Date: Fri, 14 May 93 05:12:39 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #568 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 14 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 568 Today's Topics: Commercials on the Moon Details of DC-X followon vehicle firming up. Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? (4 msgs) Life on Earth (or elsewhere :-) Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X) Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? Stopping the sky-vandals Stopping the vandals Vandalizing the sky. Who is Henry Spencer anyway? (4 msgs) Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?) (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: Thu, 13 May 1993 20:28:37 GMT From: Sol Ezekiel Subject: Commercials on the Moon Newsgroups: sci.space u920496@daimi.aau.dk (Hans Erik Martino Hansen) writes: > I have often thought about, if its possible to have a powerfull laser > on earth, to light at the Moon, and show lasergraphics at the surface > so clearly that you can see it with your eyes when there is a new > moon. > > How about a Coca Cola logo at the moon, easy way to target billions of > people. Arthur C. Clarke wrote a story describing just this idea. There was a scientific experiment being conducted that was to spray some kind of fluorescent material from the lunar surface (this was being done on the dark side, close to dawn) high enough so that the sunlight would strike it and make it fluoresce. The fluorescent material would then be visible against the dark side of the moon. Inexplicably, a mask was placed in front of the experiment so that the fluorescent material formed letters spelling... you guessed it, Hans! Actually, another way of painting the Coca-Cola logo on the moon occurs to me. You wait until a total lunar eclipse, when the moon is red anyway, and you just spell the white letters with laser light. Now, if only we could arrange for a total lunar eclipse during half time at the Super Bowl... Sol ---------- My crazy ideas, not Loral's. ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1993 20:54:40 GMT From: Jon Leech Subject: Details of DC-X followon vehicle firming up. Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1993May13.180741.19319@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: |> In addition, the time and cost have been approved by OMB. Equally important, |> this vehicle can be built within the Clinton Administration which will help |> it gain administration support. Wow. I didn't think there were any rooms in the White House tall enough to hold DC-X, let alone the followon. But won't there be objections from the cleaning staff about those messy fuel spills on the rugs? I take it you meant to say that the followon is something the Administration may be willing to support? Jon __@/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 20:10:48 GMT From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? Newsgroups: sci.space Richard A. Schumacher (schumach@convex.com) wrote: [...] : Why not criticize Shuttle? If it had had more criticism 20 years ago : we'd have a better system now. Not criticizing it now does not mean : that its problems will magically disappear. This argument doesn't hold water. Criticism of the Space Station has bought us little but delays. If we had just shut up and bent metal, we'd have a Space Station right now instead of the ninth redesign. Design by committee benefits by random pot-shots from non-experts. Healthy debate and public airing of issues are good, but there is a limit. There is such a thing as excess criticism. There is a point where it makes more sense to stop talking and start working. That point is long past in the Space Shuttle Program. The SSP works as well now as it ever will, and public criticism or lack of it isn't likely to help or hurt much. There will never be a perfect space vehicle; there will always be something to criticize. But before you complain, think about what effects -- if any -- your complaints will have. If you don't like the manned space program or the way it's being run, don't just sit there and complain. Get down here to Houston and put your career where your mouth is. -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368 "Posting to Usenet is like blabbering in the town square." -- Steve Yelvington, steve@thelake.mn.org, in alt.culture.usenet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 20:01:32 GMT From: Dave Stephenson Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? Newsgroups: sci.space henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >True, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done that way. There is a >general pattern in technology: general-purpose solutions eventually >drive out special-purpose ones (or drive them into specialized niches). >If the general-purpose solution is good enough, nobody wants to bother >developing a special-purpose one, even if it would be somewhat better. >Once there were specialized keyboard-encoder chips to scan keyboard >keys and encode them into a binary code. Now everybody just uses >suitably-programmed one-chip microcomputers -- an entire general-purpose >CPU doing nothing but scanning keys in your keyboard! The micros are >easier to develop, easier to customize, and relatively cheap. It's not >worthwhile to develop optimized solutions any more. >Is DC-1 good enough to reach the point of driving out specialized craft? >That's less clear. But the idea is not ridiculous. On the other hand the Space Shuttle was to be the orbital monkey wrench. It was to do the work of all the other specialized launchers, small and large. There is such a thing as too much generalization. When does a multi-use device become a 'camel'? Build for a specific purpose, then see if the device will adapt, don't build in over generalization. Remember that the DC program is a research program, lots to be learned before thinking of Moon flights, but it is nice to dream. -- Dave Stephenson Geological Survey of Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3* Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 93 15:06:03 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May12.194548.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: > In article <1srgrd$3bt@hsc.usc.edu>, khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: > [quoting Allen Sherzer:] >>>The (DC-X) flip over happens at a very low speed, not supersonic. If the DC-X >>>shows the flip over works, it will work unless the laws of physics change. >> >> This is a pretty significant "if" isn't it? Has this ever been tried on >> any vehicle? > > A number of experimental VTOLs needed to do this. The Ryan X-13 comes > to mind. Well, I was wrong about this. At least about the X-13. I looked up "tailsitter" VTOLs in Mike Rogers's book *VTOL Military Research Aircraft*. The book gives a lot of detail on test programs of the various aircraft. The two Ryan X-13s never achieved what VTOL people call "transition" from vertical flight to horizontal flight-- they just bounced around on their tails on all their test flights. The jet SNECMA C450 Coleoptere did a little tilting over but never flew horizontally, except after the pilot ejected on the ninth test flight (then it landed horizontally in multiple pieces). What about propeller-driven tailsitters? The Lockheed XFV-1 Salmon achieved transition at altitude, having been rigged with horizontal-takeoff landing gear, but never made vertical takeoffs or landings. Only the Convair XFV-1 Pogo ever took off vertically, flew horizontally, then "backed down" to a landing the way the DC-X will. The Convair people called this a "verticircuit." This first occurred on 2 November 1954 with J.F. "Skeets" Coleman at the controls. Rogers says: "Because the Pogo could only take off and land vertically, both of the transitions had to take place for the first time on the same flight. Coleman's coments on the horizontal to vertical transition make interesting reading. [I hope Pete Conrad and Mitch Burnside-Clapp are looking at them!] The Allison engine was so powerful that, even when throttled right back, it drove the Pogo at several hundred knots. Coleman had to approach the airfield in a series of sweeping turns to burn off speed before pulling up into a climb ending in a stall, at which point he had to balance thrust and weight so as to hover. Then came the worst part, a gentle backward descent to the ground.... "The Pogo, like the Salmon, could only convert from horizontal to vertical flight by putting the nose up and gaining a few hundred feet of height. It then had to reverse gently tail-first to a vertical landing, and it was essential to control sink rate very carefully. If the aircraft sank too fast, the control surfaces would cease to work, and even at full power it might be impossible to arrest the sink before arriving at zero height. There were no suitable instruments for measuring sink rate. Barometric devices lacked the sensitivity to measure slow rates, and would be upset by slipstream and vibration, while lightweight radio altimeters were not yet available. The pilot kept in radio contact with a member of the ground crew who measured altitude and sink rate visually by observing Pogo through a grid." They continued testing the Pogo for about two years. The National Air and Space Museum has it now. Bill Higgins | Sign in window of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | Alice's bookstore: Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | "EVER READ BANNED BOOKS? Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | YOU SHOULD!" SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | Gee, I hope it doesn't become | *compulsory*. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 21:14:50 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: Excess Shuttle criticism was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>Allen, could you please drop this goofy fantasy? The engineering >>needs of a space tug and a lunar transit vehicle are very different >>from those of an SSTO rocket... > >Indeed they are, but the question is, are they *too* different for one >design to meet both? The one thing that seems to me like a potential >problem is adequate view for the landing (which is what ultimately >killed the Earth Orbit Rendezvous mission mode in Apollo -- being able >to custom-build the lander for a good view looked better and better >the more it was studied). That brings up the obvious question... What sort of view will a DC-? pilot have during the landing phase? (They aren't going to use some sort of mirror-based scheme, are they?) -- Dave Michelson -- davem@ee.ubc.ca -- University of British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 21:25:59 GMT From: James Davis Nicoll Subject: Life on Earth (or elsewhere :-) Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.origins In article 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: > >>>Sorry. The sum purpose of life on Earth is to evolve to the point where >>>life can leave Earth and live elsewhere as well. And we're it. > >James D. Nicholl sez; Nicoll, actually. It's a pain to have an uncommon spelling of a common name. >> Evolution isn't a directed process and doesn't proceed towards >>a specific goal. > >It's not directed, but it's products are predictable: greater >diversity of life-forms and environments, and the general spreading of >life, among others. Both of these effects would be the result of our >movement into space on a large scale. Besides, we already are evolved >to the point where we can leave the Earth. If life gets a foothold in >space, "Life on Earth" will mean as much to "Life in the solar system" >as "Life in my backyard" means to "Life on Earth" right now. What evidence is there that there is a trend towards greater species diversity over time? What I see going on right now is a major extinction event, and it isn't clear to me that the diversity 10K years ago was necessarily greater than 600 million years ago. James Nicoll ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 93 15:13:00 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May13.185255.24357@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > In article <1993May13.080536.147@ee.ubc.ca> davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes: > >>The issue of "man-rating" a launcher deserves a little clarification... > [...] > Man rating can be broken up into two parts. One part modifies the launcher > so that humans can survive/function goint up on it. The second part deals > with extra instpection and features added to insure that the launcher is > 'extra safe' for the human. > > I assert that launchers which go through this extra inspection don't seem > to be any safer than the ones which don't. It is this second part I object > to as wasteful. Did the Soviets have a process equivalent to "man-rating?" Of course they never sent people up (we think) on any rocket except various models of the R7/"A"/Soyuz/Vostok launcher. But it was indeed a converted ICBM. And they must have considered the Proton, for example, as a possible personnel launcher from time to time. Anybody know any facts? -- O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 19:53:50 GMT From: Dillon Pyron Subject: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May12.170457.23478@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1sp513$beo@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: > >>Well, Spenz...what can I say? 8-) >>You've attacked my beloved vehicle! ;-) > >If I may offer a constructive criticism, perhaps you should decide if you >love vehicles or the use they are put to. I, myself, think the F-86 is >a beautiful aircraft, but rest assured, I wouldn't even think of flying >it in combat today. Most of us want access to space and judge vehicles >on how they perform. > >>We see "zero-defects operation" in many area|s of life. > >Not to this degree. > >>Calling shuttle flight characteristics *bizarre* in the same post >>as touting DC-X is interesting. > >Why? > >>DC-X will also have similar "zero-defects" issues (am I wrong?). > >Your wrong. The DC approach is very tollerent of failure. It also has >the advantage of far greater reliability do to its reusable nature (Shuttle >isn't reusable, it's salvagable). Zero-defects is a term which should be properly used to describe the product, not the environment in which it works. I'm surprised that Alan didn't note that there are two different philosophies about failure. Philosophy 1 is zero-defects. We can't afford any failures, so we will design, engineer and build to a zero-defects standard. Philosophy 2 is fault tolerant. We can't afford any failures, so we will design, engineer and build a system which is able to work around failures. I can't speak for certain, but I assume that DC-X and futures are fault tolerant. The shuttle, as we have seen, is neither. In fact, it seems to have been designed to the theme of we can't afford any failures, so we won't allow for any. > >>I am thinking of how DC-X will deploy a chute or reverse orientation at >>supersonic speeds. > >The flip over happens at a very low speed, not supersonic. If the DC-X >shows the flip over works, it will work unless the laws of physics change. > >>How much in DC-X is redundant? That's the real question. > >The final DC-1 will have fully intact abort throughout the entire flight >envelop. Upon re-entry for example, it can loose about 80% of available >thrust and still land safely. > >>Everything we do in life has zero-defects issues at times (agree?). > >Everything can suffer from catastrophic failure but that's not the same >thing. Shuttle simply isn't a fault tolerent design, SSTO is. > >>As a doctor, I can not error in my diagnosis and treatment recommendations. That is zero-defects. And if you start your patient on two complimentary anti-biotics, because you are not certain of the actual cause/source of the infection, but you know one of the two will get it and the drugs will not counteract each other, that is fault tolerant. > >You don't put your patients in conditions where there is no way out. You >wouldn't for example, give a patient a drug and not monitor them for >harmful side effects would you? > >>While DC-X's R&D program makes good sense, I am less optimistic about DC-X >>as you (and apparently others) are. > >You are very much in the minority. If the DC series fails to make orbit, it >will still be a very worthwhile effort. It will show us EXACTLY what we do >need to do to build SSTO. > >>But, DC-X will still have failures. It is the nature of aerospace R&D. But this is also a feature of the aerospace R&D attitude. If, from the start, we work towards a system based on either zero-defects or fault tolerant (or both), catastrophic failures (people dying, parts raining from the sky) can be eliminated. "It flat don't work" failures will always be there, and protective, quality/safety attitudes will protect against them. > >Again, refering to the DC-1, it will provide fully intact abort theroughout >the flight envelop. Shuttle doesn't. DC is fault tollerent, Shuttle isn't. > >>It's successors are not slated to be passenger carrying. > >Not true. Build a passenger pallet (a fairly easy thing to do) and it will >carry passengers. > >>The impression I had >>when I visited MacDac Huntington Beach's Open House was that the payload space >>was limited and the man-ratable version was decades away. > >I would suggest you talk to the DC-X crew themselves. Their original >schedule had an operational DC-1 flying in 96. > >>Shuttle is the only method in the free world of orbiting large life sciences >>and medical related packages. As for now, it is our only ticket into space >>and has my support. Would you have given the same kind of support to the railroads in 1937? They were poorly managed, overly confident and behind technologically. Nowadays, the only time most people think of the railroads is while waiting at a grade crossing. > >Your ignoring the dammage it does. Mannes space has a reputation for being >unreliable and hugely expensive. Shuttle supporters only make it easy for >opponents of manned space to kill it. > >>You could change my view on DC-X if you could prove the following: > >The only way to prove those things is to build it. PROVE IT!!!!!!!! -- Dillon Pyron | The opinions expressed are those of the TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support | sender unless otherwise stated. (214)462-3556 (when I'm here) | (214)492-4656 (when I'm home) |The TI GBU-28 redefines overpenetration. pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com | PADI DM-54909 | ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1993 21:17:22 GMT From: Peter Webb Subject: Stopping the sky-vandals Newsgroups: sci.space If you don't want to see Space Marketing put up orbiting billboards, write them, or call them, and tell them so. You might also write your congresspeople. Space Marketing can be reached at: Attn: Mike Lawson Public Relations Dept. Space Marketing 1495 Atmbree Rd., Suite 600 Rosewell, GA 30076 (404)-442-9682 -- Peter Webb webb@hks.com Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. Voice: 401-727-4200 1080 Main St, Pawtucket RI 02860 FAX: 401-727-4208 ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1993 17:13:17 -0400 From: Peter Webb Subject: Stopping the vandals Newsgroups: sci.space If you don't want to see Space Marketing put up orbiting billboards, write them, or call them, and tell them so. You might also write your congresspeople. Space Marketing can be reached at: Attn: Mike Lawson Public Relations Dept. Space Marketing 1495 Atmbree Rd., Suite 600 Rosewell, GA 30076 (404)-442-9682 -- Peter Webb webb@hks.com Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. Voice: 401-727-4200 1080 Main St, Pawtucket RI 02860 FAX: 401-727-4208 ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1993 17:12:14 -0400 From: Peter Webb Subject: Vandalizing the sky. Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space If you don't want to see Space Marketing put up orbiting billboards, write them, or call them, and tell them so. You might also write your congresspeople. Space Marketing can be reached at: Attn: Mike Lawson Public Relations Dept. Space Marketing 1495 Atmbree Rd., Suite 600 Rosewell, GA 30076 (404)-442-9682 -- Peter Webb webb@hks.com Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. Voice: 401-727-4200 1080 Main St, Pawtucket RI 02860 FAX: 401-727-4208 ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 93 15:18:10 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Who is Henry Spencer anyway? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May13.121950.22816@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > In article schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: > >> Henry Spencer is God. > > No, "Henry Spencer" is a pseudonym for Sandor at the Zoo, a military > corporation of the High Beyond. I don't understand how they get > their feed into the Slow Zone, though. They have some *very* clever hacker working for them. That's how. > "Death to vermin." Death to vermin. "Since you belong to the company of wise | Bill Higgins men, and apparently do not kill anyone | for money, tell me, pray, how you occupy | Fermilab yourselves." | | higgins@fnal.fnal.gov "We dissect flies," said the same | philosopher, "we measure distances, we | higgins@fnal.bitnet calculate numbers, we are agreed upon | two or three points which we understand, |SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS and we dispute about two or three thousand of which we know nothing." --Voltaire, "Micromegas" (1752) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 20:07:50 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Who is Henry Spencer anyway? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May13.121950.22816@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >> Henry Spencer is God. > >No, "Henry Spencer" is a pseudonym for Sandor at the Zoo, a military >corporation of the High Beyond. I don't understand how they get >their feed into the Slow Zone, though. That's where the God part comes in handy. :-) There's this little tentacle of the High Beyond reaching down to... well, I guess I shouldn't mention the details, people might get ideas. :-) (Those who are finding this subthread a bit mystifying are advised to read Vernor Vinge's "A Fire Upon The Deep" -- I *think* I have the title right -- which includes, among other things, excerpts from the far-future Usenet. VV has done his homework; the net excerpts are absolutely dead on.) -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 20:13:13 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Who is Henry Spencer anyway? Newsgroups: sci.space In article pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: >Henry Spencer is apparently the main person in charge of the computer >facilities at the University of Toronto's Zoology department. More or less correct, although I'm not actually in charge since I switched from full-time to part-time work. >Given that this department is rather large, well known, and well funded, >and has a reputation of innovative use of computers and sensing technology >in the fields of technology (source: stuff I've seen on Nova about how >they were using CAT scanners to image dinosaur skulls, with impressive >computer processing), this seems to me (from out here) to be a rather >heavy duty job. Hmm, either there's something nobody's told me about or your memory of the Nova description isn't quite right. The department *is* large, but its use of computers generally hasn't been spectacular -- it's been ahead of the usual for biology departments, but nothing remarkable. My job is mostly pretty boring. >And yes, Henry Spencer has a hobby. It isn't sci.space per se; you see, >he once wrote this program (along with someone else whose full name I >don't remember, but his first name is Geoff) called cnews... Actually, C News was work -- the old B News software was eating our machines alive and something had to be done about it, so we (Geoff Collyer and myself) did so. Space is just a hobby. >[includes] NNTP for exchange of articles amoung various >server systems. Actually, we don't take credit/blame for NNTP; it evolved elsewhere. -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 17:14:10 GMT From: Ben Burch Subject: Who is Henry Spencer anyway? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May13.121950.22816@cs.rochester.edu> Paul Dietz, dietz@cs.rochester.edu writes: > No, "Henry Spencer" is a pseudonym for Sandor at the Zoo, a military > corporation of the High Beyond. I don't understand how they get > their feed into the Slow Zone, though. Paul! I hope your will is in order! Now *they* will be coming for you! -Ben Burch Burch_Ben@msmail.wes.mot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 18:42:33 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?) Newsgroups: sci.space In schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: >Indeed, "man-rating" is a holdover from a time when people >were converting ICBMs into spacecraft launchers. These >were multimillion dollar assets that were supposed to destroy >themselves in use! Do people "man-rate" commercial aircraft? Well, actually, they sort of do man-rate commercial aircraft. I believe it's called an Airworthiness Certification. I'm not sure how much goes into actually 'man-rating' a booster, but I would suspect that the testing required for an Airworthiness Cert on a totally new design would be at least comparable. >No. Ships? No. Hmmm. Not sure what's required for ships. Probably not much, since if a ship goes down it doesn't hurt too many people other than those on the ship and those who invested in it. If a plane or spacecraft goes down, it can make quite a nasty mess on the ground, should it land in an inappropriate place. -- "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: Thu, 13 May 1993 20:29:20 GMT From: Dillon Pyron Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May13.184233.6060@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >In schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: > >>Indeed, "man-rating" is a holdover from a time when people >>were converting ICBMs into spacecraft launchers. These >>were multimillion dollar assets that were supposed to destroy >>themselves in use! Do people "man-rate" commercial aircraft? > >Well, actually, they sort of do man-rate commercial aircraft. I >believe it's called an Airworthiness Certification. I'm not sure how >much goes into actually 'man-rating' a booster, but I would suspect >that the testing required for an Airworthiness Cert on a totally new >design would be at least comparable. An Airworthiness Certificate requires that the builder demonstrate certain abilities and characteristics, and to document others. For instance, the A/C must be able to escape from certain type of stall/spin conditions or that it is capable of single engine flight. Documentation might be things like take-off roll to jump over King Kong (the fifty foot object) or thirty minute fuel reserves. They require showing that all appropriate restraints are in place and gauges are readable, etc. > >>No. Ships? No. > >Hmmm. Not sure what's required for ships. Probably not much, since >if a ship goes down it doesn't hurt too many people other than those >on the ship and those who invested in it. If a plane or spacecraft >goes down, it can make quite a nasty mess on the ground, should it >land in an inappropriate place. Paying passenger carrying ships registered in the US are required to meet certain minimum requirements, such as fire suppression and head discharge, as well as crewing minimums. >"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live > in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden Ain't this exactly what we are talking about? -- Dillon Pyron | The opinions expressed are those of the TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support | sender unless otherwise stated. (214)462-3556 (when I'm here) | (214)492-4656 (when I'm home) |The TI GBU-28 redefines overpenetration. pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com | PADI DM-54909 | ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 568 ------------------------------