Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Fri, 26 Apr 91 02:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4c5wcCm00WBwM31k5u@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 02:34:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #467 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 467 Today's Topics: Re: Shuttle Reliability (was: Re: Saturn V and the ALS) Re: Saturn V and the ALS Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints) sci.space Personal Ambition Survey -- Revised Results Re: Saturn V and the ALS Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Apr 91 18:14:22 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela!aws@apple.com (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Shuttle Reliability (was: Re: Saturn V and the ALS) In article <9104251625.AA25561@gemini.arc.nasa.gov> greer%utdssa.dnet%utadnx@utspan.span.nasa.gov writes: >If we looked at how many items in all the planned manifests of the Shuttle >were successfully executed, how low would the success rate be then? Far below >50% I would imagine. Can anyone out there venture a guess? There is a good graph of this in the November 12,1990 Avation Week on page 27. It shows Shuttle actual flights vs flights on the manifest for the past ten years. The first manifest had the 55th flight happening around the end of 83. Eight and a half years later we have had less than 40 flights. Even manifests made as recently as the Fall of 89 are off by a factor of two. From looking at the graph I would say that post-challenger performance against the manifest has been just about 50%. Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back | | aws@iti.org | to you, hunt it down and kill it. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 18:38:00 GMT From: rochester!sol!yamauchi@louie.udel.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article <1991Apr25.164607.1096@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1991Apr24.190403.27151@en.ecn.purdue.edu> irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu (/dev/null) writes: >>Re tooling and parts finding for the old >>Saturn V is a nightmare that does not give us much benefit besides >>a rocket >I don't think anyone will dispute that reviving the >Saturn V is not going to advance launcher technology. It's not supposed to. >>If we don't try to become better, we only go backwards! >>(Many other nations would thank us for this) >The Europeans thank you profusely for not coming through on the shuttle's >promises; Arianespace has made a bundle out of your failure. On the other hand, wasn't Ariane designed from scratch? Or is it simply a derivative of American launchers (Titan/Atlas/Delta/etc.)? -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Department of Computer Science _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 19:17:41 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@apple.com (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints) In article <920@idacrd.UUCP> mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) writes: Charles Frank Radley wrote: CFR> Federal law prohibits The Us Government ( including NASA ) CFR> from purchasing launches on foreign launch vehicles. and Robert McGwier responds: RMc>You are incorrect. There will be US built satellites launched on Long March's RMc>sometime in the near future and there are now DOZENS of launches on RMc>Arianes. I have PERSONALLY built satellites in the US that were launched RMc>on Ariane. RMc>How's about checking your facts before making false flat statements. and Philip Fraering would like to point out: He meant government satellites, not privately built. -- Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu Joke going around: "How many country music singers does it take to change a light bulb? Four. One to change the bulb, and three to sing about the old one." ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 91 05:14:49 GMT From: rochester!sol!yamauchi@louie.udel.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Subject: sci.space Personal Ambition Survey -- Revised Results I received a few more responses, so here is the revised edition of the survey results. Brian -------------------- sci.space Personal Ambition Survey Number of replies: 84 Nationality (of sending machine): United States: 64 (76%) Canada: 5 (6%) Australia: 3 (4%) New Zealand: 3 (4%) United Kingdom: 3 (3%) Sweden: 2 (3%) Denmark: 1 (1%) Finland: 1 (1%) France: 1 (1%) Germany: 1 (1%) 1) As a child, did you want to become an astronaut? Yes: 67 (80%) No: 17 (20%) 2) Would you still like to travel into space someday? Yes: 78 (93%) No: 5 (6%) Maybe: 1 (1%) 3) If you were offered a position as a space shuttle astronaut tomorrow, would you take it? Yes: 64 (76%) No: 20 (24%) Yes votes include: Absolutely: 3 Without hesitation: 3 In a heartbeat: 2 In a second: 2 Definitely!: 1 In a New York minute: 1 In an instant: 1 Oh Yeah!: 1 Try and stop me: 1 Would have gone in February 1986: 1 Yes!: 1 YES!: 1 YES!!!!!: 1 YES YES YES YES!: 1 Yes, but don't tell my wife: 1 4) What is your current profession/field? (For students: what is your major field of study?) Computer Professional: 27 (32%) Software Engineering: 17 Systems Analysis/Engr: 8 Systems Administration: 1 Technical Consultant: 1 Computer Science (Research): 13 (15%) Undergrad: 3 Grad Student: 6 Research Scientist: 3 Also Physics: 1 Astronomy/Astrophysics/Space Science: 11 (13%) Undergrad: 2 Grad Student: 3 Researcher: 3 Aeronautical/Aerospace Engineering: 10 (12%) Undergrad: 4 Grad Student: 2 Engineer: 3 Engineering Manager: 1 Electrical/Computer Engineering: 6 (7%) Undergrad: 2 Engineer: 1 Supervisor: 1 Mathematics: 3 (4%) Undergrad: 1 Grad Student: 1 Professor: 1 Physics: 3 (4%) Undergrad: 1 Grad Student: 1 Also Computer Science: 1 Administrator: 1 (1%) Agricultural Engineering: (grad student) 1 (1%) Atmospheric Sciences: 1 (1%) Biomedical Engineering: 1 (1%) Cognitive Science: 1 (1%) Engineering: (undeclared student) 1 (1%) Library/Information Science: 1 (1%) Materials Science/Engineering: 1 (1%) Mechanical Engineering: (grad student) 1 (1%) Philosophy: 1 (1%) Plant Science: (professor) 1 (1%) Telecommunications Research: 1 (1%) 5) Is your current position directly related to space exploration? (For students: do you plan to work in a position directly related to space exploration?) Students: 32 (38%) Yes: 17 (53%) Maybe: 5 (16%) No: 10 (31%) Professionals: 52 (62%) Yes: 13 (25%) No: 39 (75%) Total: 84 (100%) Yes: 30 (36%) Maybe: 5 (6%) No: 49 (58%) 6) If the answer to #5 is no, and the answer to #1, #2, or #3 is yes, what made you decide not to get directly involved with space exploration? Limited Opportunities: 9 (17%) No Chance of Becoming an Astronaut 7 (13%) Due to Non-US/USSR Citizenship: 3 Due to Physical Requirements: 3 Low Chance in General: 2 New Zealand/Korea/Australia/Sweden/Canada/UK Doesn't Have Much of a Space Program: 6 (12%) Other Interests: 6 (12%) Low Pay: 4 (8%) Disenchantment with NASA Bureaucracy: 3 (6%) Didn't Really Decide: 2 (4%) Guidance Counselor: 1 (2%) Involved in Volunteer Space Activities: 1 (2%) Limited Non-Defense Opportunities: 1 (2%) Mathematical Aptitude: 1 (2%) Mathematical Aptitude, Lack Thereof: 1 (2%) Mission Specialist Application Rejected: 1 (2%) NASA Incapable of Doing Space Exploration: 1 (2%) Not an Engineer: 1 (2%) Parental Pressure: 1 (2%) Personal Constraints: 1 (2%) Previous Lack of Interest: 1 (2%) Slim Chance of Getting Into Space and Doing Real Science: 1 (2%) Trapped in a Career: 1 (2%) Washed Out of Air Force Flight School: 1 (2%) Wife/Family/Home: 1 (2%) TOTAL: 52 (100%) Note: Some people gave multiple answers for question 6. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Department of Computer Science _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 91 05:50:34 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article <1991Apr25.200311.20672@en.ecn.purdue.edu> irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu (/dev/null) writes: >... You know what I was trying to say: Trying to build a >better launcher is not a mistake. When the mistake happens is when >you have built it and discovered it is not a good launcher and you >use it anyway. THAT is the mistake. As I said before: Build your new >launcher and if it doesn't meet your design goals, scrap it and >try again. If that's what you were trying to say, I suggest thinking a bit harder about Congress's reaction to this idea. "You took umpty-zillion dollars to build this operational launcher -- which you assured us was going to be the best thing around -- and now you want to scrap it?" Fat chance. You can't scrap multi-billion-dollar failures. Example: the shuttle. The only way to build something you can scrap if it doesn't meet specs is to make it explicitly an experimental program, and not try to sell it as God's gift to payload owners. >You know that someday launch costs are going to hit about >$500/lb. By trying to build the launcher we are making sure that >the technology of cheap rockets is a North American technology. By trying to build production launchers with experimental technology, you are making sure that your launchers will never be cheap. The whole approach does not work. What works is what you do in aviation, to the enormous benefit of aviation in general and US aircraft builders in particular: build X-planes for experiments, 747s for production, and don't forget that there is a difference. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #467 *******************