Clinton's Promises (space) in Charlotte Observer
Edward V. Wright
>> B. Support completion of the space station Freedom.
>Looks like Clinton is going to make some rather severe cuts in space
>projects. And "supporting completion" doesn't mean actual completion.
You don't understand. NASA doesn't *want* Space Station Freedom
completed. Completing a project means you no longer have job
security, which is why these things go on forever. This is also
why no one comes right out and opposes a project anymore. Instead,
they "support it as a research program" (as in Les Aspin's "I support
SDI as a research program" or Gary Coffman's "I support SSTO...").
That way, you not only ensure that nothing useful will ever get built,
you also establish a permanent aerospace jobs program, and ultimately
discredit anyone who supported the original project as anything more
than a jobs program.
wingo%csp...@fedex.msfc.nasa.gov
No you don't understand and your statement is a prime reason people like
you are not listened to at NASA. Even looking at the proposition from a
pragmatical political perspective, this statment of yours is false. Why?
If NASA drags their feet and does not finish the station costs soar and
nothing gets done. In this era of deficts and budget cuts at the drop a
political hat this path is suicide. NASA from the beginning has wanted to
finish the station for many reasons. Look at your congress critters for
the blame for the delays in station and the increased cost that has brought
due to maintaining the standing army that station design and ad infinitum
redes [Bign has caused.
Using your twisted logic I can argue that NASA would WANT to complete the
station because it will be much harder to kill it when it is in orbit and
the operational budget for the thing will help keep the fires warm there for
thirty years to come. This also leaves the door open for the continuation
of the shuttle program for all of the reasons that have been enumerated on
this net as well as many others that could be posed in your same faulty
reasoning.
I am insulted at your characterization of NASA, based upon years of work with
dedicated engineers and managers from Marshall, Langley, KSC, Lewis, JSC and
JPL. Ames is the only center that I have not worked with. Yours is a denegration
of the lives of those people who took lower wages to work in a job that they
love, in a societal realm that they love. Most could work at commercial
firms for more money. I don't think I have ever hear of anyone leaving NASA
for a lower paid postion.
I do agree that at NASA, as well as at any commercial company or university has
its share of duds. That is life. Lets see you do a good job with all of the
congressionally mandated procurement and other rules that they have to live
with. I have heard of stories like the one where an expansion board was ordered
for a Silicon Graphics workstation that was obsolete (9 months) before it
was delivered. This is a small part of the hell that the good people at NASA
have to live with.
At least they are there in the fight and trying do do something about it.
You and those like you who sit on the sidelines and rant and rave do nothing
for anyone or anything other than your own ego. This is one of the primary
reasons people like you are ignored by engineers and scientist at NASA who are
doing their best to help and lower the cost of the Exploration and Development
of Space.
A little bit of advice. If you see something wrong with NASA quit your whining
and do something about it. If you see a way to do it faster, cheaper, and or
better, then start designing it or implementing your plan in some way.
People that know will then see that you are doing something good and will help
you. This then will lead to you being recognized and if you then TALK to NASA
people as human beings instead of the enemy, THEN you might find that you have
a receptive ear that will not only help you, but will champion your cause
within NASA. These people are not stupid, if what you have actually makes
good sense and does a good job faster, cheaper or better, then you might
just find that NASA may adopt it.
There are pitfalls and there are managers and politicians that are more
concerned with their little 'ol empires and their way of doing things, but these
are simple obsticals to be overcome. Builds character, you ought to try it
sometime. So quit saying stupid things like you said in your post and
either do something or support those of us who are doing things that are
supporting doing things better or get out of the way.
By the way it is less than 60 days to the launch of the Small Expendable
Deployer System (SEDS 1) on a McDonnell Douglas Delta II. This is just one
of NASA's smaller, cheaper, better missions. It is a secondary payload on
a Delta which lowers the cost dramatically, and also it employs a
tether deployer based wonderfully on the KISS principle of deploying tethers.
It is the branchild of Preliminary Design (PD) at NASA Marshall, with the
end mass being built by Langley. The total cost of the development,
construction, launch, operations, and data reduction will be less than 8 million
dollars.
This tether mission is the result of a lot of hard work by a small group within
NASA. There will be two more similar missions, one with a conducting tether
in Calendar year 93 and early 94.
Everywhere I have been in NASA people have wanted to help us with our
satellite becauce it was "real hardware that will fly". There are many people
who have worked many hours at NASA on their own time to help us. Mayber you
ought to look at the subject and the people that you so easily dismiss
Dennis, University of Alabama In Huntsville
Michael Jensen
I must agree with Dennis from Hunstville. As a extreemly low paid engineer,
I too find it sad when people continue to slam NASA for things that are out
of it's control. We who work for NASA are accepting lower salaries, and
hard work not because we want to "rip off the taxpayer" or anything close, but
because we love what we do, and we love our country. The only reason that
we have the significant majority of the problems we do encounter is because
the US Congress refuses to allow us to do our jobs the way they should be done.
*** Disclaimer - the rantings and ravings in this post are not nessesarily
those of NASA, the United States of America, any Federal Employee, the Federal
Government, or Walt Disney Inc. ***
--
Michael C. Jensen mje...@gellersen.valpo.edu
Electrical Engineering jen...@cisv.jsc.nasa.gov
Valparaiso University mcj...@exodus.valpo.edu
"I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
Bruce F. Webster
> In article <ewright....@convex.convex.com>, ewr...@convex.com (Edward
V. Wright) writes...
> >In <rabjab.31...@golem.ucsd.edu> rab...@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab)
writes:
> >
> >>> B. Support completion of the space station Freedom.
> >
> >>Looks like Clinton is going to make some rather severe cuts in space
> >>projects. And "supporting completion" doesn't mean actual completion.
> >
> >You don't understand. NASA doesn't *want* Space Station Freedom
> >completed.
> >
>
> you are not listened to at NASA. Even looking at the proposition from a
> pragmatical political perspective, this statment of yours is false. Why?
>
> If NASA drags their feet and does not finish the station costs soar and
> nothing gets done.
Space Station Freedom was originally proposed in what? 1982?, was supposed to
be on orbit and operational in 1992, and was supposed to cost a total of $8B.
It is now 1993, not a single actual piece of Fred has been built (much less
placed on orbit), and the estimated total cost is $40B and rising. Q.E.D.
I used to work for NASA (as an employee of Singer/Link, the former contractor
on the Space Shuttle Flight Simulator at JSC) and also worked at the Lunar and
Planetary Institute next door. I have friends who are still heavily involved in
the space industry at various levels. I happen to think that the best thing
Clinton could do would be to kill SS Fred and offer $10B, tax-free, to the
first US corporation or consortium to put a station on orbit and keep it
staffed by at least X people for a year and day. He should also offer $5B to
the second corporation/consortium to do the same thing. The government would
spend less, create more jobs, and built an 21st century industrial base.
..bruce..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce F. Webster | We hackers linger by our leading edge
CTO, Pages Software Inc | Forgetting what is pending in the cache
bweb...@pages.com | Till practice hurtles past us, and we crash.
#import <pages/disclaimer.h> | -- Jeff Duntemann
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Mohney
>. I have friends who are still heavily involved in
>the space industry at various levels. I happen to think that the best thing
>Clinton could do would be to kill SS Fred and offer $10B, tax-free, to the
>first US corporation or consortium to put a station on orbit and keep it
>staffed by at least X people for a year and day. He should also offer $5B to
>the second corporation/consortium to do the same thing. The government would
>spend less, create more jobs, and built an 21st century industrial base.
Gosh, you been hanging out with Jerry Pournelle, huh?
He has expounded on the bonus plan to build a moon colony through the same
fashion.
I got some questions for you:
A) Who owns possession of the technology used to develop the station?
B) Who owns the data?
C) How do you set the damned thing up without using goverment help
in the first place? Guess who owns all the big launch facilities.
(Unless, of course, you wish to disguise this as a Russian
Marshall Plan, which is not necessary a Bad Thing. Just be say
so up front).
D) Does it have to be a U.S. corp? What if I use off-shore tech, say
get the Italians into building my living modules?
IF, in exchange for the prize money, the government gets rights to the
"science" without infringing on trade secrets, it might work.
I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
-- > SYS...@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
Robert Patrick Campbell
>Jerry Pournelle, hum.. Does anyone have access to a ear at the Planetary
>Society? Pass these ideas on to them...
>Does Jerry Pournell have anet address (drop box is better)??
>
jer...@bix.com will work...I'm sure that he has others as well.
...Rob Campbell
Stanford University
ns...@acad3.alaska.edu
> In article <1993Jan27....@pages.com>, bweb...@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster) writes:
>>. I have friends who are still heavily involved in
>>the space industry at various levels. I happen to think that the best thing
>>Clinton could do would be to kill SS Fred and offer $10B, tax-free, to the
>>first US corporation or consortium to put a station on orbit and keep it
>>staffed by at least X people for a year and day. He should also offer $5B to
>>the second corporation/consortium to do the same thing. The government would
>>spend less, create more jobs, and built an 21st century industrial base.
>
> Gosh, you been hanging out with Jerry Pournelle, huh?
>
> He has expounded on the bonus plan to build a moon colony through the same
> fashion.
>
> I got some questions for you:
>
> A) Who owns possession of the technology used to develop the station?
> B) Who owns the data?
Same solution to a point.
> C) How do you set the damned thing up without using goverment help
> in the first place? Guess who owns all the big launch facilities.
> (Unless, of course, you wish to disguise this as a Russian
> Marshall Plan, which is not necessary a Bad Thing. Just be say
> so up front).
Hum, I think there is some space facilties that are not directly federally
owned and we shall see. I do like the idea of a marshal plan type idea, after
all it can make us the benefiters, have the russians do all the work and we
benefit. Also make the russian ean their money and they will be paying it back
in many ways better than a long term loan (which many counteries never seem to
pay off).. (see Poker flats in Alaska for semi-Nasa facilty.
> D) Does it have to be a U.S. corp? What if I use off-shore tech, say
> get the Italians into building my living modules?
Off the shelf would be nice, forgein that is a problem that will be worked
out.. Maybe if the holding company is US, many subcontrators are not US even in
normal projects. Ever heard of Alyeska, its a front/combo company to handle the
Alaska Pipeline and build it.. Co-owned by Arco, BP, Standard, and one or two
others, BP is not a US company.. I think Shell was the other one (Dutch).
>
> IF, in exchange for the prize money, the government gets rights to the
> "science" without infringing on trade secrets, it might work.
>
>
> I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
> -- > SYS...@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
Jerry Pournelle, hum.. Does anyone have access to a ear at the Planetary
Ian Taylor
>the space industry at various levels. I happen to think that the best thing
>Clinton could do would be to kill SS Fred and offer $10B, tax-free, to the
>first US corporation or consortium to put a station on orbit and keep it
>staffed by at least X people for a year and day. He should also offer $5B to
>the second corporation/consortium to do the same thing. The government would
>spend less, create more jobs, and built an 21st century industrial base.
Lets play.
Ok say Clinton went off his rocker and did just that, does anyone think
a US corporation would do it for $10bn, tax free? - assuming this station
has a similar specification to Freedom for volume and power and X=4. No
subcontracting to the Russians allowed <grin>.
+-- I -------- fax +43 1 391452 --------------------- voice +43 1 391621 169 --+
| T a y l o r Alcatel Austria Research, Ruthnergasse 5, Vienna A-1210 Austria |
+-- n ---- i...@rcvie.co.at --- PSI%023226191002::SE_TAYLOR --- 20731::ian -----+
Self referential, terse, profound yet witty disclaimer
Allen W. Sherzer
>> [Kill SSF and buy a station instead]
>Gosh, you been hanging out with Jerry Pournelle, huh?
Jerry has a lot of flaws Doug but it wouldn't hurt you to hang around
him a bit. He is somebody unhappy with the current stagnation in our
space program and is willing to consider and work for solutions.
>I got some questions for you:
First of all, think of the last car you bought. You went in with some
performance related requirements on price, fuel economy, power, looks,
and other performance criteria. You didn't worry about what technology
was used to cast the engine block or what kind of fasteners where used
to connect the fuel line to the fuel injectors.
When NASA builds anything, they are almost the opposite. They are more
interested, it seems, in telling the contractor what fasteners to use
then is wether the thing works or not.
Under this proposal, buying stations would be no different from buying
cars.
> A) Who owns possession of the technology used to develop the station?
The same as the technology used to develop your car: the contractor.
> B) Who owns the data?
That's like saying who drives your car. The contractor doesn't get to drive
your car, you do.
> C) How do you set the damned thing up without using goverment help
> in the first place? Guess who owns all the big launch facilities.
Commercial airlines work off of government owned airports and commercial
launches happen from government owned spaceports.
> D) Does it have to be a U.S. corp? What if I use off-shore tech, say
> get the Italians into building my living modules?
Up to the contractor and the buyer.
>IF, in exchange for the prize money, the government gets rights to the
>"science" without infringing on trade secrets, it might work.
Of course they do. They own it.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------137 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Edward V. Wright
writes:
> C) How do you set the damned thing up without using goverment help
> in the first place? Guess who owns all the big launch facilities.
Aw, yes, the ultimate fallback argument.
The government owns all the launch facilities because the
government crushes anyone who tries to compete with them.
It justifies its strong arm tactics by saying that launch
facilities are a "national resource" -- without government,
there would be no launch facilities.
Perfect circular reasoning.
Edward V. Wright
>Ok say Clinton went off his rocker and did just that, does anyone think
>a US corporation would do it for $10bn, tax free? - assuming this station
>has a similar specification to Freedom for volume and power and X=4.
Well, the Japanese construction industry thinks it could do
the job for around one billion. A real space station, a la
2001, not a little tin can like SS Freedom. Unfortunately,
Shuttle transportation costs would add another $46 billion
to that. But if you encourage the develop of a commercial
SSTO first....
Matthew DeLuca
[Private group putting up a space station]
>Well, the Japanese construction industry thinks it could do
>the job for around one billion. A real space station, a la
>2001, not a little tin can like SS Freedom. Unfortunately,
>Shuttle transportation costs would add another $46 billion
>to that. But if you encourage the develop of a commercial
>SSTO first....
If the Japanese can develop and build a whiz-bang space station from scratch
for only $1 billion, why can't they develop their own SSTO for a few
million dollars? If they can do one I am sure they can do the other.
Claims like this make me wonder: we hear from certain agitators on this
group how if we only were to use cheap Soviet hardware, we could do more in
space than we do now for only a fraction of the cost. If this is true, why
didn't the Soviets do it? At the height of the Soviets' power, it would have
been a great propaganda victory for them to have a bustling space activity
while the Americans limped along in their Shuttle...instead, we saw the
Soviets restricted to the same tin-can technology they've been using since
1961. Something tells me it's just not as cheap and easy as certain people
like to make it seem.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: mat...@phantom.gatech.edu
ns...@acad3.alaska.edu
Sounds liek the same argument the FED has for making sure that alaska can only
sell its oil to US Companies (Namely in Texas and California) and that we can't
sellt eh oil at compedative prices, but we have to sell for lower..
Because the oil is a Amerina Resource.. Sounds more like National Socialism in
its infancy..
The democracy never existed, the republic is dead, now comes the socialist
state..Then the empire.. When will the bread and circuses begin, see welfare..
All we need is government sponsored gladitor fights and we would be ......
end of transmission
Pat
|
|I must agree with Dennis from Hunstville. As a extreemly low paid engineer,
|I too find it sad when people continue to slam NASA for things that are out
|of it's control. We who work for NASA are accepting lower salaries, and
|hard work not because we want to "rip off the taxpayer" or anything close, but
|because we love what we do, and we love our country. The only reason that
|we have the significant majority of the problems we do encounter is because
|the US Congress refuses to allow us to do our jobs the way they should be done.
|
I think that this is a gross over-simplification of the problems at NASA.
Granted the congress screws with them, but they do so with lots of
agencies. and you guys think you are underpaid, look at the forest service.
Forest rangers get GS-5 salary, have to live in condemned housing and
many of them have to control crime involving gangs and narcotics growers
or dealers in their camps. Now that is doing the job because you love it.
Also, the congress for the past 3 administrations has been pretty solid
in funding NASA. the problems in SSF have come because they sold the
program as costing 8 billion dollars. where are we? 40 billion
and still climbing? not counting launch? Sure congress cut funds
for the STS developement. but it was Jim Fletcher, a NASA employee,
who decided to award Rockwell the STS orbiter, Thiokol the boosters
and Rocketdyne? the SSMEs? I seem to recall McDac and Aerojet having
some pretty harsh things to say about it, and claiming their proposals
were technically far more sophisticated. as i recall aerojet submitted
a design for jointless SRBs.
It was also NASA management that decided that 51-L needed to launch
in freezing weather. I don't recall tip o'neil threatening their
budget on that one.
The problems in galileo stem from changing criteria on the Shuttle.
First it had to go on shuttle, then shuttle wouldn't carry the centaur.
That was NASA changing it's flight safety rules. and their manifesting
rules.
HST was fouled up, because nobody had the backbone to stand up to P-E
and the Air Force. not because congress didn't allocate enough
money for the platform. hell, over 5 billion was spent buiilding
it. how much more do you want?
I for one am getting very sick of this "Blame COngress" mentality
expressed by certain right wing members of this group.
Look, it's inefficient and yes it changes it's mind, and yes they
control the money, but that is the nature of our government.
It's written into our constitution, and anyone who wants to throw
a vital series of checks and balances out is un-american in my book.
You guys want better salaries, push for them. but then accept other
risks as well. Cetainly NASA could pay people better, but private
industry lays people off right and left. Private industry works
offten time on weekly financial cycles. I don't see so many happy
people working at NASA contractors. And you want eerie-ness
work in defense contracting.
in short: life is unfair, deal.
Nick Szabo
sys...@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:
>I got some questions for you:
>(Good questions A-D deleted)
But the most fundamental question is, why should the $10 billion be
spent for a space station? For a lunar base?
Why not $10 billion for automated missions to comets, asteroids, Mars,
etc.? Why not $10 billion to help establish the phone cell sat and
DBS industries? Why not $10 billion to develop microreactors that
can make useful products out of the materials native to space?
Why not $10 billion for experiments in microgravity science, without
dictating the kind of space platform on which the experiments must
be performed? $10 billion for SSTO? For a two-stage rocket?
Why not $10 billion for nuclear-thermal and nuclear-electric upper
stages?
Playing tricks with how the government hands out the money won't
do much to increase efficiency; the government contractors are just
as bureaucratic as the government agencies. Most importantly, this
gimmick doesn't solve the fundamental problem, which is the massive
misallocation of funds. That can only be solved by some combination
of (a) a radical change in strategy and vision, away the obsolete
failed strategies for space development that so far have been pursued,
and (b) taking the fundamental strategic decisions about where to spend
the money out of the hands of the government, and putting it into the
hands of those who put their own money at risk to develop real
self-sustaining businesses, not in the pursuit of future government
contracts.
--
Nick Szabo sz...@techboook.com
Brian Stuart Thorn
>the job for around one billion. A real space station, a la
>2001, not a little tin can like SS Freedom. Unfortunately,
>Shuttle transportation costs would add another $46 billion
>to that. But if you encourage the develop of a commercial
>SSTO first....
46 BILLION DOLLARS????
Good Lord, talk about inflation running amok...
-Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss,
Bri...@cup.portal.com this must be heaven."
-Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat
Interesting. today the washington post reported on a
GAO audit of NASA that indicated that 80% of all NASA programs
missed their original cost estimates by flight time.
The statistics indicated that most projects were off by less then 100%
but that some projects would miss by factors of up to 5.
The granted example was TSS. estimated at 50 million dollars it ran
263 million by last august. THe major problem was that NASA
engineers are overoptimistic in the costs for technical
developement. there was aquote that this" can do" attitude
allows the creations of new projects, but that a total lack of
realism permeates the developement offices in terms of costs
and schedules.
The report boded ill for Freedom, currently the largest and most
complex project under NASA's management.
The report also blamed NASA management for continoulsy reshuffling
mission priorities putting projects on hold for years at a time.
COngress also was blamed for failing to fund multi-year projects.
The report indicated that multi-year funding would help on certain
projects.
Now my question, is?
Why not put NASA into a National Labs type structure. Give each center
5 year budgets, research golals and priorities and then see how they
go. rather then having multiple centers controlling parts of
each mission, put it under one center, until a major mode change.
I.E. Goddard builds a BIRD, KSC launches it and JPL runs the
science mission.
comments?
pat
Allen W. Sherzer
>Claims like this make me wonder: we hear from certain agitators on this
>group
That's the first time I have ever been called that. :-)
>how if we only were to use cheap Soviet hardware, we could do more in
>space than we do now for only a fraction of the cost.
I think I have documented it pretty well. But I point out that of the
$2.5 billion yearly cost of my alternative Freedom logistics approach only
$200M (less than 10%) is composed of Russian hardware. It is hardly extensive
use.
Even the proposals to use Energia only have 5% or so of their cost in Russian
hardware.
>If this is true, why didn't the Soviets do it?
They did.
>At the height of the Soviets' power, it would have
>been a great propaganda victory for them to have a bustling space activity
They had (and have) the world's only operational space station. They have
a facility on orbit to produce commercial semiconductor materials. Their
rookies spend more time in space then our experts. I would say they have
a bustling space program.
>while the Americans limped along in their Shuttle...
Since they pay less than $1,000 per pound to fly their microgravity experiments
and Dennis spends ten times as much to fly his I would agree that we are
indeed limping.
>instead, we saw the
>Soviets restricted to the same tin-can technology they've been using since
>1961.
Guess what, if you can't get Uncle Sam to pay your way and you need to
find a cheap way to get to space you will find yourself restricted to
the same tin-can technology *WE* have been using since 1961.
>Something tells me it's just not as cheap and easy as certain people
>like to make it seem.
Let me get this straight, our system costs ten times as much as theirs
and only gives 20% of the time in space. Yet you think it is more advanced?
To quote Corporal Hudson: "I don't know if you have been keeping up with
current events pal but we just got our butts kicked!".
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------135 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Brian Yamauchi
>In article <1kcan7...@phantom.gatech.edu> mat...@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>>At the height of the Soviets' power, it would have
>>been a great propaganda victory for them to have a bustling space activity
>They had (and have) the world's only operational space station. They have
>a facility on orbit to produce commercial semiconductor materials. Their
>rookies spend more time in space then our experts. I would say they have
>a bustling space program.
They certainly _had_ a extremely successful space program, but it
now seems to be in deep trouble...
There's a good article on the state of the Russian space program in
the current (March 93) issue of Smithsonian Air and Space magazine.
From the article:
"I visited Moscow almost a year after the disintegration of the union
to ask scientists, engineers, and officials who had devoted their
careers to the space program whether they thought they could continue.
I found most of them languishing in poverty and wondering what would
happen next."
Of course, this isn't the fault of the Soviet scientists and engineers
themselves -- I'm sure NASA would have difficulty coping with the
collapse of the Federal Government and the breakup of the United
States into a half dozen independent nations...
>>while the Americans limped along in their Shuttle...
>Since they pay less than $1,000 per pound to fly their microgravity experiments
>and Dennis spends ten times as much to fly his I would agree that we are
>indeed limping.
We may be limping, but the Russians seem to be staggering toward the
abyss -- which is all the more reason to buy any Soviet space hardware
that would be useful for our own space program. If we wait too long,
the engineering teams and production facilities may cease to exist.
One of the interviews is with a former test pilot/aerospace
industrialist who has converted a factory that used to build EVA suits
and MMUs to build vegetable slicers:
"The MR 500 slices, it dices, it will cut 500 kilograms per hour of
any vegetable you wish into any geometric shape you need."
One of the more interesting interviews is with the former chief rocket
scientist of the Soviet space program who worked on the Soyuz, Proton,
and N1 launchers. He's now working on a "truly reusable launch
vehicle". He says "the world needs a $10 million launch system".
The article includes a photograph of a Soyuz launcher bearing a Sony
logo. I suppose if we can't convince NASA to buy Soviet hardware, we
could always try to convince Shimizu...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Brian Yamauchi Case Western Reserve University
yama...@alpha.ces.cwru.edu Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________
Carl Hage
:Amerina Anyoen Congression Japana Teh alaska alot alreadt aspicies
:becomeing commerical compedative dificult dsign elevetor emust geo
:gladitor legeslating liek progect sellt teathered ther wher
It should be evident that the most serious long term problem facing
America is our educational system. If we can't type, spell, formulate
grammatically correct sentences, or engage in meaningful discussions,
how can we expect anything other than being eclipsed in space technology
by other countries? How will we solve a future economic and ecological
crisis in an overpopulated, resource depleted world?
It also seems like we have lost our pride in quality craftsmanship. I'm
amazed to see how much hastily prepared, shoddy workmanship is sent out
without even a minimal quality check, particularly when today's
technology enables a vast improvement in quality over what was available
or practical a few decades ago.
During the late 1950s, the "missile gap" and the "I'd rather be dead than
red" philosophy motivated the United States to accelerate the development
of space technology and improve math and science education. Currently,
we are lagging far behind many other countries in basic education. What
is there to motivate our country to respond to an impending crisis?
Why is there so much whining about Clinton's broken promises less than 10
days after he has been in office? I hope space enthusiasts will help
president Clinton and our congress solve the current economic crisis and
correct our lagging educational system. Without these problems addressed,
our future endeavors in space are sure to fail.
ns...@acad3.alaska.edu
> ns...@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
> :Amerina Anyoen Congression Japana Teh alaska alot alreadt aspicies
> :becomeing commerical compedative dificult dsign elevetor emust geo
> :gladitor legeslating liek progect sellt teathered ther wher
tired I was.. Sorry for the gibberish post.
Im not ever sure what I was trying to say..
>
> It should be evident that the most serious long term problem facing
> America is our educational system. If we can't type, spell, formulate
> grammatically correct sentences, or engage in meaningful discussions,
> how can we expect anything other than being eclipsed in space technology
> by other countries? How will we solve a future economic and ecological
> crisis in an overpopulated, resource depleted world?
>
> It also seems like we have lost our pride in quality craftsmanship. I'm
> amazed to see how much hastily prepared, shoddy workmanship is sent out
> without even a minimal quality check, particularly when today's
> technology enables a vast improvement in quality over what was available
> or practical a few decades ago.
>
> During the late 1950s, the "missile gap" and the "I'd rather be dead than
> red" philosophy motivated the United States to accelerate the development
> of space technology and improve math and science education. Currently,
> we are lagging far behind many other countries in basic education. What
> is there to motivate our country to respond to an impending crisis?
>
> Why is there so much whining about Clinton's broken promises less than 10
> days after he has been in office? I hope space enthusiasts will help
> president Clinton and our congress solve the current economic crisis and
> correct our lagging educational system. Without these problems addressed,
> our future endeavors in space are sure to fail.
Will try to not post again when I have been on the computer for more than 24
hours..
==
Michael Adams, ns...@acad3.alaska.edu
Im not high, just jacked
Jerry Szopinski Mfg 4-6983
: In article <21JAN199...@judy.uh.edu>
:
--
I agree, to some extent, with Bruce. Major industries/consortiums should
be the prime movers behind development of a space station, but I don't
think NASA should be excluded, not with its experience and database. If
it's going to be an open competition, with the government awarding a cash
prize to the first space station up and running, then everyone with an
interest should have a shot.
With the R&D possibilities that a space station (or bases on the moon,
asteroids, Mars, etc.) can produce, the benefits to industry and this country
are worthwhile. The actual jobs in space may not be that many but the
support needed from down here would be great.
Has anyone read any of Allen Steele's books? He deals with events in the near
future and pretty well describes what it would be like to be out there in
space working on space stations, powersats and moon bases. He advocates
industries and consortiums developing, operating and maintaining these facil-
ities. If anyone's interested the titles that I can remember righrt now are
"Orbital Decay" and "Clark County, Space". Very interesting sci-fi, IMHO.
=======================================================================
Jerry Szopinski
I have an agreement with my employers: I won't speak for them, and they
won't cut-off my cookie supply.
"It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave and keep on
thinking free!" -- Moody Blues
Matthew DeLuca
>>[...] if we only were to use cheap Soviet hardware, we could do more in
>>space than we do now for only a fraction of the cost.
>>If this is true, why didn't the Soviets do it?
>They did.
>>At the height of the Soviets' power, it would have
>>been a great propaganda victory for them to have a bustling space activity
>They had (and have) the world's only operational space station. They have
>a facility on orbit to produce commercial semiconductor materials. Their
>rookies spend more time in space then our experts. I would say they have
>a bustling space program.
Really? Let me see...two or three times a year, they put two or three guys
in a capsule and shoot them up to a station, where they trade off with a couple
of guys there and come back down. I'm not sure what they do there (if anyone
has any good information on (a) what they are doing up there, and (b) word
of any results they have had, I would *love* to see them posted) but it
really doesn't seem to be a whole lot. And how much has their manned space
activity increased in the eight or nine years since Mir was launched? It
hasn't increased at all. Two or three at a time, two or three times a year.
My point is that if Soviet equipment is so cheap and wonderful, how come the
Russians haven't gone anywhere with it? They've been stuck at a low level
of activity for well over a decade now, with no sign whatsoever that they are
planning on increasing it. Why? Even at the height of Soviet power, they
weren't doing any more than they are now.
As for their rookies spending so long in space, sure, they're up there for
six months or a year. However, while the Russians have a small group of
people with lots of time in orbit, we've got two or three hundred people with
a week or a month of experience...we're the ones building the cadre of
experienced workers. The Russians are still stuck back in the sixties with
orbital experience belonging to the very few.
>Let me get this straight, our system costs ten times as much as theirs
>and only gives 20% of the time in space. Yet you think it is more advanced?
Yes, because we're the ones developing the upcoming generations of space
transport. Capsules were the first generation, and the Shuttle is the
second. We're already working on the third and fourth, with things like
SSTO and NASP. Where are the Russian developments that are really going to
open space up? Listening to you, the Russians should already be all over the
place with their cheap launchers, yet it is the U.S. that is doing the
footwork. Why? Sure, we're spending more money, but in the long run we're
going to reap the benefits, not the Russians. In this respect, our program
is infinitely more advanced than the Russians.
Matthew DeLuca
>>Really? Let me see...two or three times a year, they put two or three guys
>>in a capsule and shoot them up to a station, where they trade off with a
>>couple of guys there and come back down.
>Which is far far more than we can do. BTW, it also means they spend three
>to four days in space for every day we do.
They go up three times a year, we go up eight. They send up two or three
people, we send up five to eight. So for every ten people they send up, we
are sending somewhere between forty and seventy. I wouldn't say they are
doing 'far far' more than we are.
>>I'm not sure what they do there...
>Pretty much the same thing we do; except they can do a lot more. Oh, they
>do have a facility which produces commercial semiconductor materials. NASA
>has no plans for that for the next 20 years or so.
So what are they doing? I haven't heard of any real results from their work
up there. I'm sure there are some, but they can't be that earth-shattering.
As for their semiconductor facility, that's great...and I'm saying that
without sarcasm. But with all the cheap launch capacity and available on-
orbit astronaut time, I'm surprised that's the best they can do.
>>My point is that if Soviet equipment is so cheap and wonderful, how come the
>>Russians haven't gone anywhere with it?
>Largely because they are a poor nation I suspect. Even at their height
>in now{turns out that they didn't have all that much.
Agreed...but if their stuff costs a tenth or a fifth of what ours does, even
their relative poverty should be enough for some pretty impressive feats; yet
we've seen very little.
>But the point isn't what they can do, it is what WE can do with intelligent
>leveraging. Spending 10% on Russian hardware could save us billions. What's
>wrong with that?
Part of the point I am making is that *if* things are as good as you claim,
they should have been able to do a lot more than the have. The conclusion
that I am drawing is that things *aren't* as good as yor are claiming. You
have quite the reputation for pulling numbers out of thin air, and the fact
that the Soviets, with all their cheap hardware, were unable to do anything
more than they have points to some problems with your conclusions.
Furthermore, I am not absolutely opposed to spending money on Russian gear;
as I said in a post late last week, using Soyuz for the ACRV is a reasonable
plan. But when people start proposing ongoing procurement for launch services
from the Russians that would cripple the U.S. industry, or scrapping Freedom
and leasing space on Mir, then I start thinking there's something wrong.
Believe it or not, there's more to space than the almighty dollar.
>>They've been stuck at a low level of activity...
>I look at their launch manifests and then look at ours. I think we are the
>ones stuck at the low level of activity. They can do this since they
>don't pay 10 times what they need to for launches like we do.
Their rate of launch is a direct consequence of their inability to make
spacecraft with a decent lifespan. They may pay 1/10 what we do to launch
a rocket, but they have to launch 10 times as often as we do. Dollar for
dollar, we probably get more from our satellites than we do. We certainly
have more cpaable satellites, if not as many.
>>>Let me get this straight, our system costs ten times as much as theirs
>>>and only gives 20% of the time in space. Yet you think it is more advanced?
>>Yes, because we're the ones developing the upcoming generations of space
>>transport.
>>Capsules were the first generation, and the Shuttle is the second.
>Great! I hope we quit at the second generation. Every new generation
>doubles the cost of access to space. We won't be able to launch NASA's
>third generation system because it will be too expensive.
You're drawing conclusions as to trends in launch costs based on two data
points? Way to stick your foot in your mouth.
Besides, I didn't specifically mention NASA. If you notice below, I
consider SSTO the next generation. Since you keep harping on the low
cost of this technology, I'm surprised at the dig above on costs.
>>We're already working on the third and fourth, with things like SSTO and
>>NASP.
>NASA is spending it's SSTO efforts trying to kill the SDIO effort. As for
>NASP, NASP is dead. (BTW, those backward Russians are doing more scramjet
>testing than we are).
Again, I didn't mention NASA, you did.
As for NASP, maybe it's dead and maybe it isn't. People like to predict the
imminent death of a number of programs (how many times has Henry Spencer
declared the ASRM program dead?) that somehow don't quite die. I agree, it
is unlikely that it will fly in the manner originally proposed, but the
idea as a whole is far from dead.
Finally, someone pointed out on sci.military that Sandia Labs has a very
interesting high-mach program underway...I wouldn't count the U.S. out of
the scramjet race, even if the Russians have strapped a couple of test
articles to rockets. Their testing may well be a compensation for their
lack of capability in computational fluid dynamics.
>>Listening to you, the Russians should already be all over the...
>All I am saying is that we can intelligently leverage our efforts using
>some of their hardware. Why is that such a problem?
Because the experience of the Soviet space program over the last thirty
years leads me to believe that there's far more to a viable space program
than just cheap hardware.
ga...@stsci.edu
[Refering to the Russian space program, especially aboard Mir]
> Pretty much the same thing we do; except they can do a lot more. Oh, they
> do have a facility which produces commercial semiconductor materials. NASA
> has no plans for that for the next 20 years or so.
I've had a conversation with a Polish semiconductor scientist who got
to work with some of the Mir grown crystals. His opinion (in 1989) was
that they were "pretty bad."
Has anybody out there actually worked with Mir grown materials recently?
Does the microgravity environment really impart any desirable properties?
Can astronauts (or cosmonauts) grow crystals that are useful for serious
devices, given that they are generalists by training and lack the special
knowledge of industrial crystallographers?
My intuition is that the "commercial semiconductor materials" grown in
space won't be good for much for quite a while. I'd be overjoyed if
I'm wrong on this one.
Please note that I've included sci.materials for followups.
-Bill Gawne, Space Telescope Science Institute
Edward V. Wright
>They go up three times a year, we go up eight. They send up two or three
>people, we send up five to eight. So for every ten people they send up, we
>are sending somewhere between forty and seventy. I wouldn't say they are
>doing 'far far' more than we are.
They use unmanned launchers to do many of the things we do with the
Shuttle. This is because of NASA's decision, back in the 1970's, to
move all payloads off expendables and onto the Shuttle. Russians
also stay in space up to a year longer than we do.
>Furthermore, I am not absolutely opposed to spending money on Russian gear;
>as I said in a post late last week, using Soyuz for the ACRV is a reasonable
>plan. But when people start proposing ongoing procurement for launch services
>from the Russians that would cripple the U.S. industry, or scrapping Freedom
>and leasing space on Mir, then I start thinking there's something wrong.
>
>Believe it or not, there's more to space than the almighty dollar.
Oh, yeah? Why don't you take a drive out to Atlanta Hartsfield Airport
and count the number of jetliners you see sitting on the tarmac.
Multiply by $100 million or so to calculate the value of the aircraft.
Look at the number of flights landing and taking off -- all for the
almighty dollar you disdain. Think about what've you seen as you
drive home -- in a car that I'll wager was made by a company in
search of the almight dollar, or the all-powerful yen.
The almighty dollar made this country, kid. It built the railroads,
the mines, the harbors, and transformed the Great American Desert
into the Breadbasket of the World. Not some jingoistic government
program for "higher goals." It you want to see what kind of results
that brings, look at the Ukraine. The former Breadbasket of Europe,
reduced to a region that can't even feed itself.
You think that we have an active program because NASA launches
eight Shuttle flights per year? Phah! Eight popcycles! Go
out to Atlanta Hartsfield and you'll see eight airliners taking
off within a five-minute interval. Every one of them carrying
more people on one flight than the United States and Soviet space
programs have flown in 30 years. And that's just one airport,
in one region of the country. The same thing is happening, at
the same time, all over the world. All because of people going
after the almighty dollar.
The Japanese want to build a Honeymoon Hotel in orbit. Not a
little tin can like Space Station Freedom, a big wheel like the
one in 2001. They estimate it will cost $46 billion, of which
an insignificant fraction is the actual construction cost. Most
of it is the cost of Space Shuttle launches. And still, even with
that, it's only about half-again the cost of SS Freedom.
The Japanese won't pay $46 billion to build the hotel. But when
someone builds a reuseable commercial space-transportation system
and the cost drops to $1 billion dollars, someone will build it --
and rent out lab space to NASA in the basement -- for the almighty
dollar.
Claudio Egalon
something about growing single crystals optical fiber in microgravity
and maybe this may also apply to semiconductors. There is a guy that
has proposed a Shuttle experiment for growing single crystal optical
fibers and he told me that it is advantageous to grow only CERTAIN
crystals in microgravity. The same may apply to semiconductors.
John F. Woods
>I look at their launch manifests and then look at ours. I think we are the
>ones stuck at the low level of activity.
But they *are* stuck at a low level of activity. One launch a *day* is hardly
interesting! Of course, *we* are stuck at statistically NO level of
activity...
>>>Let me get this straight, our system costs ten times as much as theirs
>>>and only gives 20% of the time in space. Yet you think it is more advanced?
>>Yes, because we're the ones developing the upcoming generations of space
>>transport.
>Like what?
I believe he means the giant conveyor belt planned to transport money to
"space" contractors that never build space hardware. Note that in this
key technological field, the US program is, indeed unequalled in the world.
Doug Mohney
>In article <ewright....@convex.convex.com> ewr...@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>Ah, you're changing the topic; we're talking about manned space here.
Ed does that a lot until you manage to steer him back on track :).
> The fact of the matter is Sherzer's claim that they are doing far more manned
>space activity is incorrect. They're logging more time, sure, but we're
>logging more people.
>And, as I pointed out in a previous post, we're the ones building up a large
>cadre of experienced space workers, not the Russians. After the first few
>days or weeks of experience in orbit, months and months of time in space
>don't get you much, other than for biomedical purposes.
More importantly, we're putting up a diverse set of people, relative to Mir.
PhD grade mission specialists, rather than Ivan-the-handiman. Putting up lots
of skilled people *will* have tangible benefits when SSTO goes to orbit.
If the Space Zealots crowd would cut this crap about Soyuz/Atlas and put their
energies into ASSURING funding for follow-on hardware to DC-X.
The U.S. budget is in a state of finite resources. SSTO concepts help to
advance U.S. aerospace technology, rather than make companies subcontractors
wtih the Russians.
Squandering emotional and political clout so you can (supposedly) shave a few
bucks by launching tin cans is NOT the way to go.
>>You think that we have an active program because NASA launches
>>eight Shuttle flights per year? Phah! Eight popcycles!
>
>Compared to three Soyuz launches with fewer than half the people aboard,
>yes. That was the original assertion.
Hmm. Come to think of it, the amount of mass which goes up and down on a
Shuttle flight IS much larger than the tin-can shuffle.
Hmm. Even if you add in the Progress resupply which are more grocery/fuel
flights than active experiment loads.
>And, if the Japanese can confidently say they can build massive space
>structures for only $1 billion, even though they have no experience whatsoever,
>why can't they build a cheap launch system?
The more telling thought is reflected in Japan's committment to Freedom. If
they had been so impressed with the Russian space program, they could have
bought space on Mir long ago. Or, if you believe the press reports, BOUGHT a
new Mir, for that matter.
As the saying goes, money talks, bullsh*t walks.
Allen W. Sherzer
>>>[...] if we only were to use cheap Soviet hardware, we could do more in
>>>space than we do now for only a fraction of the cost.
>>>If this is true, why didn't the Soviets do it?
>>They did.
>Really? Let me see...two or three times a year, they put two or three guys
>in a capsule and shoot them up to a station, where they trade off with a couple
>of guys there and come back down.
Which is far far more than we can do. BTW, it also means they spend three
to four days in space for every day we do.
Not bad for a backward nation.
>I'm not sure what they do there...
Pretty much the same thing we do; except they can do a lot more. Oh, they
do have a facility which produces commercial semiconductor materials. NASA
has no plans for that for the next 20 years or so.
>My point is that if Soviet equipment is so cheap and wonderful, how come the
>Russians haven't gone anywhere with it?
Largely because they are a poor nation I suspect. Even at their height
in now{turns out that they didn't have all that much.
But the point isn't what they can do, it is what WE can do with intelligent
leveraging. Spending 10% on Russian hardware could save us billions. What's
wrong with that?
>They've been stuck at a low level of activity...
I look at their launch manifests and then look at ours. I think we are the
ones stuck at the low level of activity. They can do this since they
don't pay 10 times what they need to for launches like we do.
>>Let me get this straight, our system costs ten times as much as theirs
>>and only gives 20% of the time in space. Yet you think it is more advanced?
>Yes, because we're the ones developing the upcoming generations of space
>transport.
Like what?
>Capsules were the first generation, and the Shuttle is the second.
Great! I hope we quit at the second generation. Every new generation
doubles the cost of access to space. We won't be able to launch NASA's
third generation system because it will be too expensive.
YOur putting the cart before the horse here. Raising costs won't get us
anywhere.
>We're already working on the third and fourth, with things like SSTO and
>NASP.
NASA is spending it's SSTO efforts trying to kill the SDIO effort. As for
NASP, NASP is dead. (BTW, those backward Russians are doing more scramjet
testing than we are).
>Listening to you, the Russians should already be all over the...
All I am saying is that we can intelligently leverage our efforts using
some of their hardware. Why is that such a problem?
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------133 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Edward V. Wright
>More importantly, we're putting up a diverse set of people, relative to Mir.
>PhD grade mission specialists, rather than Ivan-the-handiman. Putting up
>lots of skilled people *will* have tangible benefits when SSTO goes to orbit.
Agreed, but what makes you think we're doing that now? Diverse? Where
are the businessmen, the entrepreneurs, the science-fiction writers,
journalists, artists, dancers, athletes, entertainers, priests, rabbis,
ministers, doctors, nurses, students, and construction workers? Hell,
where is Joe the Handiman.
Sure, instead of Ivan the handiman, we send Dr. John Smith, PhD, but
he spends almost all his time doing tasks that would be done by a lab
tech on Earth. When was the last time you saw someone on the Shuttle
doing work that actually required a scientist?
>If the Space Zealots crowd would cut this crap about Soyuz/Atlas
>and put their energies into ASSURING funding for follow-on hardware to DC-X.
The best way to assure funding for SSTO launchers is to
stop NASA from stomping all over programs that might
compete with the Shuttle.
>The U.S. budget is in a state of finite resources. SSTO concepts help to
>advance U.S. aerospace technology, rather than make companies subcontractors
>wtih the Russians.
I hope not. We don't want to advance US aerospace technology,
we just want to build the dang thing. Go advance technologies
on your own nickel. (Or let NASA do it -- that's what it's
charter for, anyway.)
>The more telling thought is reflected in Japan's committment to Freedom. If
>they had been so impressed with the Russian space program, they could have
>bought space on Mir long ago.
The Japanese government is committed to Freedom. You won't see
Fuji or Fujitsu or the Japanese construction companies or hotel
chains putting money into it. Governments can put $35 billion
into a tin can that houses eight people. Industry operates on
a totally different level.
>Or, if you believe the press reports, BOUGHT a new Mir, for that matter.
They did.
>As the saying goes, money talks, bullsh*t walks.
When Merrill Lynch talks, people listen.
Nick Szabo
>Well, the Japanese construction industry thinks it could do
>the job for around one billion.
By "the Japanese construction industry" you mean one particular
person, the senile head of the Shimuzu Corp., who pours his
money into publications promoting his various cliched,
grandiose ideas. For example this "space hotel", which is not
signficantly different from the fanciful hotel in the movie
_2001_. The company itself has no interest or expertise in
the space industry, nor does Mr. Shimuzu himself have much money
to invest in anything beyond silly hype rags. The major Japanese
corporate and government space organizations also have no interest
in this nonsense.
As for important Japanese effort, the Japanese government spends less
than 1/10 what the U.S. government spends on space. Their major
efforts are a commercial satellite launcher, a small but efficient
automated spacecraft program, and a tiny astronaut program that gloms
onto U.S. efforts. They're spending less than 1/10 what NASA will
spend on SSF but expect to share in all the science results
and most of the engineering know-how. Even with that incredible
discount they probably won't get their money's worth.
--
Nick Szabo sz...@techboook.com
Allen W. Sherzer
>They go up three times a year, we go up eight....
If you figure out the total number of person days both spend in space you
will realize that for every day we spend in space they spend between three
and four day.
>I wouldn't say they are doing 'far far' more than we are.
Anybody who does something three times as much as another IS doing
more.
>So what are they doing? I haven't heard of any real results from their work
>up there. I'm sure there are some, but they can't be that earth-shattering.
It isn't clear to me that you would have heard. I'm sure it isn't earth
shaterring but it is just getting started. Their station produces
commercial products. We don't even plan to do that 20 years from now.
>Believe it or not, there's more to space than the almighty dollar.
This is why we have a stagnant space program. NASA has suckered you
into thinking that wasting money is patriotic.
I won't argue whether or not there is more to space than the $$. The bottom
line is that you won't go anywhere without it. We pay 10 times more than
we need to for everything and people think it needs to be that way. THAT
is why we don't see more support for NASA. That is why our station is
deployed inside a CAD workstation (and spinning out of control) instead
of in orbit.
Efficient use of resources (you call this 'the almighty dollar') may not
be a sufficient condition but it is a necessary one.
>>>Capsules were the first generation, and the Shuttle is the second.
>>Great! I hope we quit at the second generation. Every new generation
>>doubles the cost of access to space. We won't be able to launch NASA's
>>third generation system because it will be too expensive.
>You're drawing conclusions as to trends in launch costs based on two data
>points? Way to stick your foot in your mouth.
Actually, I am using three data points. The third point is the cost
of NLS or Shuttle II (take you pick). NLS may be dead but it IS the
best NASA estimate of the third generation system (it is mere coincidence
that the third generation system looks a lot like the Russian first
generation system).
If NLS where built, we would have gone 40 years and spent well over
$75 billion for systems each of which was MORE expensive than the
previous generation. Why doesn't that put just a twinge of doubt
in you?
Suppose aircraft where developed this way? It would have been great
for the train manufacturers but a bit of a downer for the economy
of Seattle.
>Besides, I didn't specifically mention NASA.
As the source of most of the problems, you should.
>If you notice below, I consider SSTO the next generation.
But you see, I don't consider SSTO a third generation system. The
whole basis behind the concept is that launcher designers have been
going down the completely wrong path for the past 30 years.
That makes SSTO a first or maybe second generation system.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------132 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Allen W. Sherzer
>>Like what?
>I believe he means the giant conveyor belt planned to transport money to
>"space" contractors that never build space hardware.
Hmmm... I thought we where going to use a giant tractor. That way we
could leverage off the technology we use to pay farmers to do nothing.
>Note that in this
>key technological field, the US program is, indeed unequalled in the world.
God help us.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------132 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Matthew DeLuca
>>The fact of the matter is Sherzer's claim that they are doing
>>far more manned space activity is incorrect. They're logging
>>more time, sure, but we're logging more people.
>More people?
>More pilots. Government employees. Congressional freeloaders.
>A few scientists. How many entrepreneurs do you see going into
>space? Grad students? Doctors? Lawyers? Writers? Artists?
>Businessmen? Those are the kind of people you need you need to
>develop a frontier.
More people. Sure, pilots. The occasional Congressional creature...I think
there have been two. However, what about the employees of private companies
that have been going up? Doctors and physicists? Sure, you're sneering now,
but let's face it; with the exception of the occasional Russian publicity
stunt, the U.S. program is the *only* place where private citizens can end
up in orbit doing real work. You should be cheering it on.
The grad students and artists and other people will come...you have to walk
before you can run.
>All the cosmonauts and astronauts put together would fit comfortably
>onto one deck of a Boeing 747. Those numbers don't impress me.
So? Sorry if you're not impressed, but it's the best we have at the moment.
>>>>Believe it or not, there's more to space than the almighty dollar.
>>>Oh, yeah?
>>Yeah.
>Well, you just go on believing that, kid. You'd probably
>make a lousy billionaire anyway.
What's with this kid stuff, pops? Feeling your age?
If you are going to try and open up a new frontier, you have to be willing
to put some money into it. That's what we are doing now. Sure, I suppose we
can do stuff for less, and in many cases we should; government waste and
bureaucratic stodginess are costing us, and should be cut whenever and wherever
possible. But saving money by abandoning new development and sticking with
foreign old technology is a recipe for failure.
I may make a poor billionaire, but you'd make an even worse investor.
>No, you have it backwards. The planes started to work reliably
>when people became concerned with cost. The DC-1/2/3 was the
>first reliable airliner because it was designed with operational
>characteristics in mind. When you're out for the almight dollar,
>you have to make it reliable. If aviation had continued as a
>government project, like NASA, then airplanes would have continued
>to be about as reliable as the Shuttle.
You're looking at it from the wrong direction. The DC-3 came about in
response to a demand. Currently, there's not a signifigant demand for
space; we're not ready to cut the development and go into production. We
are getting there, but slowly. Don't try and rush it.
>>Same thing with automobiles; first you get them to work, and understand the
>>principles fully, *then* you worry about interchangeable parts and mass
>>production.
>We understood how rockets worked thirty years ago. Now it's time
>to get off our duffs and build the dang thing.
To go back to the plane analogy, we knew how the Wright Flyer worked just
fine. Are you saying we should have tried commercial service with it?
Obviously not...there is a period of development required first. We're
hopefully getting into the tail-end of that development period with space,
but we're not done yet.
>>Sherzer is talking about mass-producing the space equivalent of
>>the Wright Flyer (Soyuz capsules on expendable rockets) which may be cheap
>>in the short term, but a disaster in the long.
>Interesting observation, since the Soyuz has a better safety
>record than the Shuttle. Perhaps you think that Congress will
>allow your little program to continue after you lose the next
>orbiter (and you will)? Think again.
How did we get onto the topic of safety records? Sure, the Soyuz record
might be slightly higher, bet neither is perfect. And yes, the Shuttle
program will likely continue after another accident; the U.S. Congress isn't
*quite* that weak-livered. Besides, the Shuttle is too useful to just throw
away with no replacement. If we have a good replacement for the Shuttle we
can give it up, but undercutting development efforts by going Russian will
guarantee that we never get that replacement.
>>And, if the Japanese can confidently say they can build massive space
>>structures for only $1 billion, even though they have no experience
>>whatsoever, why can't they build a cheap launch system?
>What makes you think they can't? As Robert Heinlein said, it
>is not decreed that Americans will be the ones to develop and
>colonize space. Something for you to think about while you're
>waving your flag. You aren't going to get there without a bunch
>of hard, tough capitalists, who aren't afraid to soil their hands
>in the world of money and commerce, leading the way.
You ignored my question: if the Japanese can do so much in space, why does
it fall to us to build the spacecraft to get them there?
And as far as your assumption of flag-waving goes, I'm not saying that only
the U.S. can do it. However, if you look at it, the U.S. is the only country
in the world that has even a glimmer of real private enterprise participation
in its space program. By your own reasoning, we're it. Hell, you even
practically say so yourself that the U.S. has to do it; twice you've said that
we have to develop the transport to get the Japanese up there.
Matthew DeLuca
>They did.
They bought a ground engineering mockup. It's another way of giving a
handout to the Russians.
Doug Mohney
>In <1kpd0o...@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sys...@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:
>Agreed, but what makes you think we're doing that now? Diverse? Where
>are the businessmen, the entrepreneurs, the science-fiction writers,
>journalists, artists, dancers, athletes, entertainers, priests, rabbis,
>ministers, doctors, nurses, students, and construction workers? Hell,
>where is Joe the Handiman.
*snore* Space for Everyman is a quaint idea.
However, there ain't no bucks yet for students, rabbis, priests, entertainers,
blah-blah-blbah :)
Or are you meaning to tell me John Denver would sound better singing in orbit?
I know of a few people who want to LEAVE him in orbit, however. (Donations to
"Young Cynics for Space)
>Sure, instead of Ivan the handiman, we send Dr. John Smith, PhD, but
>he spends almost all his time doing tasks that would be done by a lab
>tech on Earth. When was the last time you saw someone on the Shuttle
>doing work that actually required a scientist?
Nope. Mr. PhD goes back to his company, writes up a nice paper about his
experiment. Sooner or later, one of the papers comes up with a money-making
process which needs zero G.
You send up the handi-people AFTER you establish real ways to make money in
orbit. But someone of note needs to establish the processes. And fix the
experiments. If it were that easy, we'd send up trained monkeys.
>>If the Space Zealots crowd would cut this crap about Soyuz/Atlas
>>and put their energies into ASSURING funding for follow-on hardware to DC-X.
>
>The best way to assure funding for SSTO launchers is to
>stop NASA from stomping all over programs that might
>compete with the Shuttle.
That's a nice thought. But it does little to address the thrust of my point:
Soyuz/Atlas is going to suck time, energy, and cash away from SSTO development.
>>The U.S. budget is in a state of finite resources. SSTO concepts help to
>>advance U.S. aerospace technology, rather than make companies subcontractors
>>wtih the Russians.
>
>I hope not. We don't want to advance US aerospace technology,
>we just want to build the dang thing. Go advance technologies
>on your own nickel. (Or let NASA do it -- that's what it's
>charter for, anyway.)
You miss the point. We do not want to be subcontractors with the Russians.
>>The more telling thought is reflected in Japan's committment to Freedom. If
>>they had been so impressed with the Russian space program, they could have
>>bought space on Mir long ago.
>
>The Japanese government is committed to Freedom. You won't see
>Fuji or Fujitsu or the Japanese construction companies or hotel
>chains putting money into it. Governments can put $35 billion
>into a tin can that houses eight people. Industry operates on
>a totally different level.
Japan is not committing $35 billion to a tin can. *shrug* And perhaps you'd
like to review MITI investments into advanced technologies? The Japanese aren't
afraid to use government to invest in key technologies. Or maybe you've been
asleep on the discussion of "industrial policy"?
If Mir was a better investment, they would have bought it and fly Japan-nauts
to it.
>>Or, if you believe the press reports, BOUGHT a new Mir, for that matter.
>They did.
Oh really? Do tell. So when did they launch it and put their flag on it?
>>As the saying goes, money talks, bullsh*t walks.
>When Merrill Lynch talks, people listen.
That's cute. So what's your point? Merrill Lynch isn't putting money into
space.
Steinn Sigurdsson
See Nature, _360_ 293-294 26 Nov 1992 for a
summary review + references
| Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night |
| Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites |
| ste...@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? |
| "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 |
Matthew DeLuca
>In <1kn9p0...@phantom.gatech.edu> mat...@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>>They go up three times a year, we go up eight. They send up two or three
>>people, we send up five to eight. So for every ten people they send up, we
>>are sending somewhere between forty and seventy.
>They use unmanned launchers to do many of the things we do with the
>Shuttle. This is because of NASA's decision, back in the 1970's, to
>move all payloads off expendables and onto the Shuttle. Russians
>also stay in space up to a year longer than we do.
Ah, you're changing the topic; we're talking about manned space here. The
fact of the matter is Sherzer's claim that they are doing far more manned
space activity is incorrect. They're logging more time, sure, but we're
logging more people.
And, as I pointed out in a previous post, we're the ones building up a large
cadre of experienced space workers, not the Russians. After the first few
days or weeks of experience in orbit, months and months of time in space
don't get you much, other than for biomedical purposes.
>>Believe it or not, there's more to space than the almighty dollar.
>Oh, yeah?
Yeah.
>Why don't you take a drive out to Atlanta Hartsfield Airport
>and count the number of jetliners you see sitting on the tarmac.
Thanks, but I used to work there; I'm familiar with the planes.
>Multiply by $100 million or so to calculate the value of the aircraft.
>Look at the number of flights landing and taking off -- all for the
>almighty dollar you disdain. Think about what've you seen as you
>drive home -- in a car that I'll wager was made by a company in
>search of the almight dollar, or the all-powerful yen.
Uh-huh. But during the first decade or two of this century, when planes were
still new, the primary consideration was *not* the cost of the plane itself,
but getting the plane to *work*. Once airplanes were well enough understood,
*then* people became concerned with cost.
Same thing with automobiles; first you get them to work, and understand the
principles fully, *then* you worry about interchangeable parts and mass
production. Sherzer is talking about mass-producing the space equivalent of
the Wright Flyer (Soyuz capsules on expendable rockets) which may be cheap
in the short term, but a disaster in the long.
>The almighty dollar made this country, kid. It built the railroads,
>the mines, the harbors, and transformed the Great American Desert
>into the Breadbasket of the World. Not some jingoistic government
Yes, it did. *After* they learned how to do it. When they were working on
the first trans-continental railroad, they weren't trying for the cheapest
railroad possible, they were trying for one that *worked*. I'm sure Allen's
distant relative was there, pointing out that if they would only use cheap
Conestoga wagons strung together in trains, they could move goods for a
fraction of the cost.
>You think that we have an active program because NASA launches
>eight Shuttle flights per year? Phah! Eight popcycles!
Compared to three Soyuz launches with fewer than half the people aboard,
yes. That was the original assertion.
>The Japanese want to build a Honeymoon Hotel in orbit. Not a
>little tin can like Space Station Freedom, a big wheel like the
>one in 2001. They estimate it will cost $46 billion, of which
>an insignificant fraction is the actual construction cost. Most
>of it is the cost of Space Shuttle launches. And still, even with
>that, it's only about half-again the cost of SS Freedom.
I followed up to your post on this, which you apparently ignored. Needless
to say, I think those numbers were pulled out of thin air.
And, if the Japanese can confidently say they can build massive space
structures for only $1 billion, even though they have no experience whatsoever,
why can't they build a cheap launch system?
Matthew DeLuca
>In article <1kn9p0...@phantom.gatech.edu> mat...@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>If you figure out the total number of person days both spend in space you
>will realize that for every day we spend in space they spend between three
>and four day.
>>I wouldn't say they are doing 'far far' more than we are.
>Anybody who does something three times as much as another IS doing
>more.
There's two ways of looking at it. Sure, they have more man-hours, but we
have more people. You never seem to address this point; do you see no value
at all in having a large group of experienced astronauts, as opposed to a
very small group?
>>So what are they doing? I haven't heard of any real results from their work
>>up there. I'm sure there are some, but they can't be that earth-shattering.
>It isn't clear to me that you would have heard. I'm sure it isn't earth
>shaterring but it is just getting started. Their station produces
>commercial products. We don't even plan to do that 20 years from now.
As someone else pointed out, a tricke of poor-quality semiconductors. They
could probably do a lot better buying a Japanese or American lithograph
machine.
>>Believe it or not, there's more to space than the almighty dollar.
>This is why we have a stagnant space program. NASA has suckered you
>into thinking that wasting money is patriotic.
No, not at all. I am of the opinion that trying to slash costs by selling
out U.S. industry to Soviet technology is a silly idea. You save money,
sure, but you get less capability *and* there is almost zero groth potential
in the current Russian space program.
>>You're drawing conclusions as to trends in launch costs based on two data
>>points? Way to stick your foot in your mouth.
>Actually, I am using three data points. The third point is the cost
>of NLS or Shuttle II (take you pick). NLS may be dead but it IS the
>best NASA estimate of the third generation system (it is mere coincidence
>that the third generation system looks a lot like the Russian first
>generation system).
Why do you keep babbling about NASA? I am of the opinion that NASA is
pretty much out of the manned launch system business after the Shuttle is
gone, except in a technology development role. Future manned systems are
going to come from a different direction; we're starting to see that now
with the Delta Clipper program.
>>If you notice below, I consider SSTO the next generation.
>But you see, I don't consider SSTO a third generation system. The
>whole basis behind the concept is that launcher designers have been
>going down the completely wrong path for the past 30 years.
No, not really. The Shuttle was a good idea, although the execution fell
short of the plan for a number of reasons that have been hashed out in this
group in the past. Going from capsules to a reusable winged vehicle was a
good step forward, and even though it didn't work out as well as planned,
we learned tremendous amounts of technical information from the attempt, and
the next generation of transport is going to benefit from that.
>That makes SSTO a first or maybe second generation system.
More doublespeak. Capsules one, Shuttle two, SSTO three. Hopefully.
ga...@stsci.edu
ste...@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
[refering to space grown semiconductors]
> See Nature, _360_ 293-294 26 Nov 1992 for a summary review + references
OK, I tried that and discovered what I suspect most others will. The
Nov 92 issues are currently "at the bindry" for binding. Lovely.
I can't get anything that was published between July 92 and Dec 92
it would seem.
So, Steinn, if you have a spare few minutes might you post a brief
review of what the Nature article had to say?
Edward V. Wright
>Ah, you're changing the topic; we're talking about manned space here.
If most of the US manned space effort goes into missions that
don't need man, and the astronauts go along for the ride only
because we have a launcher that requires them even if the mission
doesn't, exactly what does that gain us?
>The fact of the matter is Sherzer's claim that they are doing
>far more manned space activity is incorrect. They're logging
>more time, sure, but we're logging more people.
More people?
More pilots. Government employees. Congressional freeloaders.
A few scientists. How many entrepreneurs do you see going into
space? Grad students? Doctors? Lawyers? Writers? Artists?
Businessmen? Those are the kind of people you need you need to
develop a frontier.
All the cosmonauts and astronauts put together would fit comfortably
onto one deck of a Boeing 747. Those numbers don't impress me.
>>>Believe it or not, there's more to space than the almighty dollar.
>>Oh, yeah?
>Yeah.
Well, you just go on believing that, kid. You'd probably
make a lousy billionaire anyway.
>Uh-huh. But during the first decade or two of this century, when planes were
>still new, the primary consideration was *not* the cost of the plane itself,
>but getting the plane to *work*. Once airplanes were well enough understood,
>*then* people became concerned with cost.
No, you have it backwards. The planes started to work reliably
when people became concerned with cost. The DC-1/2/3 was the
first reliable airliner because it was designed with operational
characteristics in mind. When you're out for the almight dollar,
you have to make it reliable. If aviation had continued as a
government project, like NASA, then airplanes would have continued
to be about as reliable as the Shuttle.
>Same thing with automobiles; first you get them to work, and understand the
>principles fully, *then* you worry about interchangeable parts and mass
>production.
We understood how rockets worked thirty years ago. Now it's time
to get off our duffs and build the dang thing.
>Sherzer is talking about mass-producing the space equivalent of
>the Wright Flyer (Soyuz capsules on expendable rockets) which may be cheap
>in the short term, but a disaster in the long.
Interesting observation, since the Soyuz has a better safety
record than the Shuttle. Perhaps you think that Congress will
allow your little program to continue after you lose the next
orbiter (and you will)? Think again.
>Yes, it did. *After* they learned how to do it. When they were working on
>the first trans-continental railroad, they weren't trying for the cheapest
>railroad possible, they were trying for one that *worked*. I'm sure Allen's
>distant relative was there, pointing out that if they would only use cheap
>Conestoga wagons strung together in trains, they could move goods for a
>fraction of the cost.
Read some history. The men who built the trans-continental
railroad were in it for the almighty dollar you disdain.
They wanted to move people and freight quickly and cheaply
because that was the only way they could make money. Someone
with your attitude wouldn't have lasted ten minutes in their
employee.
>And, if the Japanese can confidently say they can build massive space
>structures for only $1 billion, even though they have no experience
>whatsoever, why can't they build a cheap launch system?
What makes you think they can't? As Robert Heinlein said, it
ga...@stsci.edu
(Pat) writes:
> Interesting. today the washington post reported on a
> GAO audit of NASA that indicated that 80% of all NASA programs
> missed their original cost estimates by flight time.
Did they happen to say how other agencies, for example DoD and DoE,
compare with this? I'd be surprized if NASA is any worse than other
agencies which are funded in the same way.
Pat then asks:
> Why not put NASA into a National Labs type structure. Give each center
> 5 year budgets, research golals and priorities and then see how they
> go. rather then having multiple centers controlling parts of
> each mission, put it under one center, until a major mode change.
> I.E. Goddard builds a BIRD, KSC launches it and JPL runs the
> science mission.
Not a bad idea, but not too far in execution from what's already there.
I like the 5 year budgets. [Before everybody comes up with a reason why
"it'll never happen" maybe we could try to discuss instead ways to make
it happen?]
Just to pick nits, Goddard already runs a lot of science missions. And
with the scientific satellites like EUVE and HST the science operations
centers aren't even at NASA centers. They're on college campuses.
Steinn Sigurdsson
> Interesting. today the washington post reported on a
> GAO audit of NASA that indicated that 80% of all NASA programs
> missed their original cost estimates by flight time.
Did they happen to say how other agencies, for example DoD and DoE,
compare with this? I'd be surprized if NASA is any worse than other
agencies which are funded in the same way.
What was the time base they used? Did they go back to 1958 ;-)
or just the last decade?
Pat then asks:
> Why not put NASA into a National Labs type structure. Give each center
> 5 year budgets, research golals and priorities and then see how they
> go. rather then having multiple centers controlling parts of
> each mission, put it under one center, until a major mode change.
> I.E. Goddard builds a BIRD, KSC launches it and JPL runs the
> science mission.
Not a bad idea, but not too far in execution from what's already there.
I like the 5 year budgets. [Before everybody comes up with a reason why
"it'll never happen" maybe we could try to discuss instead ways to make
it happen?]
Hmm, US becomes a tyranny - too drastic...
Congress relinquishes micro-control - too unlikely...
"it'll never happen"!
Just to pick nits, Goddard already runs a lot of science missions. And
with the scientific satellites like EUVE and HST the science operations
centers aren't even at NASA centers. They're on college campuses.
Just to pick nits, JPL already builds a lot of satellites.
Hmm, maybe the trick is to avoid KSC :-)
Personally I think JPL has never forgiven the world
for having to launch on Atlas-Agena - do you think
NASA would let them buy the first DC-1? ;-)
Edward V. Wright
>However, there ain't no bucks yet for students, rabbis, priests, entertainers,
>blah-blah-blbah :)
Gosh, no wonder Eastern Airlines went out of business! :-)
American, United, Northwest Orient, etc. are *still* making money
carrying students, rabbis, preists, and other non-Buck Rogers types.
>Or are you meaning to tell me John Denver would sound better singing in orbit?
I don't know. We'll find out.
>>When was the last time you saw someone on the Shuttle
>>doing work that actually required a scientist?
>Nope. Mr. PhD goes back to his company, writes up a nice paper about his
>experiment. Sooner or later, one of the papers comes up with a money-making
>process which needs zero G.
I guess I missed all the money-making processes that have come out
of NASA. I also missed all those NASA mission specialists writing
papers. They spend their time in space prepping satellites or
performing other people's experiments -- jobs that would be done
by technicians with a bachelor's or associate's degree on Earth.
NASA hires PhDs for these jobs because a) they get so many applicants,
they have to cut down the numbers somehow, and b) it fits the superhero
image of the astronaut NASA has constructed.
>You send up the handi-people AFTER you establish real ways to make money in
>orbit. But someone of note needs to establish the processes. And fix the
>experiments. If it were that easy, we'd send up trained monkeys.
"Trained monkey" is principle investigator's slang for astronaut!
How many Nobel Prize winners have you seen going into space on
the Shuttle? How many brilliant young grad students, with new
insights into their field? How many lunatic inventors on the
fringe of science with a crazy idea that just might work?
>>The best way to assure funding for SSTO launchers is to
>>stop NASA from stomping all over programs that might
>>compete with the Shuttle.
>That's a nice thought. But it does little to address the thrust of my point:
>Soyuz/Atlas is going to suck time, energy, and cash away from SSTO development.
No, Shuttle is going to suck time, energy, and cash away from
SSTO, and any other cookie jars NASA can manage to raid. (And
if it can't raid them, it will try to smash them.)
>You miss the point. We do not want to be subcontractors with the Russians.
Tough luck. The world doesn't work that way anymore, kid. Economic
nationalism is a dead end. Future businesses will have to seek the
best-qualifed partners worldwide, if they want to stay in business.
>And perhaps you'd like to review MITI investments into advanced
>technologies? The Japanese aren't afraid to use government to invest
>in key technologies. Or maybe you've been asleep on the discussion of
>"industrial policy"?
Nope. I've been awake while you and Mr. Clinton were sleeping. MITI
and national industrial policy have been complete failures. The
fifth-generation computer project is just one example. The successes
Japan has had came depite MITI, not because of us. Like the automobile
manufacturing, which MITI wanted to abolish because it was a "sunset
industry" and could never compete with Detroit.
The American frontier wasn't opened by a National Industrial Policy.
No frontier was ever opened by government bureaucrats. And space
won't be, either. It will be opened by the same kind of people
who have opened every frontier -- businessmen and soldiers, accompanied
by doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, technicians, workers,
teachers, artists, writers, and their children.
>>>Or, if you believe the press reports, BOUGHT a new Mir, for that matter.
>>They did.
>Oh really? Do tell. So when did they launch it and put their flag on it?
Does Macy's tell Gimbel's?
>>>As the saying goes, money talks, bullsh*t walks.
>>When Merrill Lynch talks, people listen.
>That's cute. So what's your point? Merrill Lynch isn't putting money into
>space.
Oh? You think they keep people called "space analysts" on their staff
because of national industrial policy?
ga...@stsci.edu
ewr...@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) continues wrangling with Doug Mohney.
Along the way Ed writes:
> I guess I missed all the money-making processes that have come out
> of NASA. I also missed all those NASA mission specialists writing
> papers. They spend their time in space prepping satellites or
> performing other people's experiments -- jobs that would be done
> by technicians with a bachelor's or associate's degree on Earth.
> NASA hires PhDs for these jobs because a) they get so many applicants,
> they have to cut down the numbers somehow, and b) it fits the superhero
> image of the astronaut NASA has constructed.
[Doug's comments deleted for brevity.]
> "Trained monkey" is principle investigator's slang for astronaut!
While I'm inclined to agree that making a PhD an effective requirement
(they really only *require* a Bachelors degree, they just don't select
many non-PhD's) for astronaut candidacy is silly, I'll allow that at
least in the case of Storey Musgrave - a truly talented generalist with
five (count em, 5) graduate degrees including an MD, the educational
requirements have paid off. I am VERY pleased that he is the Payload
Commander for the upcoming HST refurbishment mission.
I'll hasten to add that its not just Storey's well educated background
that comes into play here. He's also a veteran of lots of (what 3, 4??)
Shuttle flights and has spent thousands of hours in the pool (neutral
bouyancy tank) learning his craft.
Still, NASA is hardly the only institution guilty of using PhD's for
things that could be done by good High School graduates. Artificially
inflated educational requirements have been used as a means of enhancing
institutional prestige for a long time. The flip side of this problem
is that the 5 years (at least) that a PhD spends in the Astronaut
office are lost as far as their research careers go. And lest ye think
that they come back to academia with additional prestige, most of what
they gain is the animosity of their colleagues who resent their fame.
ns...@acad3.alaska.edu
Is their a clearing house for information on space reaerch and wuch.. A place
where all infomation is stored and can be access from.. Somewhat to keep people
from duplicating projects and such. Also Maybe NASA needs to consolidate its
centers.. I know keep the ones on college campses, but consolidate many of its
off campus centers to cut the budget and to make the flow of information
easier..
I like the five year plan/budget idea.. Maybe try to get the Individual States
involved to.. Alaska is one that is working on our own Space Research and
future..
Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel
ns...@acad2.alaska.edu
Steinn Sigurdsson
Darn, I don't suppose Henry feels like making amends for the
frightful shortage of AvWe summaries recently...
Now, the actual sci.mat post was mainly concerned with
semi-conductor fabrication? The article focuses on protein
synthesis.
Basically, they say it has been hit&miss so far, some crystals
grow better, some worse. Some that grow better have since been
improved on Earth by using different techniques, no crystals
that wouldn't form at all on Earth have yet been formed in space.
For those that have been grown well in space only, none have yet had
a structure determined!? Basically they say that the best thing to
do is to spend a lot of time in orbit doing a lot of experiments
with someone on the spot to massage them along and that there may
never be a magic rush of new crystal formation + concominant structure
solutions... but they do think some crystals will only be successfully
grown in micro-g and may make it worthwhile.
BTW looks like there's now a journal decdicated to the issue,
"Journal of Applied Microgravity Technology" - might be a good
reference source. Journal of Crystal Growth also looks like
they deal with it a lot, specifically volumes 76 and 110
looks like they might be micro-g specials...
Matthew DeLuca
>Don't forget that it takes a week or two to really adapt to free fall and
>get good at working there, even if you don't get spacesick. At just about
>the time when a shuttle crew is becoming really effective, the mission ends.
Agreed. However, next time they go up they're way ahead of the game and
can adapt much more quickly. This will start to pay off when we start
rotating crews through the space station.
Henry Spencer
>>... kill SS Fred and offer $10B, tax-free, to the
>>first US corporation or consortium to put a station on orbit and keep it
>>staffed by at least X people for a year and day. He should also offer $5B to
>>the second corporation/consortium to do the same thing...
>
> A) Who owns possession of the technology used to develop the station?
US industry, which the government is supposed to be helping.
Besides, why do you care? The idea is to get results, not "technology".
> B) Who owns the data?
What data? Oh, you want the station to send back data? Tell them that
once the station is up there, the government will pay for the data at
specified prices, after which the government will (of course) own it.
> C) How do you set the damned thing up without using goverment help
> in the first place? Guess who owns all the big launch facilities.
Commercial launch providers use those facilities routinely now (although
admittedly not without a lot of stupid hassles). Create enough of a market
and maybe some of the proposals for commercial launch sites will actually
happen. It sure would be useful.
> D) Does it have to be a U.S. corp? What if I use off-shore tech, say
> get the Italians into building my living modules?
Practical politics would probably dictate restricting it to US companies.
Who cares whether they use off-shore technology? If your priority really
is technology rather than an operational space station, write in a
requirement that any off-shore procurement of major subassemblies must
include the technology used to build them.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360. | he...@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Josh Hopkins
>ewr...@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>Well, the Japanese construction industry thinks it could do
>>the job for around one billion.
>By "the Japanese construction industry" you mean one particular
>person, the senile head of the Shimuzu Corp., who pours his
>money into publications promoting his various cliched,
>grandiose ideas.
I think you may have a few things twisted around here. There is indeed a rather
"interesting" man named Shimizu but I don't think he actually has a position of
authority in the Shimizu construction company. I'm fairly sure that the
company does have a branch (admittedly quite small, but it does exist) which is
charged with research on space design. They are specifically interested in
lunar engineering. The company does not deserve your low opinions of it.
--
Josh Hopkins jbh5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Q: How do you tell a novice from an expert.
A: A novice hesitates before doing something stupid.
Edward V. Wright
>I think you may have a few things twisted around here. There is indeed a rather
>"interesting" man named Shimizu but I don't think he actually has a position of
>authority in the Shimizu construction company. I'm fairly sure that the
>company does have a branch (admittedly quite small, but it does exist) which is
>charged with research on space design. They are specifically interested in
>lunar engineering. The company does not deserve your low opinions of it.
Now, now. You didn't really expect Nick Szabo to endorse
any concept that didn't originate with Gerard O'Neill or
Nick Szabo, did you? :-)
Henry Spencer
>people, we send up five to eight. So for every ten people they send up, we
>doing 'far far' more than we are.
Don't forget that it takes a week or two to really adapt to free fall and
get good at working there, even if you don't get spacesick. At just about
the time when a shuttle crew is becoming really effective, the mission ends.
morando@alad
Latest word from Washington is that a bill will be introduced to
reduce 1994 SSF funding to zero real soon now. Not a 50% funding cut,
not a delay for another year or so, but rather put on mothballs with
no futher spending after this year. This was substantiated by a
program manager at a major SSF contractor.
Whether you are for or against the Space Station, reading this post
indicates interest in the space program. We should communicate our
wishes and thoughts to our Representative and Senators and to our
President.
Disclaimer: I work for a space station contractor. Nuff said :-)
! Alex Morando
! mor...@alad.gedlab.allied.com
!------------------------------------------------------------------
! For a technology to work, reality must take
! precedence over public relations, for Nature
! cannot be fooled.
! - Richard Feynman, Rogers Commission Report
Henry Spencer
> So, Steinn, if you have a spare few minutes might you post a brief
> review of what the Nature article had to say?
>
>Darn, I don't suppose Henry feels like making amends for the
>frightful shortage of AvWe summaries recently...
Fraid not; my number one priority in making amends for that is to get the
AvWeek summaries flowing again...!
Besides, I don't get Nature, alas.
Brian Stuart Thorn
>: > >completed.
Funny thing is, this complaint is not raised about Mir.
Launched in 1986, and there are two more major modules
scheduled for launch in '94, I think.
If NASA plans this way, its "welfare for the military
industrial complex" or some such nonsense. If Russia
does this, its "a sensible, stable approach to orbital
space stations." Phooey.
-Brian
Edward V. Wright
>>Don't forget that it takes a week or two to really adapt to free fall and
>>get good at working there, even if you don't get spacesick. At just about
>>the time when a shuttle crew is becoming really effective, the mission ends.
>Agreed. However, next time they go up they're way ahead of the game and
>can adapt much more quickly.
Uh, no, it doesn't work that way. Once you come back to Earth, you
have to start all over again.
Matthew DeLuca
I'd be surprised if that was the case. Physiological reactions to
weightlessness will occur at the same rate, I am sure, but learned
reactions and skills such as how to physically move about and how to
perform basic functions should be picked up much faster than the first
time around.
Edward V. Wright
>I'd be surprised if that was the case. Physiological reactions to
>weightlessness will occur at the same rate, I am sure, but learned
>reactions and skills such as how to physically move about and how to
>perform basic functions should be picked up much faster than the first
>time around.
None of which has much relevence if you spend your time being
sick as dog due to spacesickness (or using those learned reactions
and skills to care for fellow crewmembers who are sick as dogs).
Brian Stuart Thorn
>get good at working there, even if you don't get spacesick. At just about
>the time when a shuttle crew is becoming really effective, the mission ends.
I thought both NASA and the Russians put the time at closer to
48 to 72 hours...?
Also, it has been reported (Av Week? Space News? I forget...)
that the Russians aboard Mir spend a considerable percentage
of their time just taking care of Mir operations.
-Brian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss,
Bri...@cup.portal.com this must be heaven."
-Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward V. Wright
>I like the five year plan/budget idea..
If you think government five-year plans are the way to
develop space, you should look at the success they had
in the Soviet Union.
>Maybe try to get the Individual States involved to..
Uh-huh. "Perestroika." They tried that, too.
Gary Coffman
>>Yes, it did. *After* they learned how to do it. When they were working on
>>the first trans-continental railroad, they weren't trying for the cheapest
>>railroad possible, they were trying for one that *worked*. I'm sure Allen's
>>distant relative was there, pointing out that if they would only use cheap
>>Conestoga wagons strung together in trains, they could move goods for a
>>fraction of the cost.
>
>Read some history. The men who built the trans-continental
>railroad were in it for the almighty dollar you disdain.
>They wanted to move people and freight quickly and cheaply
>because that was the only way they could make money. Someone
>with your attitude wouldn't have lasted ten minutes in their
>employee.
Read a little *more* history Ed. The robber barons were after
the almighty dollar all right, but it was the government land
grants that went with the railroads that they were after. Alternating
one square mile blocks on either side of the tracks for the length
of the tracks. Most of the railroads went bust, but the men who
built the railroads didn't care, they made their money developing
the real estate Uncle Sam gave them.
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 | |