Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 05:11:21 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #003 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 6 Jan 93 Volume 16 : Issue 003 Today's Topics: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** Aerospike Engines... what are they? ASTM, Saturn and MOL (Was Re: MOL) DCX tech. info? Fabrication (was fast track failures) fast-track failures foreign partnerships was(Re: How many flights are Orbiters) Genetically Engineered Microbes in Real Use? Moon Dust For Sale Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonizati Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization satellite costs etc. Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) (3 msgs) Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity (2 msgs) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Jan 93 20:12:25 GMT From: nathan wallace Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** Newsgroups: sci.space i lied. well, sorta. The *correct* name of the book from my earlier posting is "The Starflight Handbook", by Eugene Mallove and Gregory Matloff. Its ISBN number is 0-471-61912-4. *sigh* memory is the first to go... Chapter 7 is the one which deals with the Bussard Ramjet. It details not only the Bussard design, but two variants which are more feasable using current technology and theory. The difficulties with p-p fusion as noted in the net discussion are mentioned; one of the variants addresses this problem. The net analysis by the authors is that ramscoops are probably limited to .2 c and not the most cost effective way to get around the near stars. They add the caveat that this is in terms of *current* technology; a breakthrough in any of a half-dozen fields might change the picture enormously. The book also considers several other interstellar flight systems. It has very good coverage of the Daedalus probe designed by the British Interplanetary Society back in the 70's and project Orion. Happy 1993! +----------------------------------------------+------------------------+ | | __ | | | / /\ | | Nathan F. Wallace | ______/ /_/___ | | email: wallacen@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu | / ____ ______ \ | +----------------------------------------------+ / /\__/ /\____|\/| | | | | |\/ / / / \|/ | | Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, and are | | || / /_/_____ | | not those of any other person, | | ||/_______ /\ | | organization, or supreme being. | | ||\______/ / / | | | | || / / / | +----------------------------------------------+ \ \_____/ /_/__/\ | | "War is the art of deception." | \_____ _______/| | | Sun Tzu | \___/ /\______|/ | | | \_\/ | | | | +----------------------------------------------+------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 15:37:00 PST From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" Subject: Aerospike Engines... what are they? On Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:44:26 GMT, "Herity D." writes : >As I understand it, the exhaust is confined between the spike and the >external airflow. So how can it work in a vacuum ? Can it ? The exhaust plume boundary expands as the ambient pressure decreases in *both* bell and aerospike nozzles (this can be seen very well during night launches). High performance over most of a rockets' operational profile (low pressures and in a vacuum) is achieved by having a high exit/throat area ratio which allows large plume expansion. Doing this with a bell nozzle can result in flow separation at the walls of the nozzle near the exit when operating at low altitudes (launch), which leads to loss of performance and possible structural failure of the nozzle due to dynamic loads [flow separation is responsible for the large nozzle motion on the SSMEs during startup - watch closely next launch if you can get NASA Select]. Therefore a compromise altitude must be used for the design point of a bell nozzle. The advantage of an aerospike is that it can achieve the desired high exit/throat area ratio at high altitude while still being efficient at lower altitudes due to the automatic compensation. As I noted earlier, an excellent basic description of nozzle design at aerospike engines can be found in Rocketdyne's "Threshold" magazine, Number 8, Spring 1992. (write to Rocketdyne Division/Rockwell International, 6633 Canoga Avenue, Mail Code AB57, Canoga Park, CA, USA, 91304 or call (818) 568-2380 to get a copy). Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind). Ben Muniz, Rocketdyne, SSF Dynamics | "Man will not fly for fifty years" munizb@rocket.rdyne.rockwell.com | Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:04:21 GMT From: Gary Hughes - VMS Development Subject: ASTM, Saturn and MOL (Was Re: MOL) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <72444@cup.portal.com>, BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes... > Thanks for all that info, my copy of 'Stages to Saturn' is in a box > stored away somewhere. But wasn't this discussion REALLY about > whether Centaur actually flew on a Saturn? Not was it intended to, > but did it ever go up on one? It didn't, to the best of my knowledge. No live S-V stage ever flew. Indeed, the Block 1 Saturns and the first Block 2 Saturn used boilerplate Jupiter tanks and nose cones to simulate the S-V. One reference suggests that Von Braun pushed to cancel the S-V, to maintain the image that the Saturn 1 was an R&D vehicle (thus ensuring funds for future Saturn development). FWIW, I did some more digging over the holiday and found that an earlier proposal had the S-V powered by two LR-119 engines (aka RL-10B in at least one source) before the LR-119 was canned. Does anyone know if 'Stages to Saturn' is still purchaseable? gary ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:06:21 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: DCX tech. info? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1icfsjINNlet@rave.larc.nasa.gov> S.D.Derry@LaRC.NASA.Gov writes: >How can you have dynamic pressure when you're hovering??? "Hover" is being used loosely here; the later tests will involve noticeable (although subsonic) velocities. >Also, will these flights be pre-programmed onboard, or will they be >controlled from the ground? As I recall, they're preprogrammed with the ability to override from the ground. -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 21:29:35 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Fabrication (was fast track failures) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan4.202421.11388@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes: >In article <1993Jan4.171213.11272@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) >writes: >> In article ewright@convex.com (Edward >V. Wright) writes: >> > >> Most engineering *is* paperwork, or workstation work today. Otherwise >> it's just tinkering on a wing and a prayer. You have to bend metal to >> *test* your engineering, but bending metal *isn't* engineering. It's >> fabrication done by tradesmen. > >I can't let this go by. This is a common attitude in America. It >leads to low pay for production engineers and inefficient production >methods etc. etc. Result is the current economic morass with most >production going overseas. > >I think engineering must consider how something is to be made. The >most elegant design is useless if it can't be manufactured. >Knowledge of what can be made is obtained by bending metal, or >at least by interacting with those who do. I'm not disparaging skilled tradesmen, in fact I usually hold them in higher regard than most engineers. Engineers would benefit by *listening* to them more often. But hammering metal is a skilled trade, not engineering. Good engineers take production requirements into account in their designs, bad ones don't. Production engineers do time and motion, setup optimized assembly lines, and natter about workgroups and just in time subassembly deliveries. Those are important in some mass production facilities, but good design engineers make or break production at the very beginning of the development cycle. Ease of assembly and ease of field service have to be designed in from the very beginning of a product. Having design engineers apprentice on the shop floor for a few years *before* they get to design a product would do a world of good for our manufacturing sector. It certainly has for the Japanese and old school Germans. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:33:50 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: fast-track failures Newsgroups: sci.space In <1hrcplINNd4u@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> bafta@cats.ucsc.edu (Shari L Brooks) writes: >In article <1992Dec29.164256.18889@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> >rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes: >>In article ewright@convex.com (Edward >>V. Wright) writes: >>>You think a typical engineer earns $100,000 a year? >>> >>>I want to work for your company! >> By the time you also pay for FICA, pension, benefits, and >>overhead, a $50,000 engineer can easily cost a company double his base >>pay! BTW, Ed, I ALSO help do the budgeting for my lab, so before you >>ask, yes, I have some experience in this! >Wow, your lab pays for FICA? I'm impressed. It takes up about a third >of *my* salary, when combined with income taxes. Right out of my pay. >I was under the impression it came out of everyone's pay, that that was >the idea behind "Social Security". I think you need to find out a bit more about manpower accounting and just who pays what, Shari. The first thing you will find is that your employer pays the same amount of FICA that you do -- in other words, you only pay for half of it. Then there are things like health insurance (typically in the $4k range), pension contributions (figure about the same as your FICA bill, at least), usage of facilities, etc. Having a single engineer is likely to cost you MORE than $100k, by the time you add in all the overhead costs. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 21:11:29 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: foreign partnerships was(Re: How many flights are Orbiters) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1993Jan2.171539.9059@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > >>DC could be available long before then *IF* we can get DoD to fund the >>proof of concept vehicle. > >If we can get *someone* to fund the proof-of-concept vehicle. DoD >may still have the deepest pockets around, but I certainly hope >McDAC is looking at other sources also. Perhaps the Japanese >would be interested in a joint partnership. It's too bad the >Delta Clipper wasn't started several years ago when McDonnell Douglas >was healthy enough to finance such a project itself. Interesting street rumor reported on the business report of NBC Sunrise program this morning. Apparently, Boeing is negotiating a partnership with a Japanese and a German firm to underwrite the development of the next generation widebody airliner, reportedly seats 600. The report indicated that even Boeing isn't healthy enough to risk going it alone on that one, and the US airlines are too strapped to place speculative orders. If Boeing can't fund a new widebody, MacDD is in deep doo with DC without a deep pocketed partner to back them. With Clinton/Gore in charge, DOD is going to be too busy doing environmental cleanups of the bases they're going to be closing to fund DC, and all those DOD people and contractor people laid off in the cutbacks are going to be busy learning which end of a shovel to hold while building Clinton's road and bridge projects, or training to be medical orderlies in his national health care program. Maybe MacDD should give the Sultan of Brunei a call. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 20:52:54 GMT From: nathan wallace Subject: Genetically Engineered Microbes in Real Use? Newsgroups: sci.space I recall hearing on Chicken Noodle News that a bacterium (*Chlostridium* I suspect, they'll eat virtually anything, including those buried polystyrene bottles which were supposed to last ten thousand years and instead lasted five or so...) has been developed to help in some types of oil spills and was successfully used in a spill near Galveston a few years ago. Anyone know more about this? ps. *Chlostridium* are anaerobic soil bacteria, for which we should all be **very** thankful, I suspect. +----------------------------------------------+------------------------+ | | __ | | | / /\ | | Nathan F. Wallace | ______/ /_/___ | | email: wallacen@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu | / ____ ______ \ | +----------------------------------------------+ / /\__/ /\____|\/| | | | | |\/ / / / \|/ | | Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, and are | | || / /_/_____ | | not those of any other person, | | ||/_______ /\ | | organization, or supreme being. | | ||\______/ / / | | | | || / / / | +----------------------------------------------+ \ \_____/ /_/__/\ | | "War is the art of deception." | \_____ _______/| | | Sun Tzu | \___/ /\______|/ | | | \_\/ | | | | +----------------------------------------------+------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:12:31 GMT From: "Thomas E. Smith [LORAL]" Subject: Moon Dust For Sale Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary I'm just guessing on my figures, but wasn't 500 lbs of moon rock and dust brought back from the moon? And didn't the entire Moon program cost around $67 billion? I think that puts the moon dust/rocks at about $134,000,000 a pound! But as Ken says, it ain't fer sale by Nasa. Tom Smith -- ____________________________________________________________________________ | | Tom E. Smith | | It's not my damn planet Monkey Boy! | | | | tes@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:13:12 +0000 From: Chris Marriott Subject: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonizati Newsgroups: sci.space In article <3954@key.COM> rburns@key.COM writes: > >What are the current estimates of folks in this newsgroup of how long it >will be until the world starts to see privately funded space colonization? > >I've noticed that there are some _extremely_ capital intensive schemes around >which might make the marginal cost of launching mass to orbit fairly cheap. >(I'm thinking of mechanisms like Clarke's space "elevator" or Bull's >gun). I'm more interested in technologies like the Henson Sling or SSTO >technology that might be more useful to private citizens and less likely to >be shelved or monopolized by governments or mega-corps. > > >Thanks! > The "space elevator" - basically dropping a cable from a geosynchronous satellite to Earth (and, of course, another one upwards so the centre of mass stays still) is probably the most *lethal* device one might conceive of building! Imagine the cable breaks near the mid-point. You have 38000km of cable falling to earth at *orbital* velocities, enough to wrap itself around the entire equator of the planet! Go figure out the kinetic energy involved. How much ocean would it vaporize? Massive medium-term climatic changes at best - "nuclear winter" scenarios. A new Ice Age a distinct possibility. These things are not good. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Chris Marriott | chris@chrism.demon.co.uk | | Warrington, UK | BIX: cmarriott | | (Still awaiting inspiration | CIX: cmarriott | | for a witty .sig .... ) | CompuServe: 100113,1140 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:13:34 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization Newsgroups: sci.space In <3954@key.COM> rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes: >What are the current estimates of folks in this newsgroup of how long it >will be until the world starts to see privately funded space colonization? Short answer: Soon after the we see privately financed space industrialization. Some opinions to the contrary, industry is not going to spend billions of dollars on space colonies until there's something for people to *do* there. And no, a few communications satellites don't count. To reiterate, industry is not going to spend billions of dollars on space colonies until there's something for *people* to do there. This assumes you mean a for-profit venture. It's possible that a charitable organization such as the National Geographic Society might foot the bill for a colony before industry has a need for it, but the cost of such a venture would be formidable. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 20:05:56 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: satellite costs etc. Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1993Jan1.165738.24729@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > >>Redundancy is always desirable if it's affordable, but there is a practical >>difficulty with having *cold* spares in orbit. Will they work when we need >>them? > >A cold spare is unlikely to be completely cold. More likely it will >operated in a low-power mode so that you can still run diagnostics >and self-tests on the hardware. > >>They have to be cold spares if they share the same orbital slot and >>frequencies. > >Not true. You can put two birds in the same slot but only use >half the transponders on each one. If the transponder frequency >X transponder fails on bird one, you switch to the frequency X >transponder on bird two. If bird one fails entirely, bird two >can take over the entire service til a new backup is launched. That might work, but you'd have to swap transponder *pairs* over from one bird to another due to frequency reuse on opposite polarizations. Trying to keep two independent satellites perfectly crosspolarized would be quite a strain on stationkeeping. The transponders also have their local oscillators phaselocked together and that would be tougher with two separate birds. I think the worst problem though isn't really technical. That's the waste of 50% of each satellite's capacity while it's still fresh. The longer the birds remain in orbit, the more radiation damage their solid state electronics accumulate, the more degradation in output of the solar cell arrays, the more aging on the batteries, and the more stationkeeping fuel expended. Keeping the spare in another slot allows all of each satellite's capacity to be used from the beginning, with secondary services subject to being "bumped" should a primary service fail. That's the way NBC is using K2 now. The primary feeds (east and west coast) are on K2-1 and K2-9 respectively. Less critical news feeds are on K2-7 and K2-13. They can reconfigure the prime network to the alternates without repositioning the Earth stations by a single software command transmitted to the Earth stations. If the bird fails in a way that loses all transponders, they have bumping rights on SBS 3 and Westar IV. That requires repositioning of all the Earth station antennas though. About half the network has secondary antennas at the Earth stations that are normally kept pointing at one of the backup birds, though they can be individually pulled off to other targets as need arises. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 21:12:53 GMT From: Francois Yergeau Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1993Jan5.031431.14514@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes: >>Ditto, mutatis mutandis. Likewise, when NASA flies Spacelab, TSS or a >>TDRS on the shuttle, the latter is used to support NASA's research >>activities, pursuant to its charter. > >So, if your lab bought its own Airbus, hired its own flight crew, >sold flights to paying customer, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is my understanding that since the post-Challenger return to flight, NASA has been forbidden to fly commercial stuff on the shuttle. Am I wrong? >constructed its own communications facilities and rented those to >commercial customers, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is NASA doing that? On any scale bigger than small, occasional excess capacity? If so, I agree it's playing games with its charter. >all of that would be research and development? As for NASA hiring its own flight crew, constructing its own communications facilities and in general operating the shuttle system on its own instead of contracting out the whole works, I don't see any inherent problem with that. Just like I don't hire Tektronix to operate my oscilloscope in the lab. Of course, it might prove advantageous, dollar-wise, for NASA to contract out shuttle operations, but that's another story. >>It is my understanding that this thread originated when someone >>claimed that NASA was not respecting its charter by operating the >>shuttle, which is admittedly not an experimental craft anymore. I >>disagree, as long as the shuttle manifest contains only genuine R&D. > >Which hasn't been the case for many years now. Well that was not my impression, but if you wish to post specifics, I'll stand corrected. BTW, I assume we're talking about the post-Challenger era. Before that, it's clear that the shuttle manifest contained a lot of commercial stuff, and that this led to the current ban on commercial operations. Since we're discussing NASA's charter, would it be possible for some kind soul to post pieces of it? I think it would be interesting to know just how much elbow room NASA has in carrying out its main R&D mission. -- Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) | De gustibus et coloribus Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser | non disputandum Departement de Physique | -proverbe scolastique Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada | ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 20:53:15 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan4.150800.14058@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1993Jan4.015312.6224@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes: > >>The shuttle system itself may not be considered R&D anymore, but it's >>the manifest that tells you whether it's doing research or mere >>"operations." > >No, the Shuttle is always doing operations unless it is Shuttle >itself which is being experimented on. When Shuttle carries spacelab, >it is engaged in operations *IN SUPPORT OF RESEARCH* but not research. Under that definition, spacelab is also operations, the gloveboxes and cameras on spacelab are operations, etc. Looked at differently, spacelab is a research *tool* purpose built to do research, and it can only do that with support from Shuttle which was built to carry things like spacelab. >When somebody flies a roll during re-entry to see what happens, that >is research. Well that would be *aeronautical* research, but that isn't the only kind of research being done with Shuttle. Shuttle itself is a long term testbed for reusable flight. It's already yielded valuable information on the problems and benefits of reusability in manned spacecraft. Purportedly, the DC program benefits from that knowledge. The continuing Shuttle improvement programs are development efforts. So R&D is ongoing with Shuttle. It would be very expensive R&D of course, if you were to count all of Shuttle's costs as R&D, but it's the only reusable manned testbed that is flying *today*. And, in the course of that flight R&D, other research programs like those on spacelab get supported at no extra cost. Or the cost gets split among all the Shuttle payloads, however you want to look at it. There are no ready flying alternatives to many of the Shuttle missions today, so you either fly Shuttle or declare a hiatus in manned space until something new is developed and tested. We went through that once before after Apollo. Many people think we should have kept plugging along with Saturn, Skylab, etc until Shuttle proved itself better, or if it was unable to show itself better, until an entirely different approach was developed and tested. But we didn't, and manned space efforts suffered as a result. We shouldn't make that mistake twice. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 22:16:51 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan5.211253.20530@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes: >It is my understanding that since the post-Challenger return to flight, >NASA has been forbidden to fly commercial stuff on the shuttle. Am I >wrong? Partly. They're forbidden to compete with commercial launch suppliers, which shifted a lot of comsats and the like off the shuttle. However, there was a long list of exceptions, and also quite a bit of stuff that was deemed shuttle-unique for one reason or another. They still do a fair bit of commercial business. -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 93 20:32:24 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Jan5.003325.26043@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >We could fly Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan. Why? If we're buying Soyuz spacecraft from the Russians, it would make a lot more sense to buy the boosters also and skip the integration problem. >We could build a small station with room and power equal to Shuttle. We >could dock the two and get far more work done for far less money. Who is "we?" If you mean NASA, I don't think so. A space station like you're talking about would be more of a construction project than an R&D project. NASA isn't set up to handle those. (On the other hand, I don't think you need to limit your thinking to small space stations. If you're working with the Russians, why not put an Energia third stage into orbit? Convert it into a "wet" lab, and you've got a habitable volume bigger than Freedom.) >We don't use Russian rockets; we use Atlas or Titan. Both routinely rebuild >their launchers to conform to payload interface requirements and NASA's >evaluation of Soyuz as ACRV indicate that using Soyuz with US aerospace >standards isn't a problem. However, we haven't man-rated the Atlas or Titan since the 60's. The current assembly lines for those vehicles are pretty much booked already. You could expand them, of course, but the lead time for a man-rated Atlas or Titan would be several years. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:29:05 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Newsgroups: sci.space In jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes: >The reason Shuttle costs are so much more than projected is that the >Shuttle requires this army to maintain it between flights. Hydrogen >isn't much more expensive than expected, and I doubt the solid fuel >is either. When the Shuttle was first proposed, the idea of operating >it like an airline was part of the plan from the beginning. It >turned out that the Shuttle operated too close to the limits of the >materials and structures of which it was made. That's why it needs >so much maintenance. Well, actually, it's even worse than that. The original design concept for the Shuttle system was totally different. It was projected to initially cost more and have much lower maintenance costs. Due to Congressional budget cutting and all the various political wars, the design eventually decided on was one which was cheaper to get the vehicles but which was known to have significantly higher maintenance requirements and operating costs. Let's put the blame for this one where it belongs. One CAN blame NASA management of the day, but to my mind it makes more sense to blame a micromanaging congress that forced the choice between building a vehicle that was initially cheap or not building anything. Now, if you were running a space program and had a choice between using some optimistic numbers and opting for a design you CAN have, knowing that it will be expensive to run, and using pessimistic numbers and not getting diddly (and hence essentially killing what was going to be left of the space program), which would YOU do? Oh, sure, there is more than enough blame to go around to NASA management of those days over other decisions, but let's understand how they are forced to operate by the process. You want NASA space to work better? Change the process (like multi-year appropriations for entier programs, so that Congress doesn't come back later and 'stretch' them out, nickel and dime them to death, etc.). -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 003 ------------------------------