Date: Sat, 6 Mar 93 05:15:22 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #280 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 6 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 280 Today's Topics: Alternative space station power (2 msgs) Apollo Moon Missions ? Ark Discovered on the Moon Columbus project Fallen Angels Jupiter and Venus followons (was Re: Refueling in orbit) (2 msgs) military aircraft NASP (was Re: Canadian SS Shuttle budget Spy Sats (Was: Are La (2 msgs) SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) (3 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: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 20:11:38 GMT From: gawne@stsci.edu Subject: Alternative space station power Newsgroups: sci.space Hugh Emberson asked: > Someone once told me about this solid state heat pump that worked > using some quantum magic, "Peltier effect" I think. You pass a > current through it and it moves heat from one side to the other. > > Does anyone know if you can run one of these things backwards? Stick > something hot on one side and something cold on the other and get > electricity out. Yes. I recall the thermoelectric voltage being a pain to compensate for when measuring the magneto-conductivity of semiconductors at low temperature. It requires some careful measurement schemes to isolate one effect from the other. I doubt that you could generate anywhere near as much current by thermoelectric processes as you can by photoelectric (solar cells). I'll let the engineers in the audience who have some practical knowledge of the question provide additional input. -Bill Gawne, Space Telescope Science Institute "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe are the laws of the universe." - G. J. Caesar ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 18:35:55 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Alternative space station power Newsgroups: sci.space In article hugh@huia.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson) writes: >>>>>> "HS" == Henry Spencer writes: > >HS> In article <1993Mar3.194542.5295@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave writes: >>This was an attempt at a lower cost solar dynamic system. Imagine a >>plate built as a three-layered sandwich---two heat conductors with a >>good thermal insulator between them. Point one conductor at the sun >>(the other one is then in shadow) and run a thermocouple between the >>conducting plates. [...] > >HS> I doubt it very much. Have you *looked* at thermocouple >HS> efficiencies? They are, roughly speaking, terrible... even by >HS> photovoltaic standards. Why do you think they haven't replaced >HS> photovoltaics already? There are plenty of commercial satellite >HS> builders who would kill for better power systems. > >Someone once told me about this solid state heat pump that worked >using some quantum magic, "Peltier effect" I think. You pass a >current through it and it moves heat from one side to the other. > >Does anyone know if you can run one of these things backwards? Stick >something hot on one side and something cold on the other and get >electricity out. Sure, the efficency sucks. The Peltier effect is what you get when you run a thermocouple backwards. Efficiency is in the 0.05% to 3% range for thermocouples. Efficency for solar cells, actual not lab curiosity, is in the 6% to 16% range depending on how much you're willing to spend. Efficiency of solar thermal plants varies from around 6% to 40% depending on the degree of concentration used. Using large parabolic mirrors, and large heat radiators to deep space, solar thermal is the clear efficiency winner. The Carnot cycle says efficiency is proportional to the delta T across the generation system. For power outputs in the 50 kW and greater range, solar thermal is the clear cost and complexity winner. The reason efficiency matters in a solar power setup is that the incoming energy flux is fixed at about 1 kW per square meter. If you have a 3% efficient system, you only get 30 watts per square meter and need a lot of square meters to meet your power output target. If the efficiency is 40%, you get 400 watts per square meter. Costs generally go up with the square of the size of the system, to some extent to the cube of the size of the system, so you want the system to be as small as practical to keep costs reasonable. That implies using methods with the the highest practical efficiency. 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: 5 Mar 93 13:52:00 GMT From: Roland Dobbins Subject: Apollo Moon Missions ? Newsgroups: sci.space TT> TT>From: tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Thompson) TT>Newsgroups: sci.space TT>Subject: Apollo Moon Missions ? TT>Date: 25 Feb 1993 01:23:36 GMT TT>Message-ID: <1mh72oINNdu8@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> TT>Reply-To: tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov TT> TT> I am ignorant, I admit it. My memory has failed. Can someone ref TT>tired brain cells, and tell me (us) which Apollo mission to the Moo TT>last one? There couldn't have been too many. TT> TT> Mille Mercis TT> TT>--- TT>------------------------------------------------------------ TT>Timothy J. Thompson, Earth and Space Sciences Division, JPL. TT>Assistant Administrator, Division Science Computing Network. TT>Secretary, Los Angeles Astronomical Society. TT>Member, BOD, Mount Wilson Observatory Association. TT> TT>INTERnet/BITnet: tjt@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov TT>NSI/DECnet: jplsc8::tim TT>SCREAMnet: YO!! TIM!! TT>GPSnet: 118:10:22.85 W by 34:11:58.27 N TT> Apollo 17. I believe that Gene Cernan was the last human to walk on the surface of the Moon. Missions were planned through Apollo 21, but funding was cut due to Vietnam, etc. --- . Orator V1.13 . [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy] ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 93 08:38:19 MST From: Rich Travsky Subject: Ark Discovered on the Moon Newsgroups: sci.space The following showed up on the sci.archaeology group. The article speaks for itself, as further words can hardly do it justice... +---------+ Richard Travsky RTRAVSKY @ UWYO . EDU | | Division of Information Technology | U W | University of Wyoming (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668 | * | "Wyoming is the capital of Denver." - a tourist +---------+ "One of those square states." - another tourist ********************************************************* Newsgroups: sci.archaeology Subject: recent discovery of ark remains From: gpowell@ent1.ent.ncsu.edu (Eugene Powell) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 21:01:35 GMT Organization: Dept. of Entomology - NCSU, Raleigh, NC About Noah's Ark: Has anyone seen the followup story about the discovery of the other half of the ark? It seems IYF TV, a new station on the upper reaches of the dial, will broadcast a story from Archaicology Magazine about half of the famous boat found (you won't believe this) on the moon! A disclaimer will precede the broadcast noting that the opinions expressed are only those of a minority, and any resemblance to fanatical beliefs is unintentional. The gist of the story is this. The first man on the moon (that we know about :-)) Neil Armstrong, noticed upon descent of the lunar module a curious object sticking out of HARDENED LAVA near the top of a small hill in a young crater. In addition to evidence for recent vulcanism on the moon, the object upon close examination provided corroboration that a strong interstellar event must have swooped up material from the middle east and deposited it somehow on the moon. Upon close examination of the object, which in video transmissions will appear to be solid rock that only superficially resembles a boat, but which occupied numerous pixels in supertopsecretadvancedspyscopes, it was discovered that a name is inscribed on what must be the bow of the ship. Several large samples of hardened, black material were obtained from what appears to be the inside of the ship. The name inscribed on the ship is to be revealed in the broadcast, but I have learned that the first few letters are (translated) as in BC. I will try to find out more, and post later the results of carbon dating on the black material from the boat's floor, but you won't believe the date I saw-curves ad infinitum. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 93 19:20:45 GMT From: Josh Hopkins Subject: Columbus project Newsgroups: sci.space 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: >>BH>What's the message here? If Clinton kills Fred, Columbus is sunk? >>I suspect that Columbus could be sent into a 51 degree orbit >>in case of no America station being available. >I assume this is a distinct project from the proposed Columbus Binocular >Telescope. So what project is it? It is indeed a different project. Columbus is the name for the ESA space station project. Originally, there was to be a Columbus module attached to Freedom and a man tended free flying module. ESA cut the free flyer at the same time they killed Hermes. They are still hoping to have something to attach their station module to as it would certianly not be capable of life without SSF without major redesign. -- Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu You only live once. But if you live it right, once is enough. In memoria, WDH ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 93 13:52:00 GMT From: Roland Dobbins Subject: Fallen Angels Newsgroups: sci.space FN> FN>From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) FN>Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.energy,rec.arts.sf.fandom FN>Subject: Fallen Angels FN>Message-ID: <2001@tnc.UUCP> FN>Date: 25 Feb 93 13:01:26 GMT FN>Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) FN>Followup-To: sci.space FN> FN>In the SF book 'Fallen Angels' by Larry Niven & others, a launch FN>vehicle named PHOENIX was described. In the afterward, it was clai FN>that such a launch vehicle (SSTO/VTOL) could be build for $50M-200M FN> FN>Anyone have information on the design of this critter? FN> FN>The story itself has much to recommend it and I would urge others t FN>read it. It describes the story of two astronauts shot down over t FN>US, after the turn of the century where the greens and the politica FN>(in-)correct have taken over. FN> FN>The astronauts are rescued and returned to their space station (usi FN>PHOENIX prototype) through the efforts of SF Fandom and the SCA. V FN>entertaining and quite thought-provoking. FN> FN>Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E" FN>Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia FN>Send e-mail for an application and more information FN>---------------------------------------------------------------- FN>"Whether the authorities be invaders or merely local tyrants, the FN>effect of such [gun] laws is to place the individual at the mercy o FN>the state, unable to resist." FN> - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet" FN>-- FN>The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washingto FN>703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info. _Fallen Angels_ is by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Steven Barnes. Niven and Pournelle have done many many other books together, such as _Footfall_, _The Mote in God's Eye_, _The Gripping Hand_, etc. They also formed the Citizens' Advisory Council on National S[ace Policy, which sold Ronald Reagan on the idea of SDI. Phoenix is the brainchild of Gary Hudson, who appeared as himself in the book. He can be reaced on BIX as "ghudson". --- . Orator V1.13 . [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy] ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 93 20:46:16 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Jupiter and Venus followons (was Re: Refueling in orbit) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1n8ce4INNktd@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >>>... Mariner really started off as a >>>series of Light fast missions to single targets, they just got a little >>>ambitious in voyager... >> >Henry is the expert referee, but i thought Voyager was originally supposed >to be a Mariner mission, then they re-named it ... Voyager was originally Mariner Jupiter-Saturn. The renaming seems to have been mostly a matter of public relations. The Voyagers are Mariner-class spacecraft, in both hardware complexity and cost. (Voyager was not a particularly expensive project.) The very earliest Mariners were small and simple, but the later ones weren't. Nor were they all single-target missions; Mariner 10 made four planetary flybys (1 Venus, 3 Mercury). The primary Voyager mission was two flybys per spacecraft: Jupiter and Saturn. >WHose bus did Magellan use? Mariner derived? I know at that point in NASA's >mind-set all vehicles were designed based upon previous history and >commonality. You're thinking of an earlier time, when it was routine to build spacecraft in blocks and re-use hardware extensively. The original Venus radar-mapper mission, VOIR, was all-new. Magellan got built out of JPL's junkbox when it became clear that VOIR was never going to be approved; its re-use of old hardware was through necessity rather than policy. -- C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology effect since OS/360. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 1993 15:16:04 -0500 From: Pat Subject: Jupiter and Venus followons (was Re: Refueling in orbit) Newsgroups: sci.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > > >>Actually Bill, I would Posit, that the Discovery Series are The follow >>Ons to Mariner/Voyager/Pioneer. Mariner really started off as a >>series of Light fast missions to single targets, they just got a little >>ambitious in voyager, but I think?????? they all used pretty mcuh the >>same vehicle bus. > Henry is the expert referee, but i thought Voyager was originally supposed to be a Mariner mission, then they re-named it because it was a little more ambiutious. How about pioneer? was that the one i was thinking about? >>Magellan, I think used the the Mariner Mk II bus > >used distinctly different hardware. Magellan was made from spare parts off >Voyager and Galileo. The Cassini and CRAF missions were designed to use the WHose bus did Magellan use? Mariner derived? I know at that point in NASA's mind-set all vehicles were designed based upon previous history and commonality. pat ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 93 13:52:00 GMT From: Roland Dobbins Subject: military aircraft Newsgroups: sci.space MC> MC>Newsgroups: sci.space MC>From: merle@a.cs.okstate.edu (MERLE CHRISTOPHER) MC>Subject: Re: military aircraft MC>Message-ID: <1993Mar1.221452.4021@a.cs.okstate.edu> MC>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 22:14:52 GMT MC> MC>In article <76487@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stua MC>>>The A-12 was intended to replace the aging A-6. It ran into MC>>>management problems, overran budget, and has been cancelled. Aur MC>>>is the (rumoured only) replacement for the SR-71 Recce aircraft, MC>>>has (once again, rumoured only) reportedly been flying for a numb MC>>>years now. MC>> MC>> The writer probably confused "Aurora" and "Avenger". However, MC>> not sure that the A-12 Avenger II was even supersonic, much le MC>> designed for Mach 4. MC>> MC> MC>Historical Tidbit: The first plane to receive the designation A-12 MC>the precursor to the SR-71. the A-12 was operated by the CIA. MC> MC>As for rumoured replacement. The SR-71, the A-12, the F117A were se MC>many years before they went public. So it is reasonable to assume t MC>the USA has a replacement. After all the original designs for the MC>dated from the late 40's. You decide. MC> MC>Yours in Paranoia MC>Chris MC> MC> MC>-- MC>------------------------------------------------------------------- MC> Christopher Merle | "As God as my witness, I thought tur MC> merle@a.cs.okstate.edu | could fly." --Art Carlson MC>------------------------------------------------------------------- Er . . . the original SR-71 designs aren't from the 1940s, I think. Kelly Johnson built the SR-71 during 1961-1962 at the Lockheed Skunkworks, if I'm not mistaken . . . --- . Orator V1.13 . [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy] ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 93 13:52:00 GMT From: Roland Dobbins Subject: NASP (was Re: Canadian SS Newsgroups: sci.space CO> CO>From: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) CO>Newsgroups: sci.space CO>Subject: NASP (was Re: Canadian SSF effort ?? ) CO>Date: 20 Feb 1993 19:44:50 GMT CO>Message-ID: <1m61niINNfth@rave.larc.nasa.gov> CO>Reply-To: C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) CO> CO>> Aerospace Daily also reports that NASA research CO>> on advanced subsonic and supersonic transport aircraft would CO>> get a big increase under Clinton's budget plan, with $550 CO>> million more programmed in fiscal years 1994-97, and another CO>> $267 million scheduled for FY '98. CO> CO>What about NASP??? CO> CO> Errr . . . that _is_ NASP. It's SSX I'm worried about . . . --- . Orator V1.13 . [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy] ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 93 21:54:50 GMT From: "John S. Neff" Subject: Shuttle budget Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >Subject: Re: Shuttle budget >Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 20:25:31 GMT >In article 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: >>> [NASA vs. Congress] >> >>This sounds to me like only one more reason why NASA should be reaplced >>by some kind of private system, which has to answer only to it's >>contributors or stockholders, rather than Congress. > > >Some of the things NASA does could be privatized easily enough -- it >really shouldn't be running a space trucking business, for example -- stuff deleted to save space >-- >C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >effect since OS/360. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry Congressman Walker talked about getting NASA out of the space transportation business, and focused on pure R&D at a hearing I attended about five years ago. It sounded like a good idea until one stated to look at problems like insurance and setting priorities. Who would be in charge of the Space Transportation Authority? The Department of Defence, the Department of Commerce, or the FAA? Would a private contractor get a big subsidy on liabilty insurance along the lines of the early days of commercial nuclear power? When I asked Walker these questions he was not able to give specific answers. The commercial prospects seem to be limited to communications, earth resources, GPS perhaps, and survellance services to third world contries with big, well armed, and potentially hostile neighbors. The volume of commercial business is probably more than $10 billion per year and less than $100 billion per year. The big market would be the government with at least half the Department of Defence. DOD has just spent a lot of money developing a new set of launch vehicles so they would oppose the creation of a Space Transportation Authority. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 93 13:52:00 GMT From: Roland Dobbins Subject: Spy Sats (Was: Are La Newsgroups: sci.space DA>Actually, I thought they had most of the basic stuff down pretty we DA>although some was certainly exaggerated at least a bit. Advanced K DA>are supposed to have "near real time" imaging capability, but that DA>does not translate into the continuous view they portrayed. The BI DA>however was that their operation was at NIGHT, and these satellites DA>placed into sun-synchronous polar orbits to optimize their daylight DA>I do not believe they have a significant nighttime imaging capabili DA> ........ DA>That report has been around a while... DoD's GROUND based tracking DA>were certainly used and perhaps even one of their airborne platform DA>it may just be the press jumping to conclusions to think any satell DA>involved. KH-11 orbits are not all that much higher than the shutt DA>would make an intercept pretty tight, and besides the optics are ob KH-11 is neither the latest nor the greatest "real-time" platform up there. --- . Orator V1.13 . [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy] ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 93 13:52:00 GMT From: Roland Dobbins Subject: Spy Sats (Was: Are La Newsgroups: sci.space DA> DA>Newsgroups: sci.space DA>From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) DA>Subject: Re: Spy Sats (Was: Are La DA>Message-ID: <1993Feb23.113753.178@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> DA>Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 11:37:53 GMT DA> DA>In article <13628.409.uupcb@the-matrix.com> roland.dobbins@the-matr DA>>DA>That report has been around a while... DoD's GROUND based trac DA>>DA>were certainly used and perhaps even one of their airborne plat DA>>DA>it may just be the press jumping to conclusions to think any sa DA>>DA>involved. KH-11 orbits are not all that much higher than the s DA>>DA>would make an intercept pretty tight, and besides the optics ar DA>> DA>>KH-11 is neither the latest nor the greatest "real-time" platform DA>> DA> DA>The ADVANCED KH-11 is... we currently have 2-3 of them up. DA> DA>OR, are you talking about Lacrosse or Aurora? DA> Yes, among others . . . Although those two are primarily ELINT/SIGINT. --- . Orator V1.13 . [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy] ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 93 17:15:53 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar5.140713.18152@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >An assessment of the space station effort done at a high level of NASA >has shown that Freedom can be built on schedule for $2B per year *IF* >all the money where spent on Freedom. > >Now this is what they have been getting from Congress for the past >few years and are likely to get for the next few years. If the money >where spent wisely we would have a station. > >Can't blame congress for this. Back to the chart: NASA SSF REQUEST AND ALLOCATION HISTORY FY NASA OMB Congress Total Total Congress Holdback Bdgt Request Change Change Change SSF($M) Holdback Release Notes --- ------- ------ -------- ------ ------- -------- -------- ----- 85 235 -85 0.0 -85.0 150.0 57.5 4/1/85 [A] 86 280 -50 - 29.7 -79.7 200.3 0.0 87 600 -190 0.0 -190.0 410.0 150.0 ??? 88 1055 -288 -374.7 -622.7 392.3 225.0 6/1/88 89 1872 -904.6 - 67.4 -972.0 900.0 515.0 5/15/89 90 2130.2 -80 -300.6 -380.6 1749.6 750.4 6/1/90 91 2693 -242 -551.0 -793.0 1900.0 1260.0 2/3/91 [B] ------- 5702.2 Total FYs 85-91 During 85,86, and 87 NASA was doing preliminary design studies to pick a station configuration. Out of a total funding request of $1.115 billion, Congress approved $760.3 million for a cut of 31.8%. During the final design phase, NASA asked for $7.7501 billion, or an average yearly funding level of $1.937 billion. Congress granted $4.9419 billion, or a yearly average of $1.235475 billion, or only 61.7% of the amount you clain NASA says it needs to do the job and that *you* claim Congress has been providing. Congress also heldback $2.7504 billion of that inadequate amount pending micromanagment changes to the design. NASA has never had more than $1 billion available for budgeting purposes at any time during SSF's design phase. You're engaging in creative accounting again. 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: 5 Mar 93 21:07:13 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar5.171553.17933@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >>has shown that Freedom can be built on schedule for $2B per year *IF* >>all the money where spent on Freedom. >>Now this is what they have been getting from Congress for the past >>few years and are likely to get for the next few years. If the money >>where spent wisely we would have a station. >Back to the chart: The chart isn't relevant. Average the money received over the past three years (including this year) and you get a sum very close to what NASA says is needed. Include next years funding and it goes over the top. For the next ten years $2B per year IS an achieveable figure and would allow NASA to build the station *IF* they would spend the money on Freedom. I note that you don't seem to be bothered that NASA, by its own estimates, is wasting upwards of a third of the funds allocated. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 1993 15:12:13 -0500 From: Pat Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar4.042339.7797@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: > >Despite claims, including by NASA, to the contrary, 50 some odd flights >does not make an operational system. Every Shuttle flight is to some >extent a test flight. New problems, and old but unfixed problems, crop >up on every flight. This experience base being gathered is properly >a developmental cost. Shuttle has already taught us many things we >should, and shouldn't, do to achieve a cost effective spaceflight At what Cost? Remember we already spent over 30 Billion on "R&D" to build the shuttle, and now you are saying that the whole thing is now R&D? The X-15, taught us things. the X-1 taught us things. Mercury and Gemini taught us things. But look at the size and scale of those operations. Mercury ran 6 missions. Gemini Around 10. Apollo was never scheduled for over 20. Shuttle was planned to be operational. Every 747 teaches us about what you should and shouldn't do to achieve cost effective flight. Doe sthat mean the government should underwrite every passenger ticket? Okay.. How much of every flight should be considered R&D? 5%, 10% 25%, 50%. You name a number and then be willing to intelectually defend it based upon the hard data acquired. >system. Every flight adds to that database. At some point we must >say "enough" and go on to another system, but going *backwards* to >forty year old ICBM technology is not an answer. The next system, AS henry points, out. the answer depends on the question. If you want to conduct an experimental system, then we should not have a 5 orbiter fleet. actually 7 if you include pathfinder and enterprise. we should have built about 3. then we should not have a standing army devoted to the platform, and every other mission warped around the platforms capacity and availability. Also, the ships should be involved in an ever increasing series of data collection flights, and not have all the sensors stripped off after the 4 flight. Sure Data is collected off the shuttle, but then again, NASA conducts lots of data missio with the HARV and god knows what else flies at edwards. And all those birds are generally modified operational vehicles. >flying hardware. Shooting off old stale ICBMs doesn't bring any >progress to the table. > To the mission scientists whose payload went up for a significantly lower dollar figure and on time, I'd argue that a lot of progress occured. > >You can't gather development information unless you fly the system. >If you can carry payloads in the process, that's just gravy. NASA Wasn't this the guy who screamed the X-15 wasn't able to carry payload, so it shouldn't be considered an operational vehicle? So then you must mean the SHuttle isn't operational. and the shuttle shouldn't be used for operational missions. >would be fulfilling it's R&D charter if it hauled lead weights to >and from orbit. Being able to actually piggyback some working payloads >onto developmental launchers is just a spinoff benefit. > By-products are always a consideration of an task, but at 4 billion/year that's not a very good by-product. >>Irrelevant. The value of past research can't justify wasting money >>today. > >That argument is called "eating the seed corn." Just because payoffs >are down the road doesn't mean we don't have to spend the money today. > a Gary. Allen was talking about past research. What was done in the past is history. What is done tomorrow is research. You're burden is to demonstrate that the $ billion dollars spent each year on shuttle ops will have a pay off greater then 4 billion dollars invested in other areas. I would argue, that 4 billion/year dumped into solar sails, space reactors, ion drive and autonomous vehicles would be better then the research database of the STS. Certainly any research task is based upon sacrifice for future return, you demonstrate teh return. pat ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 280 ------------------------------