to analyze it's faults. I do wholeheartedly
support the DC-X program and have called several key congressmen in
critical subcommittees, I have written letters to my own states' Senators
and congressmen to support this program. I am not doing this because the
shuttle is a cheap and inexpensive launch system chock full of bargains
for the lowly taxpayer's dollars. So please don't think it is just the
four 'antagonists' that disagree with you, I also think your emotional
attachment to the STS program inhibits your realization of it's
shortcomings.
Sincerely,
Kevin C. Bauer

Internet: <[e-mail]>

... I'm really unhappy with President Clinton...and her husband.
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10

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

From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pres/VP go online with Internet Addresss!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 04:11:35 GMT
Lines: 24
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>Well, Bush set a good precedent, and then there was Nixon, and before
>him Johnson, not to mention Truman...

Yah. Of the three you've mentioned, people only like Truman.
The United States has been going through Vice President Aversion
Therapy.

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

If the earth is green why does it scream under a blue moon?

--

+-----------------------+"Somewhere in the back of her mind, she had always
|Phil Fraering          |had a vision of the Slowness as a stifling darkness
|[e-mail] |lit at best by torches, the domain of cretins and
+-----------------------+mechanical calculators." - Vernor Vinge,
                                                 _A Fire Upon the Deep_

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 14:11:00 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Pres/VP go online with Internet Addresss!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>If you must write to someone, try writing (on paper) to the vice-president.
>He is a good bet to be president within ten or fifteen years, and he does
>not get much mail.

Al Gore president? If true it signals the end of the Republic.

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: 6 Jun 1993 07:55:38 -0400
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why are SSTO up-front costs rising?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>>Is Delta Clipper
>>going to be a success, indicating that organizations can change?

>Well so far, I think it looks good. I think the lesson isn't that
>organizations are angels or devils but that the deciding factor is the
>rules of the game. DC is working because SDIO picked good rules for the
>game. Should NASA change the rules, they will have my wholeharted support.
>In fact, this is why I have lobbied for Goldin so that can happen.

>Why does that bother you?

Allen, knowing that I am a Delta Clipper supporter, why do you think that
would bother me?  For what it is worth, this particular debating tactic of
yours (Why does that bother you?  Why do you oppose reduced cost?) is
particularly annoying; is that something you picked up in a high school
debate class somewhere?

>>mud forever?  Allen likes to assert both sides, depending on whether or not
>>it is one of his 'blessed' projects.

>You missed it. I 'bless' projects because they work, not the other way
>around. I 'bless' results.

I find this hard to believe, since you've been bouncing up and down about
DC-X since long before they started working on hardware.

Now that I am done abusing you I feel much better. :-)  Back to the real
discussion at hand:

I was thinking about that table you posted the other day, amortizing
development costs across a number of launches.  Since an eventual goal
(I assume) is to sell the DC-1 vehicle commercially, and the government is
going to eat the R&D costs, it seems like it might make more sense to
forget about the R&D costs when calculating launch costs, and just amortize
the hardware cost (plus a profit for MacDac) versus launches.  How does
this thinking change the per-launch cost?
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Jun 1993 13:28:11 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why are SSTO up-front costs rising?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Ward) writes:
>I would start a summary of your list (of the things DC-X is doing right):
>1.  Experimentation
>2.  Small Core Team Atmosphere
>3.  Streamlined Procurement
>4.  Progressive Development (scaling up to DC-1)


5.  Trading off Performance for Reliability considerations.
6.  Use of MANPRINT guidelines (Design for Maintainability)
7.  Use of COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf) Products.
8.  Very simple requirements specs. (i'd bet the specs are not more then
    a couple of pages.)
9.  Airplane considerations.

pat

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 691
------------------------------