Media Coverage of Space
Jim Plaxco
The April 15-21, 96 issue of Space News has a commentary by John Logsdon on
this issue. Just a couple of excerpts:
"One television network, though it no longer broadcasts launches live, has a
camera crew and an announcer at the ready, should there be another major launch
failure. There is only modest interest in reporting a successful launch, but
everybody wants to be prepared for another catastrophic failure."
"This type of media scrutiny, in my view, increases the likelihood that another
accident would mean the end of the US human spaceflight program for an extended
time."
"Much of today's reality is defined by how the media, and particularly
television, portray events."
At a conference last year, there was a panel discussion on this very issue that
featured a local radio talk show host, Aaron Freeman of public radio station
WBEZ. His take on this, to the best of my recollection, was that the only way
that the media will change its coverage of space is if their customers make a
noise. Perhaps it's time to write a few letters to those in the media and let
them know of our dissatisfaction.
Jim Plaxco
-----------------------------------------------------
* Jim Plaxco: jpa...@interaccess.com *
* Planetary Studies Foundation *
* http://homepage.interaccess.com/~jpatpsf/ *
* U46 Planetarium: (847) 854-0468 *
-----------------------------------------------------
David Maclennan
news is boring, but bad news sells papers/increases viewer numbers. Fact
of life, I fear. It's been the same throughout history. Or as someone
else once put it: "Dog bites man - that's not news. Man bites dog - now
THAT'S news!"
Also, space exploration has been around for nearly 40 years now. It's
not the novelty it was in the 60s. Let's face it, the 76th Space Shuttle
mission to orbit the Earth is a whole lot less exciting than the first
Moon landing. And anyway, isn't the whole idea to make space activities
a routine thing anyway?
As space enthusiasts we'd all like to see our favourite missions on the
front page. But in the real world, it isn't going to happen.
David Maclennan
Vice President
New Zealand Spaceflight Association, Inc.
doyle@problem_with_inews_gateway_file
> Media coverage of space is like media coverage of most other things: good
> news is boring, but bad news sells papers/increases viewer numbers. Fact
> of life, I fear. It's been the same throughout history. Or as someone
> else once put it: "Dog bites man - that's not news. Man bites dog - now
> THAT'S news!"
> Also, space exploration has been around for nearly 40 years now. It's
> not the novelty it was in the 60s. Let's face it, the 76th Space Shuttle
> mission to orbit the Earth is a whole lot less exciting than the first
> Moon landing. And anyway, isn't the whole idea to make space activities
> a routine thing anyway?
The idea was to make space flight a routine activity for common people
while having heros still pushing the frontier.
Now space is boring because they stopped pushing the frontier but
it is too dangerous and too expensive for most people to
particapate.
> As space enthusiasts we'd all like to see our favourite missions on the
> front page. But in the real world, it isn't going to happen.
> David Maclennan
> Vice President
> New Zealand Spaceflight Association, Inc.
Karen
Michael Gallagher
>
> ... As space enthusiasts we'd all like to see our favourite missions on
>front page. But in the real world, it isn't going to happen.
>
seriously addicted news junkeys toon in, CNN still provides live coverage
of shuttle launches and landings, as well as "newsworthy" ELV launches.
These aren't live but are in the regular broadcasts. They used to run
footage of everything aimed UP, but that hasn't happened so much anymore;
the last newswrothy ELV flights were NEAR and the Chinese explosion.
However, WRT, CNN is still the exception to the rule ... FWIW.
" ... I walked upon high ... to see my world below ... it's the world
that I know" -- Collective Soul
MMF...@prodigy.com --- Michael J. Gallagher
Michael Gallagher
>
>A topic of past discussion has been the media's coverage of the space
program.
>The April 15-21, 96 issue of Space News has a commentary by John
Logsdon on
>this issue. Just a couple of excerpts:
>
>"One television network, though it no longer broadcasts launches live,
has a
>camera crew and an announcer at the ready, should there be another major
launch
>failure. There is only modest interest in reporting a successful launch,
but
>everybody wants to be prepared for another catastrophic failure."
>
>"This type of media scrutiny, in my view, increases the likelihood that
another
>accident would mean the end of the US human spaceflight program for an
extended
>time."
>
up on the first post-challeneger flight, yes, we would have been in
serious trouble. But we "bounced back" from Challenger, coming to our
senses in some ways, and we have had 50 flights without major problems.
So as far as the public goes, if we had another accident, they would want
to get back on the horse ... just like we did last time.
Thomas Kalbfus
747, its only when one crashed that they get any attention? Is
it that the Media doesn't like 747s or is it that a sucessful
747 flight is not news?
Shane Stezelberger
says...
>If STS-26 had blown up on the first post-challeneger
>flight, yes, we would have been in serious trouble.
>But we "bounced back" from Challenger, coming to our
>senses in some ways, and we have had 50 flights without
>major problems. So as far as the public goes, if we had
another accident, they would want to get back on the horse
>... just like we did last time.
>
>MMF...@prodigy.com --- Michael J. Gallagher
Do the math, though: 4 - 1 = 3. We HAD four orbiters,
but then there were three. Endeavour was partly
assembled from "structural spares" that NASA had
managed to build in the early 1980s. Such spares
won't be lying around the next time we lose an orbiter.
And by then, we'll need those orbiters to feed ISSA.
--
Shane Stezelberger
R 227 Vawter Hall, VPI
Blacksburg, VA 24060-0017
tel:(540) 232-4325 email: sst...@vt.edu
Make the world a better place to leave...
doyle@problem_with_inews_gateway_file
> jpa...@interaccess.com (Jim Plaxco) wrote:
> >
> >A topic of past discussion has been the media's coverage of the space
> program.
> >The April 15-21, 96 issue of Space News has a commentary by John
> Logsdon on
> >this issue. Just a couple of excerpts:
> >
> >"One television network, though it no longer broadcasts launches live,
> has a
> >camera crew and an announcer at the ready, should there be another major
> launch
> >failure. There is only modest interest in reporting a successful launch,
> but
> >everybody wants to be prepared for another catastrophic failure."
> >
> >"This type of media scrutiny, in my view, increases the likelihood that
> another
> >accident would mean the end of the US human spaceflight program for an
> extended
> >time."
> >
> serious trouble. But we "bounced back" from Challenger, coming to our
> senses in some ways, and we have had 50 flights without major problems.
> So as far as the public goes, if we had another accident, they would want
> to get back on the horse ... just like we did last time.
If they lost a shuttle I doubt congress would fund another and this
may put station support in trouble.
If a shuttle blew up with major station components on board, it could
be the end of the station and the shuttle, and posibly the end of the
U.S. manned space program.
> " ... I walked upon high ... to see my world below ... it's the world
> that I know" -- Collective Soul
> MMF...@prodigy.com --- Michael J. Gallagher
Karen
Michael Gallagher
>
>In article <4l6h71$b...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, MMF...@prodigy.com
>says...
>
>>flight, yes, we would have been in serious trouble.
>>But we "bounced back" from Challenger, coming to our
>>senses in some ways, and we have had 50 flights without
>>major problems. So as far as the public goes, if we had
>another accident, they would want to get back on the horse
>>... just like we did last time.
>>
>but then there were three. Endeavour was partly
>assembled from "structural spares" that NASA had
>managed to build in the early 1980s. Such spares
>won't be lying around the next time we lose an orbiter.
>
>And by then, we'll need those orbiters to feed ISSA.
>
new orbiter from scratch. I guess I'm a bit more optimistic about this ..
.. which is probably one of the few space-related topis I feel optimistic
about.
Brian S. Thorn
>Do the math, though: 4 - 1 = 3. We HAD four orbiters,
>but then there were three. Endeavour was partly
>assembled from "structural spares" that NASA had
>managed to build in the early 1980s. Such spares
>won't be lying around the next time we lose an orbiter.
Actually, I thought I read somewhere (maybe Jenkins' book)
that there are still structural spares at Rockwell. These are
intended to repair an Orbiter in the event of a less-than-total
loss (I'm assuming this means having a girder go through a wing,
in the OPF or something.) However, I think the OV-105 spares
began life the same way.
>And by then, we'll need those orbiters to feed ISSA.
We only need three Orbiters to build Station. There is a
25% chance that the next Orbiter lost will be Columbia,
which is not involved in Station assembly.
There is also the question of flight-rate of the surviving
Orbiters. I believe NASA flew seven Shuttle missions
in 1993 with only three Orbiters (Atlantis was in OMDP.)
and is planning eight in 1996 without flying Discovery.
NASA is currently scheduling 7-8 missions per year with
four Orbiters. The loss of one Orbiter does not seem to be
an insurmountable problem.
Even if we lose one of the Station-build Orbiters, all is
not necessarily lost. As opposed to 1986, today we have
Titan IV and Proton available to take up some of the load,
with Ariane V and H-2A expected to be available eventually.
A possible solution would be for NASA to finally build
Shuttle-C to take up the lost Orbiter's load (and then some.)
This of course is highly theoretical. The fate of the space
program would be greatly dependent on the circumstances
surrounding the next accident. Another incompetence-rooted
accident like Challenger will spell the end of Shuttle. An
Act-of-God accident does not necessarily kill the program.
-Brian
doyle@problem_with_inews_gateway_file
I see it all the time. Often on the news are pitures of people
coming off a 747, who actually survived the flight. Haven't you
seen all the test flights of the new military plane,
Air Force 1? :)
BRADLEY HOWARD
It is about to change...As producer of "The Space Report"
I can say as much. But what we are working on presenting is not just
the thrill of the launch but the adventure of discovery. Not just
discovering new worlds but helping the general public discover how
space effects their daily lives and their children's futures. Our
pilot is on the market and we hope soon to have a sponsor and some
kind of distribution. Since space is an international venture any
more it should be distributable around the world. So keep an eye out
for "The Space Report" on a station or cable network near you and as
we say "Come share the adventure."
Greg Ampagoomian
Producer
space...@msn.com
Jim Plaxco
>How many times has the Media covered a sucessful flight of a 747...
I would ask, do you consider the flight of a 747 to be an extraordinary
event? I don't believe that you can compare a commercial airline flight
with a Shuttle mission (wouldn't it be great if spaceflight was as
routine and common as air travel?)
>its only when one crashed that they get any attention?
Yes, crashes are extraordinary events.
>Is it that the Media doesn't like 747s or is it that a sucessful
>747 flight is not news?
Because a 747 flight is a commonplace event, it is not news. Even my
mother has flown on one. However, 6-8 flights per year into space
with an average crew of 6-7 people aboard the Shuttle is hardly
commonplace.
My concern is that since NASA is a government funded operation, a skewed
repesentation of its activities by the media can promote a negative
public attitude towards the program and, as a result, could hurt NASAs
ability to get program funding approved.
Regards,
Pat
Michael Gallagher <MMF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>sst...@vt.edu (Shane Stezelberger) wrote:
>>
>>In article <4l6h71$b...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, MMF...@prodigy.com
>>says...
>>
>>>If STS-26 had blown up on the first post-challeneger
>>>flight, yes, we would have been in serious trouble.
>>>But we "bounced back" from Challenger, coming to our
>>>senses in some ways, and we have had 50 flights without
>>>major problems. So as far as the public goes, if we had
>>another accident, they would want to get back on the horse
>>>... just like we did last time.
>>>
>>but then there were three. Endeavour was partly
>>assembled from "structural spares" that NASA had
>>managed to build in the early 1980s. Such spares
>>won't be lying around the next time we lose an orbiter.
>>
>>
>new orbiter from scratch. I guess I'm a bit more optimistic about this ..
>. which is probably one of the few space-related topis I feel optimistic
>about.
>
Grossly optimistic.
Two years ago, NASA terminated funds for the structural spares program.
No significant structures were built and Rockwell closed the factory
down.
It is my understanding the tools were dispersed and the plant workers
moved onto new assignments.
WE lose one, the fleet shuts down pretty much within a two year period.
pat
--
One mans desperate mundane existence is anothers technicolor - Tik
Frank Crary
Jim Plaxco <jpa...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>>How many times has the Media covered a sucessful flight of a 747...
>I would ask, do you consider the flight of a 747 to be an extraordinary
>event? I don't believe that you can compare a commercial airline flight
>with a Shuttle mission (wouldn't it be great if spaceflight was as
>routine and common as air travel?)
>Because a 747 flight is a commonplace event, it is not news. Even my
>mother has flown on one. However, 6-8 flights per year into space
>with an average crew of 6-7 people aboard the Shuttle is hardly
>commonplace.
I disagree. You are making alot of assumptions about what the
media will cover. As you say, aircraft accidents are covered
because they are "extraordinary" events; successful 747 flights
are not covered because they are "commonplace". However, there
is a huge range of events that are somewhere between "commonplace"
and "extraordinary." Consider a dissimilar example. Murder is
not a "commonplace" event. It occurs about once per 10,000 people
in America per year. Looking at my local papers, I notice that
murders in Boulder are typically front page news in the Boulder
Daily; murders in Denver rarely make the front page of the
Denver Post or Rocky Mountain News, and when they do, it's
because something about them is especially unusual. Of order two
murders occur in Boulder each year; about 100 occur per year
in Denver. From this, you might say that something that happens
a couple times per year is going to make the headlines, but
something that happens dozens of times per year is not sufficiently
"extraordinary", no matter how uncommon it is for the average
person. I've also noticed that spaceflight doesn't
get the same level of media attention that crime does. So,
reasonably, a spaceflight event might not be in the "extraordinary"
category if it, like Shuttle launches, happens half a
dozen to a dozen times per year.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Michael Gallagher
>
>In article <4lb8ka$r...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
>Michael Gallagher <MMF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>>
>>new orbiter from scratch. I guess I'm a bit more optimistic about this
.
>>. which is probably one of the few space-related topis I feel
optimistic
>>about.
>>
>
>Grossly optimistic.
>
>Two years ago, NASA terminated funds for the structural spares program.
>No significant structures were built and Rockwell closed the factory
>down.
>
>It is my understanding the tools were dispersed and the plant workers
>moved onto new assignments.
>
>WE lose one, the fleet shuts down pretty much within a two year period.
>
Maybe .... provided we decide to do that. If we don't, there is the
option of building a new orbiter from scratch. Or building a shuttle
floow-on in keeping with the "Better faster cheaper philosophy."
Grossly optimistic? If I didn't allow myself a little optimism, I'd
problably go nuts!
just...@imap2.asu.edu
orbiters (Discovery, Atlantis, or Endeavour) is lost, is there any chance
at all that Columbia could lose enough weight :-) to deliver some of the
modules? Or is Columbia always going to be heavier than the other orbiters?
Justin Davenport, Phoenix
"Earth is the cradle of mankind, but man cannot stay in the
cradle forever"--Tsiolkovsky
On 21 Apr 1996, Brian S. Thorn wrote:
> In article <4l6vqq$r...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, sst...@vt.edu says...
>
> >Do the math, though: 4 - 1 = 3. We HAD four orbiters,
> >but then there were three. Endeavour was partly
> >assembled from "structural spares" that NASA had
> >managed to build in the early 1980s. Such spares
> >won't be lying around the next time we lose an orbiter.
>
> Actually, I thought I read somewhere (maybe Jenkins' book)
> that there are still structural spares at Rockwell. These are
> intended to repair an Orbiter in the event of a less-than-total
> loss (I'm assuming this means having a girder go through a wing,
> in the OPF or something.) However, I think the OV-105 spares
> began life the same way.
>
> >And by then, we'll need those orbiters to feed ISSA.
>
Benigno Muniz Jr.
In article <4lhev0$o...@clark.net>, p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
> It is my understanding the tools were dispersed and the plant workers
> moved onto new assignments.
Some were "riffed" as well. BTW, parts of the manufacturing floor at the
Rockwell Space Systems Division (Downey) are being used for bonded
storage.
--
Ben Muniz: 1996 Space Frontier Foundation Conference Chair
Space Frontier Foundation BoD/National Space Society BoD
Pat
In article <4lhi7p$s...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
Michael Gallagher <MMF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
[new shuttle vehicle]
>>
>>Two years ago, NASA terminated funds for the structural spares program.
>>No significant structures were built and Rockwell closed the factory
>>down.
>>
>>moved onto new assignments.
>>
>
>>
>Maybe .... provided we decide to do that. If we don't, there is the
>option of building a new orbiter from scratch. Or building a shuttle
>floow-on in keeping with the "Better faster cheaper philosophy."
>
a new shuttle from scratch involves either $10 billion in DDTE
or at least a few billion in factory re-start just to do what doesnt'
work very well again.
>Grossly optimistic? If I didn't allow myself a little optimism, I'd
>problably go nuts!
optimism is useful, just keep it aimed at
areas to be optimistic on.
Michael Gallagher
p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
>
>In article <4lhi7p$s...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
>Michael Gallagher <MMF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>>p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
>[new shuttle vehicle]
>>>
>>>Two years ago, NASA terminated funds for the structural spares program.
>>>No significant structures were built and Rockwell closed the factory
>>>down.
>>>
>>>It is my understanding the tools were dispersed and the plant workers
>>>moved onto new assignments.
>>>
>>>WE lose one, the fleet shuts down pretty much within a two year
period.
>>
>>>
>>Maybe .... provided we decide to do that. If we don't, there is the
>>option of building a new orbiter from scratch. Or building a shuttle
>>floow-on in keeping with the "Better faster cheaper philosophy."
>>
>
>a new shuttle from scratch involves either $10 billion in DDTE
>or at least a few billion in factory re-start just to do what doesnt'
>work very well again.
>
You're discounting BFC. Basically, we'd take what we know (reusability,
runwya landings, etc.) and try to put it into a package that would cost
less. As I see it, a vehicle with the same capabilities as the shuttle
doesn't have to be a clone of it. And it could be more advanced, too.
Cathy Mancus
Michael Gallagher wrote:
> You're discounting BFC. Basically, we'd take what we know
> package that would cost less. As I see it, a vehicle with the same
> capabilities as the shuttle doesn't have to be a clone of it. And
> it could be more advanced, too.
I'm way of "more advanced". Sounds like more gold-plated
NASA technology.
Also, there's no way I am going to consider "reusability"
as "what we know". On the contrary, Shuttle proved that we DON'T
know it.
Finally, why do we need "the same capabilities as the Shuttle"?
I don't see that 1500 mile crossrange being used much these days.
--Cathy
Michael Gallagher
Cathy Mancus <cma...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>Michael Gallagher wrote:
>> You're discounting BFC. Basically, we'd take what we know
>> (reusability, runway landings, etc.) and try to put it into a
>> package that would cost less. As I see it, a vehicle with the same
>> capabilities as the shuttle doesn't have to be a clone of it. And
>> it could be more advanced, too.
>
>I'm way of "more advanced". Sounds like more gold-plated
>NASA technology.
No -- just a question of using uo-to-date technology. The shuttle, for
the most part, was designed with systems that existed in 1972, and has
only slowly been unpgraded over time. So with its sucessor, we'd start
with what we have availble NOW, and hopefully get it into production fast
enough that it would not be obsolete before it flew.
Example: the shuttle's computers. By the time it first flew in 1981, we
already had desktops more powerful than what we had on the shuttle! (I
know NASA has addressed this, but not sure what.) a "Shuttle 2" would
proceed from the kind of hardware we have today (though I would hope NASA
would not have Windows '95 onboard :) ), and that might allow us to
transfer even more of the ground control functions to the vehicle, saving
money in ground support.
>Also, there's no way I am going to consider "reusability"
>as "what we know". On the contrary, Shuttle proved that we DON'T
>know it.
But we've been doing it! We KNOW how to build a reusuable thermal
protection system; no reason th throw that out. We already have the
facilities for runway landings; no reason for them to rust. But getting
it refurbished quicker and cheaper -- THAT'S the trick!
>Finally, why do we need "the same capabilities as the Shuttle"?
>I don't see that 1500 mile crossrange being used much these days.
>
No, but then, the only reason to get rid of this is if you wanted to
stray from the basinc delta-wing design, and no reason to do that! But
as far as bringing payloads to and from LEO and performing operations on
orbit, the shuttle has a unique niche which should be exploited. Indeed,
you may even be able to get away with a slightly smaller payload
capacity, based on the average of what the shuttle has carried, resulting
in a slightly smaller vehicle you could launch from a pad other than LC39,
freeing 39 up for ..... I dunno, HLLV? Just a thought.
Paul T. Wilson
In article <3184B1...@vnet.ibm.com>, Cathy Mancus
<cma...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>Michael Gallagher wrote:
>> You're discounting BFC. Basically, we'd take what we know
>> (reusability, runway landings, etc.) and try to put it into a
>> package that would cost less. As I see it, a vehicle with the same
>> capabilities as the shuttle doesn't have to be a clone of it. And
>> it could be more advanced, too.
>
> I'm way of "more advanced". Sounds like more gold-plated
>NASA technology.
> Also, there's no way I am going to consider "reusability"
>as "what we know". On the contrary, Shuttle proved that we DON'T
>know it.
> Finally, why do we need "the same capabilities as the Shuttle"?
>I don't see that 1500 mile crossrange being used much these days.
Isn't a large crossrange capability more necessary for systems returning
from high inclination orbits?
--
Paul T. Wilson Programmer Guy (:-)
Look, do you mind if we have an argument here? - Merlo
Do you have enough mind for an argument here? - Marty
Michael Gallagher
wil...@aruba.jsc.nasa.gov (Paul T. Wilson) wrote:
>
>In article <3184B1...@vnet.ibm.com>, Cathy Mancus
><cma...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't see that 1500 mile crossrange being used much these days.
>
>Isn't a large crossrange capability more necessary for systems
returning
>from high inclination orbits?
>--
they wanted the shuttle to be able to select from one of several
possible landing sites druing reentry. And they wanted it to maneuver
during blackout, so the delta wing proved best for that. I don't see how
this makes a difference returning from a higher inclination orbit, since
you can still plan the reentry path to a particular spot on the ground.
You just have to bank to line up on the runway.
Cathy Mancus
Michael Gallagher wrote:
> Cathy Mancus <cma...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >Michael Gallagher wrote:
> >> You're discounting BFC. Basically, we'd take what we know
> >> (reusability, runway landings, etc.) and try to put it into a
> >> package that would cost less. As I see it, a vehicle with the same
> >> capabilities as the shuttle doesn't have to be a clone of it. And
> >> it could be more advanced, too.
> >I'm way of "more advanced". Sounds like more gold-plated
> >NASA technology.
> No -- just a question of using uo-to-date technology.
If you just mean updating the technology, I agree. It's just
that the word "advanced", as in "Advanced Launch System", etc. typically
is a warning sign of a gold-plated boondoggle.
> A "Shuttle 2" would
"Shuttle II" makes most of us on this group cringe. It brings
up still more thoughts of another gold-plated one-design-fits-all
vehicle. If that isn't what you want, you would be well advised to
avoid those "code words" that send hackles down our backs.
> proceed from the kind of hardware we have today (though I would hope NASA
> would not have Windows '95 onboard :)
Actually, I would hope it *would* have Windows 95 on board, though
not as part of the GN&C system. Today's Shuttles often carry laptops on
board for experiments. It is useful to experimenters to be able to use
off-the-shelf software for note-taking, data gathering, etc.
>>Also, there's no way I am going to consider "reusability" "what we know".
>> On the contrary, Shuttle proved that we DON'T know it.
> But we've been doing it! We KNOW how to build a reusuable thermal
> protection system; no reason th throw that out. We already have the
> facilities for runway landings; no reason for them to rust. But getting
> it refurbished quicker and cheaper -- THAT'S the trick!
As far as I'm concerned, "reusable" is not the same as "refurbishable".
Do you see the difference? "Reusable" is what airliners, fighter jets,
C-5A's, etc. are. They don't get rebuilt for every flight. In a pinch,
you could even refuel them and take off again without any inspections (though
wise pilots avoid this). That's what we want for spacecraft and we DON'T
have it. It is not clear that a "refurbishable" vehicle saves us any
money over an expendable.
> >Finally, why do we need "the same capabilities as the Shuttle"?
> >I don't see that 1500 mile crossrange being used much these days.
> No, but then, the only reason to get rid of this is if you wanted to
> stray from the basinc delta-wing design, and no reason to do that!
Obviously a lot of us don't agree, but I'm not going to rehash
all of the arguments about VL vs HL and other stuff that has been beaten
to death on this group.
> But as far as bringing payloads to and from LEO and performing operations on
> orbit, the shuttle has a unique niche which should be exploited.
The only unique capability I see is the ability to bring back
large payloads from orbit. There's nothing unique about its ability
to take payloads to LEO; that part of the argument has me utterly confused.
As to "performing operations on orbit", it isn't clear what's unique about
that either. Mir, anyone?
--Cathy
Chris Jones
wil...@aruba.jsc.nasa.gov (Paul T. Wilson) wrote:
>Isn't a large crossrange capability more necessary for systems
returning
>from high inclination orbits?
I don't see how
this makes a difference returning from a higher inclination orbit, since
you can still plan the reentry path to a particular spot on the ground.
The particular Air Force mission which drove the high cross-range requirement
was a polar orbit with reentry after a single revolution. The higher
inclination orbit makes a big difference -- due to the earth's rotation, the
landing site has moved over 1000 miles to the east, and the shuttle would have
to use its cross-range capability to reach the runway. On a one orbit mission
to a different inclination, the landing site would have moved the same
distance, but the shuttle's velocity has a component in the same direction, so
the cross-range distance is lower.
--
Chris Jones c...@bbn.com
Jim Kingdon
> We KNOW how to build a reusuable thermal protection system; no reason
> th throw that out.
If you call the shuttle's TPS reusable you are using a different
definition of "reusable" than most people. It requires significant
overhauls with every flight. One of the major projects of the RLV
program these days is to work on reusable TPS.
> But getting it refurbished quicker and cheaper -- THAT'S the trick!
The real trick is being able to fly it again without any refurbishment
at all (that is, no refurbishment which must be done on each and every
flight).
Thomas J. Frieling
>In article <rpfbuka...@unicorn.bbn.com> Chris Jones <c...@bbn.com> writes:
>>In article <4m44aa$1p...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com> MMF...@prodigy.com
Michael>>Gallagher) writes:
> wil...@aruba.jsc.nasa.gov (Paul T. Wilson) wrote:
> >Isn't a large crossrange capability more necessary for systems
> returning
> >from high inclination orbits?
I don't see how
> this makes a difference returning from a higher inclination orbit, since
> you can still plan the reentry path to a particular spot on the ground.
>The particular Air Force mission which drove the high cross-range requirement
>was a polar orbit with reentry after a single revolution. The higher
>inclination orbit makes a big difference -- due to the earth's rotation, the
>landing site has moved over 1000 miles to the east, and the shuttle would have
>to use its cross-range capability to reach the runway. On a one orbit mission
>to a different inclination, the landing site would have moved the same
>distance, but the shuttle's velocity has a component in the same direction, so
>the cross-range distance is lower.
My God, what a boondoggle!
The Shuttle will never fly a polar mission and the whole design of the
Shuttle (big cargo bay, delta wing) was largely predicated on these USAF
requirements. So to get DOD support NASA builds a much bigger Shuttle than
they originally planned (and thus, presumably needed). And then the USAF
never flies the mission that required these major design attributes.
That really cheezes me off! It's bad enough we went down a wrong road with
this particular Shuttle, but this makes it all the more dismaying.
Just what was this one orbit mission anyway? That's barely enough time to
crank open the payload bay doors, much less pop out a satellite. What were
they thinking?
Dwayne, John, anybody got the answer?
I'm in a bad mood today...
Michael P. Walsh
Cathy Mancus said:
>"Shuttle II" makes most of us on this group cringe. It
>brings up still more thoughts of another gold-plated
>one-design-fits-all vehicle. If that isn't what you want, you
>would be well advised to avoid those "code words" that send
>hackles down our backs.
And why should we do that? ):
Jim Glass
In article <318604...@vnet.ibm.com>, Cathy Mancus <cma...@vnet.ibm.com> writes:
|> Michael Gallagher wrote:
|> > Cathy Mancus <cma...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
|> > >Michael Gallagher wrote:
|> > >> You're discounting BFC. Basically, we'd take what we know
|> > >> (reusability, runway landings, etc.) and try to put it into a
|> > >> package that would cost less. As I see it, a vehicle with the same
|> > >> capabilities as the shuttle doesn't have to be a clone of it. And
|> > >> it could be more advanced, too.
|>
|> > >I'm way of "more advanced". Sounds like more gold-plated
|> > >NASA technology.
|>
|> > No -- just a question of using uo-to-date technology.
|>
|> If you just mean updating the technology, I agree. It's just
|> that the word "advanced", as in "Advanced Launch System", etc. typically
|> is a warning sign of a gold-plated boondoggle.
|>
|> > A "Shuttle 2" would
|>
|> up still more thoughts of another gold-plated one-design-fits-all
|> vehicle. If that isn't what you want, you would be well advised to
|> avoid those "code words" that send hackles down our backs.
|>
|> > would not have Windows '95 onboard :)
|>
|> Actually, I would hope it *would* have Windows 95 on board, though
|> not as part of the GN&C system. Today's Shuttles often carry laptops on
|> board for experiments. It is useful to experimenters to be able to use
|> off-the-shelf software for note-taking, data gathering, etc.
|>
|>
A shuttle with Win95 in the GN&C might well be the first manned vehicle
to head for Mars (not reach it)...
|> > But as far as bringing payloads to and from LEO and performing operations on
|> > orbit, the shuttle has a unique niche which should be exploited.
|
|> The only unique capability I see is the ability to bring back
|> large payloads from orbit. There's nothing unique about its ability
|> to take payloads to LEO; that part of the argument has me utterly confused.
|> As to "performing operations on orbit", it isn't clear what's unique about
|> that either. Mir, anyone?
|>
|> --Cathy
Wonderful idea. Ditch the station and let the Russians sell us time
on the Mir.
In June, when they re-elect the Soviets to power, this might not look
like such a fine idea. When Mr. Zygunov (spell?) takes over, all these
"cost saving" notions might look pretty silly.
As of now, the ISSA relies on a Russian propulsion module, a Russian
crew return module, Russian power systems, etc. All of these will
soon be shown to be spectacularly bad ideas due to political changes
in the new, improved Soviet Union ("We're your old adversary, only
better!").
Then maybe we can get serious about re-building the native US
aerospace industry, and letting US industry build those elements
of the station that SHOULD have been ours all along.
Just one guy's opinion.
Jim Glass
Jeff Greason
In article <318604...@vnet.ibm.com>, Cathy Mancus <cma...@vnet.ibm.com>
writes:
|>
|> > >Finally, why do we need "the same capabilities as the Shuttle"?
|> > >I don't see that 1500 mile crossrange being used much these days.
|>
|> > No, but then, the only reason to get rid of this is if you wanted to
|> > stray from the basinc delta-wing design, and no reason to do that!
|>
|> Obviously a lot of us don't agree, but I'm not going to rehash
|> all of the arguments about VL vs HL and other stuff that has been beaten
|> to death on this group.
Even if you just love "things with wings", 1100nmi crossrange requires
a *lot* of wing, much more than an SSTO would need for a reasonable
unpowered horizontal (at least as reasonable as such things are ever
going to get). SSTO is carrying back a big empty tank, so wing loading
is low, so the wing area you need for reasonable reentry is small. Therefore,
asking for high crossrange (high L/D) is just extra weight -- it doesn't
come for free. Unless you have some need for it (and it's not clear who
does), you don't want it.
Disclaimer: While I am an Intel employee, all opinions expressed are my own,
and do not reflect the position of Intel, NETCOM, or Zippy the Pinhead.
============================================================================
Jeff Greason "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade,
<gre...@ptdcs2.intel.com> and do the other things, not because they
<gre...@ix.netcom.com> are easy, but because they are hard." -- JFK
Cathy Mancus
Jim Glass wrote:
> |> > But as far as bringing payloads to and from LEO and performing operations on
> |> > orbit, the shuttle has a unique niche which should be exploited.
> |> The only unique capability I see is the ability to bring back
> |> large payloads from orbit. There's nothing unique about its ability
> |> to take payloads to LEO; that part of the argument has me utterly confused.
> |> As to "performing operations on orbit", it isn't clear what's unique about
> |> that either. Mir, anyone?
> Wonderful idea. Ditch the station and let the Russians sell us time
> on the Mir.
While I don't like ISSA, ditching the station was never mentioned
in this argument. The comparison was Mir+Soyuz type approaches vs
Shuttle type approaches.
>
> In June, when they re-elect the Soviets to power, this might not look
> like such a fine idea. When Mr. Zygunov (spell?) takes over, all these
> "cost saving" notions might look pretty silly.
It hasn't happened yet. I'm still cautiously optimistic.
> As of now, the ISSA relies on a Russian propulsion module, a Russian
> crew return module, Russian power systems, etc. All of these will
> soon be shown to be spectacularly bad ideas due to political changes
> in the new, improved Soviet Union ("We're your old adversary, only
> better!").
None of this has any relevance to the "unique capabilities"
of Shuttle, which was the discussion point. The US can easily build
its own Mir, or even its own ISSA. But do we fly a ridiculously
expensive vehicle to service it, or do we use Soyuz or build our
own version of Soyuz (presumably similar to X-34)? The issue here
is basic approach, not Russia vs US.
--Cathy
Bruce Lewis
gl...@mrbig.rockwell.com (Jim Glass) wrote:
>In June, when they re-elect the Soviets to power, this might not look
>like such a fine idea. When Mr. Zygunov (spell?) takes over, all these
>"cost saving" notions might look pretty silly.
>
>As of now, the ISSA relies on a Russian propulsion module, a Russian
>crew return module, Russian power systems, etc. All of these will
>soon be shown to be spectacularly bad ideas due to political changes
>in the new, improved Soviet Union ("We're your old adversary, only
>better!").
Why, Mr. Glass, whatever could you mean? Don't you know the Cold War
is over, now and forever, and the Russians will never again threaten our
shores? Yes, truly the age of deterrence is over, and now we and our new
Russian friends can march hand in hand into the glorious future, secure
in the knowledge that no foreign power can ever or will ever rise to
threaten our brave new world order in this, the best of all possible worlds.
Or so many of the folks on this newsgroup would have you believe.
As for me, I'm on your side. With aerospace workers flipping hamburgers
coast to coast, I fail to see the reason why ANY of our space hardware is
being built outside the USA. I won't be convinced that the Russians have
completely changed their tune until they're all speaking English and
watching reruns of I DREAM Of JEANNIE. The idea of a renewed
Russian sovietism is an anus-clenching one indeed.
************************************************
Bruce Lewis
Studio Go! Multimedia
Manhattan Projects Multimedia
************************************************
My opinionå–«t ain't necessarily Go!'s
************************************************
Producers of STAR BLAZERS MAGAZINE
and other quality publications.
************************************************
Celebrate Insectoid-American Heritage Day!
"It's Great to be a Gray!" 7 July 1996
************************************************
Michael Gallagher
Cathy Mancus <cma...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> ... the word "advanced", as in "Advanced Launch System", etc.
>is a warning sign of a gold-plated boondoggle.
>up still more thoughts of another gold-plated one-design-fits-all
>vehicle. If that isn't what you want, you would be well advised to
>avoid those "code words" that send hackles down our backs.
>
that fills the shuttle's niche against the possibility of losing another
orbiter, and building another orbiter is out, then you want to do as
little R&D as possible and use existing facilities as much as possible.
A TSTO VTHL or HTHL system would fit the bill **for the near term.** And
if the vehicle is a bit smaller than the shuttle, then you might be able
to get away with launching it from someplace other than LC39, freeing
that up for something else.
How to keep development costs less than the shuttle's? By proceeding
from "better, faster, cheaper," and avoiding thinking in terms of the
Saturn V. If we put our minds to it, we could probably do for $1 billion
as opposed to $10 billion.
> ... It is not clear that a "refurbishable" vehicle saves us any
>money over an expendable.
>
How many expendables have 6,000 people in the launch crew? None. For a
resusable/referbishable/rewhateverable vehicle, getting the job done with
less ground support = lower operations costs. (And maybe more lfights
for the same amount of money?)
> ... I'm not going to rehash
>all of the arguments about VL vs HL and other stuff that has been
beaten
>to death on this group.
>
Neither am I ... except that I see VL as something for the long term,
whereas you'd want to stick with HL for the near term.
>The only unique capability I see is the ability to bring back
>large payloads from orbit. There's nothing unique about its ability
>to take payloads to LEO; that part of the argument has me utterly
confused.
>As to "performing operations on orbit", it isn't clear what's unique
about
>that either.
>
Only that not other US vehicle does all that. No other vehicle IN THE
WORLD has all those capabilities in one! In that sense, it's unique.
Michael Gallagher
gl...@mrbig.rockwell.com (Jim Glass) wrote:
>
> ... A shuttle with Win95 in the GN&C might well be the first manned
>to head for Mars (not reach it)...
>
the operating system working!
" ... I walked upon high ... to see my world below ... it's the world
that I know" -- Collective Soul
MMF...@prodigy.com --- Michael J. Gallagher
Still using Windows 3.1 and damned proud of it!
Edward V. Wright
In article <1996May1.2...@nb.rockwell.com>,
gl...@mrbig.rockwell.com says...
>Wonderful idea. Ditch the station and let the Russians sell us time
>on the Mir. In June, when they re-elect the Soviets to power, this
>might not look like such a fine idea.
Why not? The Space Station has only one identified mission: to cooperate
with the Russians. If the Russians pull it, the station has failed its
mission anyway, no matter how many billions we pour into it.
>Then maybe we can get serious about re-building the native US
>aerospace industry, and letting US industry build those elements
>of the station that SHOULD have been ours all along.
In other words, you want more government contracts for rockwell.com.
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
Pat
In article <1996May1.2...@nb.rockwell.com>,
Jim Glass <gl...@mrbig.rockwell.com> wrote:
>In article <318604...@vnet.ibm.com>, Cathy Mancus <cma...@vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>Wonderful idea. Ditch the station and let the Russians sell us time
>on the Mir.
certainly would free up a lot of dollars to build X-33 and X-34.
>In June, when they re-elect the Soviets to power, this might not look
>like such a fine idea. When Mr. Zygunov (spell?) takes over, all these
>"cost saving" notions might look pretty silly.
Might, but that also assumes the zyguyadov government is willing to
abandon the Mir2 program as well. without US co-operation, they
are looking at coming up with major funding requirements and having
to build quite afew more modules.
I suppose you think the germans are nuts for buying methane from the soviets.
>As of now, the ISSA relies on a Russian propulsion module, a Russian
>crew return module, Russian power systems, etc. All of these will
>soon be shown to be spectacularly bad ideas due to political changes
>in the new, improved Soviet Union ("We're your old adversary, only
>better!").
Less weight less mass and with even more enemies around them.
Considering the economic problems of the russians have them
whoring their women to fat german burghers and their army is so
weak they can't even take chechnya, even a new communist state
would be laughable. And they have permanently lost the
ukrain, poland, byelo-russia and the baltics states.
So what cold war fantasy are you dreaming of?
>Then maybe we can get serious about re-building the native US
>aerospace industry, and letting US industry build those elements
>of the station that SHOULD have been ours all along.
and maybe we can get to rebuilding Native US automotive industries
and ship-building industries and steel-making industries and
silicon production and machine tools,,, Sounds awful like
industrial policy to me?
pat
--
Overbreeding leads to weakness, it is a slow death -- Major Katsunagi -
Michael Gallagher
p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
>
>Considering the economic problems of the russians have them
>whoring their women to fat german burghers and their army is so
>weak they can't even take chechnya, even a new communist state
>would be laughable. And they have permanently lost the
>ukrain, poland, byelo-russia and the baltics states.
>
that. But that didn't stop them from going into Chechnya in the first
place, did it? So what's to stop a new communist government from
believing the difference is in the leaders and that they could retake the
"permanently lost" Soviet republics by force? The communists and the
nationalists did pass a resolution calling for the return of the Soviet
union, and they did think going into Chechnya was a good idea. Maybe
they also think they can succeed where Yeltsin failed.
I hope I'm wrong in the long run, but I don't want to be unrealistic
about it.
Cathy Mancus
Michael Gallagher wrote:
>> ... It is not clear that a "refurbishable" vehicle saves us any
>>money over an expendable.
> How many expendables have 6,000 people in the launch crew? None. For a
> resusable/referbishable/rewhateverable vehicle, getting the job done with
> less ground support = lower operations costs. (And maybe more lfights
> for the same amount of money?)
So what's your point? You were arguing for a reusable
vehicle, I pointed out that it is really "refurbishable", and
you seem to have shifted to arguing about ground support. Nowhere
in the your above quote do I see any benefits to the
refurbishable; quite the opposite! So why not use an expendable?
> except that I see VL as something for the long term,
> whereas you'd want to stick with HL for the near term.
I don't agree, and I doubt Henry Vanderbilt does either.
I suspect that my estimate of the time to build a new vehicle,
Shuttle-derived or not, is much higher than yours. I can't
picture *any* new US manned vehicle flying before 2000 AD.
>>The only unique capability I see is the ability to bring back
>>large payloads from orbit. There's nothing unique about its ability
>>to take payloads to LEO; that part of the argument has me utterly
>>confused. As to "performing operations on orbit", it isn't clear
>>what's unique about that either.
> Only that not other US vehicle does all that. No other vehicle IN THE
> WORLD has all those capabilities in one! In that sense, it's unique.
I used to have two cars. One was an old beat-up '81 Escort
that I used to haul stuff (hatchback), park at trailheads to hike, drive
on dirt roads, etc, etc. The other was (and is) a '94 Miata that is
fun to drive, more reliable, has air conditioning, better acceleration,
etc, etc. The Escort has since died, but my boyfriend has a Festiva
that fills the same role.
It is *not* a benefit to stuff all of the kitchen-sink
capabilities into one vehicle. It only leads to bad compromises.
I read an interesting article not long ago arguing that sport-utility
vehicles are bad compromises, and it is more cost-effective to
buy a used pickup *and* a new economy car instead.
--Cathy
Michael Gallagher
Cathy Mancus <cma...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>Michael Gallagher wrote:
>
>>> ... It is not clear that a "refurbishable" vehicle saves us any
>>>money over an expendable.
>
>> How many expendables have 6,000 people in the launch crew? None. For
a
>> resusable/referbishable/rewhateverable vehicle, getting the job done
with
>> less ground support = lower operations costs. (And maybe more
lfights
>> for the same amount of money?)
>
>So what's your point? You were arguing for a reusable
>vehicle, I pointed out that it is really "refurbishable", and
Who do you think does the refurbishing? GROUND SUPPORT. And all those
people have to be paid. So the more people in ground support, the more
it costs. Reduce the size/complexity of ground support, and your
re*****able vehicle costs less.
>> except that I see VL as something for the long term,
>> whereas you'd want to stick with HL for the near term.
>
>I don't agree, and I doubt Henry Vanderbilt does either.
>I suspect that my estimate of the time to build a new vehicle,
>Shuttle-derived or not, is much higher than yours. I can't
>picture *any* new US manned vehicle flying before 2000 AD.
>
If we can get a new planetary spacecraft ready to go in three years for
$150 million, we can do a new manned vehicle in five dor $1 billion if we
don't reinvent too many wheels. It would also help if we could stampt
the things out on assembley lines, as opposed to hevaily bureacratized
hand-crafting that characterizes orbiter construction.
Cathy Mancus
>>So what's your point? You were arguing for a reusable
>>vehicle, I pointed out that it is really "refurbishable", and
>>you seem to have shifted to arguing about ground support ...
> Who do you think does the refurbishing? GROUND SUPPORT. And all those
> people have to be paid. So the more people in ground support, the more
> it costs. Reduce the size/complexity of ground support, and your
> re*****able vehicle costs less.
In other words, you believe that you can reduce
the cost of ground support of a refurbishable vehicle enough
to make it competitive with expendables?
If you really want to reduce ground support, I
think the DC-X/X-33 approach is much more promising, i.e.
get rid of the refurbishable nonsense and get as close to
airliner operations as possible. You won't manage that with
anything Shuttle-derived.
>>I suspect that my estimate of the time to build a new vehicle,
>>Shuttle-derived or not, is much higher than yours. I can't
>>picture *any* new US manned vehicle flying before 2000 AD.
> If we can get a new planetary spacecraft ready to go in three years for
> $150 million, we can do a new manned vehicle in five dor $1 billion if we
> don't reinvent too many wheels.
My own post above said 2000 AD, which is on or about your
own timeframe. If we can really do it BFC instead of just talking
about it, I see no reason that the vehicle flying in 2001-2002
couldn't be VTVL, possibly SSTO, and hopefully using lots of
post-Shuttle improvements to technoogy. We can't afford to
repeat past mistakes in a new vehicle, and using much of
anything from the Shuttle would be a mistake.
> It would also help if we could stamp
> the things out on assembley lines, as opposed to hevaily
> bureacratized hand-crafting that characterizes
> orbiter construction.
It's very unlikely that you can get any of benefits of
an assembly line with an extremely small run of vehicles such as
would be produced if the vehicle were reusable. Most of the
emphasis on mass-produced spaceflight hardware has focused
on expendables for this reason.
--Cathy
Michael Gallagher
>> re*****able vehicle costs less.
>
>In other words, you believe that you can reduce
>the cost of ground support of a refurbishable vehicle enough
>to make it competitive with expendables?
>
cost of replacing/complimenting the shuttle papatable.
>> If we can get a new planetary spacecraft ready to go in three years
for
>> $150 million, we can do a new manned vehicle in five dor $1 billion if
we
>> don't reinvent too many wheels.
>
>My own post above said 2000 AD, which is on or about your
>own timeframe. If we can really do it BFC instead of just talking
>about it, I see no reason that the vehicle flying in 2001-2002
>couldn't be VTVL, possibly SSTO, and hopefully using lots of
>post-Shuttle improvements to technoogy ...
The thing is, the VTVL SSTO we could be flying in 2001 would be
experiemental; it'd be a few more years before we had an operational
version. I'd say 2010 before you could tak about a mnned version.
That's why I see it for the long term, and something like a TSTO VTHL for
the near term.
> ... We can't afford to
>repeat past mistakes in a new vehicle, and using much of
>anything from the Shuttle would be a mistake.
>
Depends on how far you stretch "anything." Obviously, you stretch it
farther than me.
Greg d. Moore
> >> (reusability, runway landings, etc.) and try to put it into a
> >> package that would cost less. As I see it, a vehicle with the same
> >> capabilities as the shuttle doesn't have to be a clone of it. And
> >> it could be more advanced, too.
> >
> >I'm way of "more advanced". Sounds like more gold-plated
> >NASA technology.
>
> the most part, was designed with systems that existed in 1972, and has
> only slowly been unpgraded over time. So with its sucessor, we'd start
> with what we have availble NOW, and hopefully get it into production fast
> enough that it would not be obsolete before it flew.
>
> Example: the shuttle's computers. By the time it first flew in 1981, we
> already had desktops more powerful than what we had on the shuttle! (I
> know NASA has addressed this, but not sure what.) a "Shuttle 2" would
> transfer even more of the ground control functions to the vehicle, saving
> money in ground support.
> >Also, there's no way I am going to consider "reusability"
> >as "what we know". On the contrary, Shuttle proved that we DON'T
> >know it.
>
> But we've been doing it! We KNOW how to build a reusuable thermal
> protection system; no reason th throw that out. We already have the
> facilities for runway landings; no reason for them to rust. But getting
> it refurbished quicker and cheaper -- THAT'S the trick!
> Initially though the tiles were a pain and still account
for a sizable precentage of post-flight processing. There are probably
better methods.
> >Finally, why do we need "the same capabilities as the Shuttle"?
> >I don't see that 1500 mile crossrange being used much these days.
> >
> No, but then, the only reason to get rid of this is if you wanted to
> stray from the basinc delta-wing design, and no reason to do that! But
> as far as bringing payloads to and from LEO and performing operations on
> orbit, the shuttle has a unique niche which should be exploited. Indeed,
> you may even be able to get away with a slightly smaller payload
> capacity, based on the average of what the shuttle has carried, resulting
> in a slightly smaller vehicle you could launch from a pad other than LC39,
> freeing 39 up for ..... I dunno, HLLV? Just a thought.
> Exactly, the shuttle is too big. NASA thought so in '72, but
needed the AF to help build it.
If you want to reduce the current cost of the shuttle do
things like:
1) Only rebuild the engines every 3-5 flight.
2) Waive the requirements that EVERYTHING has to be in
perfect order for take-off. If you have triple redundency
make use of it. Let some items be waived for launch with
only double redundency.
3) Turn it over to a private concern (as they are doing).
4) Quicken the turn-around time and launch more often. This
is the key to most SSTO's, not reducing launch costs per se
but making it possible to launch more often. If a 747 could
only fly 3-4 times a year, it would be extremely expensive
to fly. It's the fixed base ops that are killing the shuttle,
and will kill ANY RLV if they are too high.
> " ... I walked upon high ... to see my world below ... it's the world
> that I know" -- Collective Soul
> MMF...@prodigy.com --- Michael J. Gallagher
--
---
str...@acm.rpi.edu |http://acm.rpi.edu/~strider
Green Mountain Software |
I do not speak for anyone in any way.
Michael P. Walsh
p...@clark.net (Pat) says in response to the Mir remark:
>>
>>Wonderful idea. Ditch the station and let the Russians sell us
>>time on the Mir.
>certainly would free up a lot of dollars to build X-33 and X-34.
You know its not that simple. I believe cancelling the space
station would result in "freeing up" a lot of dollars for either
deficit reduction or (more probably) congress persons non-space
related programs. I believe the political realities are the
space station survived not only as a foreign policy ploy, but
because station contracts were provided to a number of states.
I also believe that at this time the only way that a manned space
program will continued is by government funding. My hope is that
when the space station becomes active that micro-gravity and
other types of space experimentation will provide sufficient
promise to both spur on low cost launch efforts and entice
private captital into manned space efforts. Un-manned space
activities have been commercially proven, manned space activities
have not.
Mike Walsh
Pat
In article <4mcsn1$m...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
Michael Gallagher <MMF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
>>
>>Considering the economic problems of the russians have them
>>whoring their women to fat german burghers and their army is so
>>weak they can't even take chechnya, even a new communist state
>>would be laughable. And they have permanently lost the
>>ukrain, poland, byelo-russia and the baltics states.
>>
>You know that. I know that. The Intelligence guys reading this know
>that. But that didn't stop them from going into Chechnya in the first
>place, did it? So what's to stop a new communist government from
>believing the difference is in the leaders and that they could retake the
>"permanently lost" Soviet republics by force? The communists and the
Reality...
The soviet army of 1979 could not and did not have the military power
to take afghanistan and pacify it, even in the four years where the
US was not sending arms and aid to the afghans.
So they lost afghanistan, they are losing chechnya, now they are
supposed to get wise ideas about attacking on 12 fronts?
WHat was it ambassador Londi Molari said on Babylon 5 :
"Only a fool fights a war on two fronts,
Only the inheritor of the kingdom of fools,
fights a war on 12 fronts".
If you read history, you will note that the communists/bolsheviks,
actually had little stomach for expansionism. The bolsheviks
cut a deal with the kaiser to get ou;of WW1, so they ould
work on internal issues. it was only stalin who wanted an
expansionist empire, and even he, was smart enough to only
fight a war on one front. the russians never engaged
japanese forces in the east, even when they had adequate
military capacity. and even when the americans had the
japanese on the run.
while rush limbauigh talks a good line, he is merely
a big fat idiot.
>nationalists did pass a resolution calling for the return of the Soviet
>union, and they did think going into Chechnya was a good idea. Maybe
>they also think they can succeed where Yeltsin failed.
>
they can think a lot of things,putting them into action is the issue.
>I hope I'm wrong in the long run, but I don't want to be unrealistic
>about it.
you are being unrealistic. it is one thing to be cautious and
preserve one's options, but to live as if these are expected
results is unrealistic.
Pat
In article <4mbamk$15...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
Michael Gallagher <MMF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
[shuttle capabilities]
>>
>Only that not other US vehicle does all that. No other vehicle IN THE
>WORLD has all those capabilities in one! In that sense, it's unique.
so's a two headed cow, doesn't mean it's good for much, except at
the side show.
the spruce goose was unique, and it's a very nice museum piece.
the great western was unique and it made an excellent carnival.
pat
Oleg Zabluda
Pat (p...@clark.net) wrote:
: The soviet army of 1979 could not and did not have the military power
: to take afghanistan and pacify it, even in the four years where the
: US was not sending arms and aid to the afghans.
:
: So they lost afghanistan, they are losing chechnya, now they are
: supposed to get wise ideas about attacking on 12 fronts?
Why Americans were so afraid of Russians then?
I beg to differ. Soviet Union had and has enough power to do
anything they wanted in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Except
for one thing. To win a guerilla war. Actually no other
country learned how to do it either.
US-Vietnam.
Israel-Lebanon.
Britain-IRA.
Do I have to say more?
Oleg.
Tom Abbott
p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
>In article <4mcsn1$m...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
>Michael Gallagher <MMF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>>p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
>>>
>>>Considering the economic problems of the russians have them
>>>whoring their women to fat german burghers and their army is so
>>>weak they can't even take chechnya, even a new communist state
>>>would be laughable. And they have permanently lost the
>>>ukrain, poland, byelo-russia and the baltics states.
>>>
>>You know that. I know that. The Intelligence guys reading this know
>>that. But that didn't stop them from going into Chechnya in the first
>>place, did it? So what's to stop a new communist government from
>>believing the difference is in the leaders and that they could retake the
>>"permanently lost" Soviet republics by force? The communists and the
>Reality...
>The soviet army of 1979 could not and did not have the military power
>to take afghanistan and pacify it, even in the four years where the
>US was not sending arms and aid to the afghans.
The Soviet military didn't put enough forces into Afghanistan to do
the job. They had about 125,000 troops at their peak deployment. The
U.S. had 575,000 troops in South Vietnam. If the Soviets had put
comparable numbers in Afghanistan it might have been a different
story. The Soviets just didn't want Afghanistan bad enough.
It wouldn't pay to underestimate the Russian's ability to fight or
their tenacity, ask some of their many opponents, like Boniparte and
Hitler.
Tom Abbott
External Tank space station Web page:
http://www.brushmarks.com/multimedia/space/
Space Studies Institute Web page:
http://www.astro.nwu.edu/lentz/space/ssi/
e-mail s...@ssi.org
National Space Society
http://www.nss.org
doyle@problem_with_inews_gateway_file
Oleg Zabluda (zab...@math.psu.edu) wrote:
> Pat (p...@clark.net) wrote:
> : The soviet army of 1979 could not and did not have the military power
> : to take afghanistan and pacify it, even in the four years where the
> : US was not sending arms and aid to the afghans.
> : So they lost afghanistan, they are losing chechnya, now they are
> : supposed to get wise ideas about attacking on 12 fronts?
> :
> Why Americans were so afraid of Russians then?
>
They had lots of nukes.
I do think that we were overly concerned with there desire to spread
there ideology through military force. The russian took control over
the contries surrounding them right after WW2 mainly to provide a
buffer between them and the germans who have 2 this century invaded
russian causing a great deal of bloodshed.
Also the US has invaded the soviet union but they have never invaded us.
> I beg to differ. Soviet Union had and has enough power to do
> anything they wanted in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Except
> for one thing. To win a guerilla war. Actually no other
> country learned how to do it either.
> US-Vietnam.
> Israel-Lebanon.
> Britain-IRA.
>
> Do I have to say more?
> Oleg.
Karen
Edward V. Wright
In article <4me2ft$15...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, MMF...@prodigy.com
says...
>The thing is, the VTVL SSTO we could be flying in 2001 would be
>experiemental; it'd be a few more years before we had an operational
>version. I'd say 2010 before you could tak about a mnned version.
Another baseless assertion. It didn't take nine years to certify the 777
for manned flight. The only justification for this claim is technological
superstition -- the notion that space travel is somehow "magic."
>That's why I see it for the long term, and something like a TSTO
>VTHL for the near term.
Which requires us to believe that you can somehow build and flight-test
two vehicles more quickly than you can build and flight-test one. 2x2=1?
Edward V. Wright
In article <4mdf2e$13...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, MMF...@prodigy.com
says...
>>So what's your point? You were arguing for a reusable
>>vehicle, I pointed out that it is really "refurbishable", and
>>you seem to have shifted to arguing about ground support ...
>Who do you think does the refurbishing? GROUND SUPPORT. And all those
>people have to be paid. So the more people in ground support, the more
>it costs. Reduce the size/complexity of ground support, and your
>re*****able vehicle costs less.
If the vehicle has to be refurbished, you *can't* reduce the size of the
ground support. Someone has to do the work. Low ground-support costs are
the result of good design, not vice versa.
Michael Gallagher
p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
>
> ... The soviet army of 1979 could not and did not have the military
power
>to take afghanistan and pacify it ...
No more than we, with our more advanced army, could pacify Viet Name.
"You can not defeat an idiologically motivated people by force of arms."
So the difference isn't entirely in the army.
And remember, they still went into Afghanistan in the first place.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ... WHat was it ambassador Londi Molari said on Babylon 5 :
>"Only a fool fights a war on two fronts,
>Only the inheritor of the kingdom of fools,
>fights a war on 12 fronts".
>
But the inheritor would do it if he thought he could pull it off. So I
agree they wouldn't SUCCEED, but what's to stop them from TRYING ... like
they did in Afghanistan an Chechnya?
>while rush limbauigh talks a good line, he is merely
>a big fat idiot.
>
Who happens to be right a lot. :) (You mean you never heard of the ITYS?
)
Michael Gallagher
edwr...@microsoft.com (Edward V. Wright) wrote:
>
>In article <4me2ft$15...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, MMF...@prodigy.com
>says...
>
>>The thing is, the VTVL SSTO we could be flying in 2001 would be
>>experiemental; it'd be a few more years before we had an operational
>>version. I'd say 2010 before you could tak about a mnned version.
>
>Another baseless assertion. It didn't take nine years to certify the 777
>for manned flight ...
The 777 is not a radical departure from other planes that came before it!
It doesn't stray from the basic desing airplanes have had for decades.
Developing a VTVL SSTO IS a big departure from what we have done before.
>>That's why I see it for the long term, and something like a TSTO
>>VTHL for the near term.
>
>Which requires us to believe that you can somehow build and flight-test
>two vehicles more quickly than you can build and flight-test one. 2x2=1?
>
As I said, a TSTO would not be a big departure, since it would be another
multi-stage vehicle. The difference being both stages would be reusable.
An SSTO vehicle requires a bit more basic research, since its dry weight
has to be light enough to make it to orbit in one stage and not fold
under the slightest load. And VL systems are only just being tested. So
SSTO is a big enough job to require longer time frames to develop. And
even then, we'd have to man-rate it if we wanted to use it to replace the
shuttle. More time and tests.
Michael Gallagher
>says...
>
>>>So what's your point? You were arguing for a reusable
>>>vehicle, I pointed out that it is really "refurbishable", and
>>>you seem to have shifted to arguing about ground support ...
>
>>Who do you think does the refurbishing? GROUND SUPPORT. And all those
>>people have to be paid. So the more people in ground support, the more
>>it costs. Reduce the size/complexity of ground support, and your
>>re*****able vehicle costs less.
>
>If the vehicle has to be refurbished, you *can't* reduce the size of the
>ground support. Someone has to do the work. Low ground-support costs are
>the result of good design, not vice versa.
>
So it's just a question of coming up with a design that requires less
ground support. I don't see this as a showstopper. What's your point?
Brian S. Thorn
In article <4mlc2o$8...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
doyle@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE says...
>Also the US has invaded the soviet union but they have never invaded us.
Um. Can someone fill me in? When did this happen?
-Brian
--
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth." -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Oleg Zabluda
Brian S. Thorn (bth...@usa.net) wrote:
: >Also the US has invaded the soviet union but they have never invaded us.
:
: Um. Can someone fill me in? When did this happen?
Right after the Great October Socialist Revolution several coutries
which formed a military group called ANTANTA invaded Russia
(Soviet Union was formed later) to restore legal government. US was among
them. I wish they succeded.
Oleg.
Frank Crary
In article <4mlc2o$8...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
<doyle@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE> wrote:
>> : The soviet army of 1979 could not and did not have the military power
>> : to take afghanistan and pacify it, even in the four years where the
>> : US was not sending arms and aid to the afghans.
>> : So they lost afghanistan, they are losing chechnya, now they are
>> : supposed to get wise ideas about attacking on 12 fronts?
>> Why Americans were so afraid of Russians then?
>They had lots of nukes.
Of course, the Russians still have lots of nukes (fewer
than the Soviet Union once had, but still quite enough
for the purpose.) So this raises the question of why we
aren't currently as afraid of the Russians, assuming
the possession of lots of nuclear weapons is the issue.
>I do think that we were overly concerned with there desire to spread
>there ideology through military force. The russian took control over
>the contries surrounding them right after WW2...
On the other hand, after 1948 or so, the general opinion
was that this was a mistake, and we should have been
_very_ concerned. For half a century after that,
"containment" was a major issue in American foreign
policy, and we did fight wars, or support wars, to
prevent the "spread [of their] ideology by military force."
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
doyle@problem_with_inews_gateway_file
> doyle@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE says...
> >Also the US has invaded the soviet union but they have never invaded us.
> Um. Can someone fill me in? When did this happen?
I believe it was something like 1920.
> -Brian
Karen
Frank Crary
In article <4mm7it$o...@dodgson.math.psu.edu>,
Oleg Zabluda <zab...@math.psu.edu> wrote:
>: >Also the US has invaded the soviet union but they have never invaded us.
>: Um. Can someone fill me in? When did this happen?
>Right after the Great October Socialist Revolution several coutries
>which formed a military group called ANTANTA invaded Russia
>(Soviet Union was formed later) to restore legal government. US was among
>them.
True, but it was a very half-harted effort, and might not technically
be considered an invasion. That is, I'm not sure if the territories
invaded were under the control of the revolutionary government
(which didn't gain control of the whole Soviet Union until the
end of the civil war, in, what, 1921?) For all I know, the
goal of the "invasion" might have been to secure the territory
and keep the revolutionary government from controlling it,
in the hopes that this would assist a counter-revolution.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Rand Simberg
In <4mlvf9$q...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com> MMF...@prodigy.com (Michael
Gallagher) writes:
>even then, we'd have to man-rate it if we wanted to use it to replace
>the shuttle. More time and tests.
What does "man-rate it" mean? Remember that Shuttle is not man rated,
by NASA's own criteria.
--
************************************************************************
sim...@interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1391 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
NASA's role is not to send someone to Mars--it's to make it possible for
the National Geographic Society to send someone to Mars...
Michael Gallagher
>gl...@mrbig.rockwell.com says...
>
>>Wonderful idea. Ditch the station and let the Russians sell us time
>
cooperate
Actually, that's the reason Clinton (eventually) supported it, and ...
> ... If the Russians pull it ...
.. Bubba will have (more) egg on his face.
>
>>Then maybe we can get serious about re-building the native US
>>aerospace industry, and letting US industry build those elements
>>of the station that SHOULD have been ours all along.
>
>In other words, you want more government contracts for rockwell.com.
>
IOW, we can stop ceeding parts of the aerospace industry to other nations.
Pat
In article <4mlvhr$13...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
>>If the vehicle has to be refurbished, you *can't* reduce the size of the
>
>>ground support. Someone has to do the work. Low ground-support costs are
>
>>the result of good design, not vice versa.
>>
>So it's just a question of coming up with a design that requires less
>ground support. I don't see this as a showstopper. What's your point?
A TSTO requires in it's very nature more ground support then a SSTO.
Now what you are saying is that an SSTO is likely to be worse in design
then a TSTO enough to overcome this hump.
Pat
In article <4ml91p$e...@news.uwsuper.edu>,
Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com> wrote:
>p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
>It wouldn't pay to underestimate the Russian's ability to fight or
>their tenacity, ask some of their many opponents, like Boniparte and
>Hitler.
>
>
>Tom Abbott
Or the kaiser, the japanese or the chinese.
Chuck Buckley
In article <4mma79$4...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
<doyle@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE> wrote:
>Brian S. Thorn (bth...@usa.net) wrote:
>> In article <4mlc2o$8...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
>> doyle@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE says...
>
>
>> Um. Can someone fill me in? When did this happen?
>
>
>> -Brian
>
>Karen
>
The US and a few other countries invaded the USSR in 1919 siezing the
ports controlling access to the White Sea. The mainly siezed Archangel (not
sure of russian spelling). It gave the White Russian army a secure line
of supply for about 5 years. It was a halfhearted gesture, to say the
least.
Charles Buckley
Pat
In article <4mlvf9$q...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
>
>>says...
>>
>>>The thing is, the VTVL SSTO we could be flying in 2001 would be
>>>experiemental; it'd be a few more years before we had an operational
>>>version. I'd say 2010 before you could tak about a mnned version.
>>
>>Another baseless assertion. It didn't take nine years to certify the 777
>
>>for manned flight ...
>
>The 777 is not a radical departure from other planes that came before it!
> It doesn't stray from the basic desing airplanes have had for decades.
>Developing a VTVL SSTO IS a big departure from what we have done before.
I usggest you look into the history of aircraft, a bit more mike before
making these assertions.
The 707 was a fairly radical departure from prior aircraft.
The DC-3 was a Radical departure from prior aircraft,
The helicopter was a RADICAL departure from prior aircraft
The SUpersonic AIRCRAFT was a radical departure.
I note the X-1 lead quite rapidly to supersonic fighters and
the Concorde did not take 9 years to flight certify.
A basic certification regime requires abou; 1,000 hours of flight,
a minimum of 400 missions and two destrcutive test vehicles...
>>>That's why I see it for the long term, and something like a TSTO
>>>VTHL for the near term.
>>
>>Which requires us to believe that you can somehow build and flight-test
>
>>two vehicles more quickly than you can build and flight-test one. 2x2=1?
>
>>
>As I said, a TSTO would not be a big departure, since it would be another
>multi-stage vehicle. The difference being both stages would be reusable.
And the difference being the cost of operations would be twice as high
and the Cost of construction would be twice as high.
DDTE scales to parts count not dry mass.
> An SSTO vehicle requires a bit more basic research, since its dry weight
>has to be light enough to make it to orbit in one stage and not fold
>under the slightest load. And VL systems are only just being tested. So
BASIC Research? I think you confuse Developement with Research.
An SSTO doesn't need Unobtainuim, it needs Varefully designed structures.
The materials are there, it's just no-one has actually built and
flight tested the particular configurations.
>SSTO is a big enough job to require longer time frames to develop. And
>even then, we'd have to man-rate it if we wanted to use it to replace the
>shuttle. More time and tests.
Jesus, joseph and Mary, we would never want to man-rate an SSTO RLV
if we wanted it to work, we'd want to flight certify it.
Man rating means it blows up 1% of the time, flight certifying means
it blows up 1:1EE6.
Cathy Mancus
Pat wrote:
> The DC-3 was a Radical departure from prior aircraft,
Really? In what way was the DC-3 a radical departure
from the Boeing 247? Some history books paint the DC-3 as
being the first major breakaway from the trimotor mindsent, but
it isn't so.
--Cathy
k.h.go...@larc.nasa.gov
In article <4mo0gn$i...@clarknet.clark.net>, p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
>
...
> >
> >The 777 is not a radical departure from other planes that came before it!
> > It doesn't stray from the basic desing airplanes have had for decades.
> >Developing a VTVL SSTO IS a big departure from what we have done before.
>
> I usggest you look into the history of aircraft, a bit more mike before
> making these assertions.
>
> The 707 was a fairly radical departure from prior aircraft.
Compared to the B-47 and B-52?
>
> The DC-3 was a Radical departure from prior aircraft,
Compared to the DC-2 and Boeing 247?
Ken Goodrich
William J. Keaton
In article <4m3d73$2a...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com> MMF...@prodigy.com (Michael Gallagher) writes:
>
>Example: the shuttle's computers. By the time it first flew in 1981, we
>already had desktops more powerful than what we had on the shuttle! (I
>know NASA has addressed this, but not sure what.) a "Shuttle 2" would
>proceed from the kind of hardware we have today (though I would hope NASA
>would not have Windows '95 onboard :) ), and that might allow us to
>transfer even more of the ground control functions to the vehicle, saving
>money in ground support.
>
is a red herring, and you should know it! Power isn't everything, suitability
to the task is more important in this case. The Shuttle's onboard computers
run specialized programs, designed to do one thing: fly and land the Shuttle.
The fact that they are not Pentium Pro's is really irrelavent, don't you
think? Besides, if they need real computing power on orbit, they do the
sensible thing: take PowerBooks! <g>
********************************************************************************
* WJaKe - William J. Keaton wj...@voa.gov *
* VOA - The Voice of America VDJ...@prodigy.com *
* Opinions - Mine Only http://pages.prodigy.com/VA/wjake/home.html *
********************************************************************************
Greg d. Moore
Oleg Zabluda wrote:
>
> Pat (p...@clark.net) wrote:
> : The soviet army of 1979 could not and did not have the military power
> : to take afghanistan and pacify it, even in the four years where the
> : US was not sending arms and aid to the afghans.
> :
> : So they lost afghanistan, they are losing chechnya, now they are
> : supposed to get wise ideas about attacking on 12 fronts?
> :
>
> Why Americans were so afraid of Russians then?
>
In one word, NUKES.
> I beg to differ. Soviet Union had and has enough power to do
> anything they wanted in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Except
> for one thing. To win a guerilla war. Actually no other
> country learned how to do it either.
>
> US-Vietnam.
> Israel-Lebanon.
> Britain-IRA.
>
> Do I have to say more?
>
> Oleg.
--
---
str...@acm.rpi.edu |http://acm.rpi.edu/~strider
Green Mountain Software |
I do not speak for anyone in any way.
Filip De Vos
Pat (p...@clark.net) wrote:
: In article <4mlvf9$q...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
: I usggest you look into the history of aircraft, a bit more mike before
: making these assertions.
: The 707 was a fairly radical departure from prior aircraft.
Well, maybe for a civilian craft. If you count Boeing's expertise with
swept-wing aircraft with podded jets (B-47, B-52), it is less than 'a
fairly radical departure from prior aircraft'. An evolution from state of
the art, yes.
A better example would have been the Heinkel He-187, Germany's first Jet
fighter. For passenger jets: the De Havilland Comet.
: The DC-3 was a Radical departure from prior aircraft,
Now come on. It was not radical compared with the DC-2, or even the
Boeing 247.
: The helicopter was a RADICAL departure from prior aircraft
Right. More rad planes: de la Cierva's first autogiro. And the Magnus
flying ball.
: The SUpersonic AIRCRAFT was a radical departure.
: I note the X-1 lead quite rapidly to supersonic fighters and
: the Concorde did not take 9 years to flight certify.
: A basic certification regime requires abou; 1,000 hours of flight,
: a minimum of 400 missions and two destrcutive test vehicles...
:-) So the Jumbo Jet was not properly flight tested :-) I guess the
Airbus A-330 is halfway there :-(
[snip]
: DDTE scales to parts count not dry mass.
[]
: BASIC Research? I think you confuse Developement with Research.
: An SSTO doesn't need Unobtainuim, it needs Varefully designed structures.
: The materials are there, it's just no-one has actually built and
: flight tested the particular configurations.
Indeed it does not need research, it only needs a desision, commitment and
dollars. If a Pres. Kennedy now said 'we need an SSTO', then we would
get one.
: >SSTO is a big enough job to require longer time frames to develop. And
: >even then, we'd have to man-rate it if we wanted to use it to replace the
: >shuttle. More time and tests.
: Jesus, joseph and Mary, we would never want to man-rate an SSTO RLV
: if we wanted it to work, we'd want to flight certify it.
: Man rating means it blows up 1% of the time, flight certifying means
: it blows up 1:1EE6.
Right, right, right. Manrating is for ammunition (rockets). A Jumbo-Jet
is not man-rated, never will be.
It seems that the thrue advantages of the introduction of SSTO's have not
yet been accepted by some (or not well thought out).
--
Filip De Vos Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE*
FilipP...@rug.ac.be -Cathy Mancus-
John Schilling
fcr...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <4mm7it$o...@dodgson.math.psu.edu>,
>Oleg Zabluda <zab...@math.psu.edu> wrote:
>>: >Also the US has invaded the soviet union but they have never invaded us.
>
>>: Um. Can someone fill me in? When did this happen?
>>Right after the Great October Socialist Revolution several coutries
>>which formed a military group called ANTANTA invaded Russia
>>(Soviet Union was formed later) to restore legal government. US was among
>>them.
>True, but it was a very half-harted effort, and might not technically
>be considered an invasion. That is, I'm not sure if the territories
>invaded were under the control of the revolutionary government
>(which didn't gain control of the whole Soviet Union until the
>end of the civil war, in, what, 1921?) For all I know, the
>goal of the "invasion" might have been to secure the territory
>and keep the revolutionary government from controlling it,
>in the hopes that this would assist a counter-revolution.
Essentially correct. American involvement in the Russian Civil War
was limited to the occupation of the ports of Murmansk and Vladivostok,
and the immediately surrounding areas.
In the case of Murmansk, the stated reason was to retrieve munitions
which had been shipped to Russia back when they were fighting with the
western allies in WWI, and which we didn't want winding up in the wrong
hands now that they had opted out of the Great War in favor of their own
Civil War. Vladivostok was occupied to secure the evacuation of the
Czechoslovakian Free Legion, a group of 70,000 Czech and Slovak POWs from
WWI who had found themselves trapped in Russia by the outbreak of the
civil war, and who had been fighting on the White (anti-communist) side.
In both cases, the territory occupied was under control of the Whites at
the time of occupation, and in both cases one of the major effects of the
occupation was to remove major military assets which would likely otherwise
be used *against* the communists. As a secondary effect, the Whites did
get two ports secured by outside forces, but for the subsequent USSR to
consider this an "invasion" of their territory is a bit ridiculous.
--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
*(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527 * Finger for PGP public key *
Edward V. Wright
In article <4mohgk$a...@infoserv.rug.ac.be>, fid...@eduserv2.rug.ac.be
says...
>: The 707 was a fairly radical departure from prior aircraft.
>
>Well, maybe for a civilian craft. If you count Boeing's expertise with
>swept-wing aircraft with podded jets (B-47, B-52), it is less than 'a
>fairly radical departure from prior aircraft'. An evolution from state
>of the art, yes.
*Today* the 707 is nothing more than "en evolution from the state of the
art." At the time it was built, critics said the same things they're
saying about SSTO today. There is nothing more mundane than a 90-day
wonder on the 91st day.
Edward V. Wright
In article <4mlvhr$13...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, MMF...@prodigy.com
says...
>>If the vehicle has to be refurbished, you *can't* reduce the size
>>of the ground support. Someone has to do the work. Low ground-support
>>costs are the result of good design, not vice versa.
>So it's just a question of coming up with a design that requires less
>ground support. I don't see this as a showstopper. What's your point?
The point, Michael, is that you are utterly unwilling to consider designs
that do that. The two-stage design -- which you yourself call
"refurbishable" -- cannot have low ground-support costs because
refurbishable vehicles need to be *refurbished*. An SSTO needs to be
refueled and vacuumed out after each flight. A TSTO needs to be
*reassembled*. In the best case, that is an order of magnitude greater
effort. (The way we handle stages today, it is at least two orders of
magnitude.)
Pat
In article <4mncjm$20...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
>>gl...@mrbig.rockwell.com says...
>>
>>>Wonderful idea. Ditch the station and let the Russians sell us time
>>>on the Mir. In June, when they re-elect the Soviets to power, this
>>>might not look like such a fine idea.
>>
>>Why not? The Space Station has only one identified mission: to
>cooperate
>>with the Russians ...
>
>Actually, that's the reason Clinton (eventually) supported it, and ...
And that is the reason the congress supported it.
>> ... If the Russians pull it ...
>
>.. Bubba will have (more) egg on his face.
While everyone hates the CinC, let's not forget that now twice a
GOP congress has bypassed quite a few opportunities to dump the
ISSA.
If it was that stupid a concept, wouldn't Newt have killed it by now?
>>
>>>Then maybe we can get serious about re-building the native US
>>>aerospace industry, and letting US industry build those elements
>>>of the station that SHOULD have been ours all along.
>>
>>In other words, you want more government contracts for rockwell.com.
>>
>IOW, we can stop ceeding parts of the aerospace industry to other nations.
Nice comfort for all those un-employed auto workers.
Chuck Buckley
In article <4mo0gn$i...@clarknet.clark.net>, Pat <p...@clark.net> wrote:
>In article <4mlvf9$q...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,>>>In article <4me2ft$15...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, MMF...@prodigy.com
>>
>>>says...
snip
>
>I usggest you look into the history of aircraft, a bit more mike before
>making these assertions.
>
>
>
Not really. It was an end product for a 15-20 development cycle. Everybody
was developing a similar aircraft at that time (except Ford and Fokker). All
metal skin had been a goal for a long period of time.
>The helicopter was a RADICAL departure from prior aircraft
>
Ever seen an autogyro? Many of the "radical" aspects were stolen from
the autogyro for use in developing the helicopter.
>The SUpersonic AIRCRAFT was a radical departure.
In what way? Supersonic items were well known to scientist prior to the X-1.
>I note the X-1 lead quite rapidly to supersonic fighters and
Ask yourself how many hours went into that. The X-1 was rapidly followed by
many other designs - all in the supersonic regime.
Charles Buckley
Edward V. Wright
In article <4mlvf9$q...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, MMF...@prodigy.com
says...
>The 777 is not a radical departure from other planes that came
>before it! It doesn't stray from the basic desing airplanes have had
>for decades. Developing a VTVL SSTO IS a big departure from what we
>have done before.
Nonsense. The major difference between an SSTO and a TSTO is that SSTO
removes one failure mode! On top of that, an SSTO can be turned around
much more rapidly than a TSTO and can fly much more often. This means
that the flight-test program can be completed in a shorter period of time.
So, there is no basis for your claim that an SSTO will require nine years
of flight test.
Gary Hudson estimates that Roton would require three years to develop --
one year for detailed design, one year for construction, one year for
flight test.
>>Which requires us to believe that you can somehow build and flight-test
>>two vehicles more quickly than you can build and flight-test one. 2x2=1?
>As I said, a TSTO would not be a big departure, since it would be another
>multi-stage vehicle.
Again, when it comes to reliability, staging buys you nothing but another
failure mode. From a flight-test point of view, it is the two-stage vehicle
that poses the greater risk.
You've sidestepped my question as to how you can build two vehicles more
quickly and easily than you can build one. Does 2x2=1?
> An SSTO vehicle requires a bit more basic research, since its dry weight
>has to be light enough to make it to orbit in one stage and not fold
>under the slightest load.
No. It requires zero research. None. Nada. We've done the research. We
built stages for Apollo that achieved the sorts of dry weight necessary for
SSTO. All we have to do now is *use* the research.
>And VL systems are only just being tested.
This implies that vertical landing is the only option for SSTO. It isn't,
as demonstrated by two of the three X-33 designs, which are horizontal
landers. There is nothing about TSTO that makes it easier to land, either
horizontally or vertically, than SSTO. In fact, logic says that it's harder
to land, because you have twice as many landings per flight.
Secondly, vertical landing is much more thoroughly tested than you imply.
Aside from helicopters, there is experience with the lunar module, the
lunar-module trainer, and the Bell rocket belt and its successors -- which
have made thousands of successful vertical landings since the 1960's. If
you're going to discount all of this experience, then you're also going to
have to discount all experience with horizontal landings that don't involve
hypersonic gliders.
>So SSTO is a big enough job to require longer time frames to develop.
TSTO is two big enough jobs. It involves the development of twice as many
vehicles, twice as many landings, twice as many opportunities to screw up
on landing, greater maintenance requirements, more opportunities for
maintenance screwups, and the possibility of a staging failure that does
not exist in SSTO.
>And even then, we'd have to man-rate it if we wanted to use it to
>replace the shuttle. More time and tests.
No, we won't. Even NASA says that the Reuseable Launch Vehicle won't be
man-rated. "Man-rating" is a quality-control procedure that applies to
expendable ammunition, not to spaceships. It does not significantly improve
safety; it merely multiplies the paperwork. Furthermore, if you were silly
enough to apply man-rating procedures to a spaceship, you would still be
better off with SSTO, because you would have half as many stages to man
rate!
Edward V. Wright
In article <4mom0k$8...@clarknet.clark.net>, p...@clark.net says...
>While everyone hates the CinC, let's not forget that now twice a
>GOP congress has bypassed quite a few opportunities to dump the
>ISSA.
>
>If it was that stupid a concept, wouldn't Newt have killed it by now?
That all depends on how many NASA/contractor employees/voters he's
willing to tick off. Besides, I didn't say the space station was "a
stupid concept," I said its only defined mission was to cooperate with
the Russians -- and you haven't identified any other mission to refute
that.
Michael Gallagher
p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
>
>In article <4mncjm$20...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,>>> ... Why not? The Space Station has only one identified mission: to
>>cooperate
>>
>>Actually, that's the reason Clinton (eventually) supported it, and ...
>
>And that is the reason the congress supported it.
>
Not wholeheartedly. The redesigned space station was approved in the
House by ONE VOTE in 1993. And Republicans were never very comfortable
bringing the Russians into it. They have supported it so far, but
grudgingly. If the project falls apart because of a Russian pullout,
it's not hard to imagine Newt & co. blaming Clinton for it because he
brought the Russians onboard in the first place! Hence, egg on his face.
Michael Gallagher
p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
>
>In article <4mlvhr$13...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
the
>>
>>>ground support. Someone has to do the work. Low ground-support costs
are
>>
>>>the result of good design, not vice versa.
>>>
>>So it's just a question of coming up with a design that requires less
>>ground support. I don't see this as a showstopper. What's your point?
>
>A TSTO requires in it's very nature more ground support then a SSTO.
On paper. We have yet to actually operate one. It may be that the
airline-like operations SSTO backers like won't come with the first
generation vehcile.
>Now what you are saying is that an SSTO is likely to be worse in design
>then a TSTO enough to overcome this hump.
>
No; I'm saying that we could reduce the ground support requirements of a
TSTO enough to make the costs of developing and operating one to
compliment and/or replace the Shuttle palatable. And while operating the
TSTO, we could proceed with developing the SSTO.
I don't think the SSTO is a bad idea; but I don't think it will be a
quick and easy job, either.
Michael Gallagher
I split my response to Pat's article because Prodigy gets kind of funny
when there's a lot of quoting. Better safe than sorry.
p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
>
>In article <4mncjm$20...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
>Michael Gallagher <MMF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>>edwr...@microsoft.com (Edward V. Wright) wrote:
>>>
>>>In article <1996May1.2...@nb.rockwell.com>,
>>>gl...@mrbig.rockwell.com says...
>>>
>>>>Then maybe we can get serious about re-building the native US
>>>>aerospace industry, and letting US industry build those elements
>>>>of the station that SHOULD have been ours all along.
>>>
>>>In other words, you want more government contracts for rockwell.com.
>>>
>>IOW, we can stop ceeding parts of the aerospace industry to other
nations.
>
>Nice comfort for all those un-employed auto workers.
>
Like the ones unemployed in building the Neon, which is making inroads
into the under $10,000 market? Or Saturn? Or any of the other cars
Detroit's turning out that competete with the Japanese? The US auto
industry seems to be doing fine, thanks. ANALOGY: Invalid.
Michael Gallagher
>says...
>
>>>If the vehicle has to be refurbished, you *can't* reduce the size
>>>of the ground support. Someone has to do the work. Low ground-support
>>>costs are the result of good design, not vice versa.
>
>>So it's just a question of coming up with a design that requires less
>>ground support. I don't see this as a showstopper. What's your point?
>
>
>The point, Michael, is that you are utterly unwilling to consider
designs
>that do that ...
No, I'm considering them. I just don't believe they can come online as
quickly as their proponents say they can. There's a lot of R&D and
testing that has to be done, and you might be underestimating how much
work that is.
> ... An SSTO needs to be
>refueled and vacuumed out after each flight ...
*On paper!* We've never flown one. An operational SSTO might take more
ground time than you think. Remember, the Shuttle looked good on paper,
too.
I don't think the SSTO is a bad idea, but I do think it won't be as quick
and easy to develop as you think.
Michael Gallagher
p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
>
>In article <4mlvf9$q...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,>>>In article <4me2ft$15...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, MMFF37A@prodigy.
com
>>
>>>says...
>>>
>>>>The thing is, the VTVL SSTO we could be flying in 2001 would be
>>>>experiemental; it'd be a few more years before we had an operational
>>>>version. I'd say 2010 before you could tak about a mnned version.
>>>
>>>Another baseless assertion. It didn't take nine years to certify the
777
>>
>>>for manned flight ...
>>
>>The 777 is not a radical departure from other planes that came before
it!
>> It doesn't stray from the basic desing airplanes have had for decades.
>>Developing a VTVL SSTO IS a big departure from what we have done before.
>
>I usggest you look into the history of aircraft, a bit more mike
before
>making these assertions.
>
I did. When I siad, "big departure," I was referring to a departure from
the basic design of a heavier-tha air winged HTHL vehicle. We may have
gone from two wings to one, and developed various engines, but the basic
idea of developing lift from fixed wings, taking off from a runway, and
landing on a runway haven't changed much.
Helos aren't that big a departure because they grew from autogiros. And
the basic helo desing hasn't changed in decades.
VTVL SSTO would be a departure because (a) we'd be acheiving orbit in one
stage, and (b) we'd land vertically under rocket power. DC-X(A)
addresses (b) but it hasn't been put together with (a) yet.
All I'm saying is, there's a lot of work that has to be done before an
operational SSTO -- no matter how it lands -- is readfy to go. CERTAINLY
a while before we have a manned one going. What's wrong with that?
Michael Gallagher
sim...@ix.netcom.com(Rand Simberg) wrote:
>
>In <4mlvf9$q...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com> MMF...@prodigy.com (Michael
>Gallagher) writes:
>
>>the shuttle. More time and tests.
>
>by NASA's own criteria.
>--
working with it for a few years, we will begin developing a manned SSTO
to replace/compliment the shuttle. So there will be a lag between X-33
and its manned cousin, which will itself require a few years to develop.
Basically -- again -- SSTO is a good idea, but its a big job.
Pat
In article <4moqjp$24...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
Michael Gallagher <MMF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>>>IOW, we can stop ceeding parts of the aerospace industry to other
>nations.
>>
>>Nice comfort for all those un-employed auto workers.
>>
>Like the ones unemployed in building the Neon, which is making inroads
>into the under $10,000 market? Or Saturn? Or any of the other cars
>Detroit's turning out that competete with the Japanese? The US auto
>industry seems to be doing fine, thanks. ANALOGY: Invalid.
I suggest you try taking a road trip to Detroit and saying this Loudly.
Wander a bit of America and you'll be rudely surprised.
doyle@problem_with_inews_gateway_file
Edward V. Wright (edwr...@microsoft.com) wrote:
> In article <4mom0k$8...@clarknet.clark.net>, p...@clark.net says...
> >While everyone hates the CinC, let's not forget that now twice a
> >GOP congress has bypassed quite a few opportunities to dump the
> >ISSA.
> >
> >If it was that stupid a concept, wouldn't Newt have killed it by now?
It is a stupid concept which billions of dollars had already been
spent. If Newt, who wants to see space development, killed the
station it would have been seen as money down the drain and would
be hard to propose and fund something else.
> That all depends on how many NASA/contractor employees/voters he's
> willing to tick off. Besides, I didn't say the space station was "a
> stupid concept," I said its only defined mission was to cooperate with
> the Russians -- and you haven't identified any other mission to refute
> that.
Right now this mission is worth billions to the government since
they want to keep all the highly educated russian scientist and
engineers paid so they do not move to terrorist nations to build
weapons.
> --
> The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
> and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
Karen
Michael Gallagher
p...@clark.net (Pat) wrote:
>
>In article <4moqjp$24...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
>Michael Gallagher <MMF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>
>>>>IOW, we can stop ceeding parts of the aerospace industry to other
>>nations.
>>>
>>>Nice comfort for all those un-employed auto workers.
>>>
>>Like the ones unemployed in building the Neon, which is making inroads
>>into the under $10,000 market? Or Saturn? Or any of the other cars
>>Detroit's turning out that competete with the Japanese? The US auto
>>industry seems to be doing fine, thanks. ANALOGY: Invalid.
>
>I suggest you try taking a road trip to Detroit and saying this Loudly.
>
I suggest you do some rereading; in the not to distant past, several
publications praised American makes for getting up to the Japanese
standard.
>Wander a bit of America and you'll be rudely surprised.
>
I wandered down to Nashville for the Saturn homecoming; the plan there is
far from idle. The only rude surprise was the severe thunderstorm; yes,
it was a bad as it looked! I had a tent's-eye-view.
Michael Gallagher
>says...
>
>>The 777 is not a radical departure from other planes that came
>>before it! It doesn't stray from the basic desing airplanes have had
>>for decades. Developing a VTVL SSTO IS a big departure from what we
>>have done before.
>
>removes one failure mode! On top of that, an SSTO can be turned around
>much more rapidly than a TSTO and can fly much more often. This means
>that the flight-test program can be completed in a shorter period of
time.
>
*On paper!* We have yet to actually operate one. It may turn out that
the airline-like operations won't appear with the first generation model,
certainly not the prototype.
>
>Gary Hudson estimates ....
^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's the key word. You can ESTIMATE what an SSTO could do, but you can
estimate wrong.
>
>Again, when it comes to reliability, staging buys you nothing but
another
>failure mode. From a flight-test point of view, it is the two-stage
vehicle
>that poses the greater risk.
>
>You've sidestepped my question as to how you can build two vehicles more
>quickly and easily than you can build one. Does 2x2=1?
>
We've built two-stage vehicles and know what's involved. An SSTO is
unknown. So for the near term, TSTO would be easier. SSTO is for the
long term, and can be devloped while the TSTO is operational.
Edward V. Wright
In article <4morce$24...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, MMF...@prodigy.com
says...
>No; I'm saying that we could reduce the ground support requirements of a
>TSTO enough to make the costs of developing and operating one to
>compliment and/or replace the Shuttle palatable.
The Shuttle is currently the high-cost launch vehicle. Saying that your
design could be made cheap enough to replace the Space Shuttle is to
admit that it would be hideously expensive to operate.
Edward V. Wright
In article <4morod$24...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, MMF...@prodigy.com
says...
>VTVL SSTO would be a departure because (a) we'd be acheiving orbit
>in one stage,
This is a "big departure"? John Glenn made it into orbit with one stage
(and a little sustainer engine) 30 years ago.
Every journey looks like a big departure to those who are too timid to
take the first step.
Edward V. Wright
In article <4morto$14...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, MMF...@prodigy.com
says...
>The way I see it, we'll devleop X-33, and that will be unmanned. After
>working with it for a few years, we will begin developing a manned SSTO
>to replace/compliment the shuttle.
No, no, no, no, no! We are not going to develop an SSTO to replace the
Shuttle. We are not going to develop a TSTO to replace the Shuttle. We
are not going to develop a 12-STO to replace the Shuttle. *Nothing* is
going to replace the Shuttle. Nothing *should* replace the Shuttle.
>So there will be a lag between X-33
>and its manned cousin, which will itself require a few years to develop.
Unless someone like Gary Hudson gets there first (and he could get there
even before X-33 does).
Edward V. Wright
In article <4moqss$11...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, MMF...@prodigy.com
says...
>No, I'm considering them. I just don't believe they can come online as
>quickly as their proponents say they can. There's a lot of R&D and
>testing that has to be done, and you might be underestimating how much
>work that is.
SSTO requires development and testing of one new vehicle.
TSTO requires development and testing of two new vehicles, plus staging.
2X+Y is certainly greater than X, in my judgement.
>> ... An SSTO needs to be
>>refueled and vacuumed out after each flight ...
>*On paper!* We've never flown one. An operational SSTO might take
>more ground time than you think.
If you don't design a vehicle with components that need regular
maintenance after each flight, it won't need regular maintenance after
each flight. (Unless, of course, you're silly enough to design a vehicle
that comes apart and has to be reassembled.) It's hard to address such
vague generalities. Specifically, which components do you believe will
require more ground time? And how will a two-stage vehicle, which will
have twice as many components, reduce it any?
>Remember, the Shuttle looked good on paper, too.
And Shuttle II is the refurbishable TSTO you are describing! Surely we
can learn from past mistakes, can't we?
Jacob M McGuire
Excerpts from netnews.sci.space.policy: 8-May-96 Re: Shuttle II: Why
it's a.. by Edward V. Wright@microso
> TSTO requires development and testing of two new vehicles, plus staging.
>
> 2X+Y is certainly greater than X, in my judgement.
SSTO requires development and testing of one new vehicle.
TSTO requires development and testing of two new vehicles, plus staging.
2X + Y may or may not be greater than Z, depending on lots of things.
Michael Gallagher
>says...
>
>>VTVL SSTO would be a departure because (a) we'd be acheiving orbit
>>in one stage,
>
>This is a "big departure"? John Glenn made it into orbit with one stage
>(and a little sustainer engine) 30 years ago.
>
*cough* (1) The Atlas flight still involved staging, ie paralell staging.
They just didn't drop any fuel tanks. (2) Glen's capsule separated
from the Atlas and reentered on its own after three orbits and splashed
down; the entire Atlas-Mercury stack did not reenter together and land on
the pad it had launched from!
>Every journey looks like a big departure to those who are too timid to
>take the first step.
>
I'll remember that the next time I fly to England.
Michael Gallagher
>says...
>
>>The way I see it, we'll devleop X-33, and that will be unmanned. After
>>working with it for a few years, we will begin developing a manned SSTO
>>to replace/compliment the shuttle.
>
>No, no, no, no, no! We are not going to develop an SSTO to replace the
>Shuttle. We are not going to develop a TSTO to replace the Shuttle. We
>are not going to develop a 12-STO to replace the Shuttle. *Nothing* is
>going to replace the Shuttle. Nothing *should* replace the Shuttle.
>
I guess I have to bring you up to speed: the whole discussion got going
about a week ago over what to do in the event of losing another orbiter,
and I proposed a "better, faster, cheaper," TSTO as an alternative if
building a new orbiter is not an option. So I've tried to keep that in
my thinking, how to hedge against losing an orbiter, and why I bring up
replacing/complimenting the shuttle. Since I mentioned TSTO, Cathy
mancus jumped in and thought a VTVL SSTO would fit the bill, but I am not
sure if an SSTO would be ready quickly enough. So the real question is
(in my mind), which is a better hedge against losing an orbiter, TSTO or
SSTO? Which could be ready to go reasonably quickly, and satisfy our
needs for getting cargo AND personel into orbit and back? All academic,
of course, but that's the question I've tried to focus on. Does that
clear things up?
Michael Gallagher
>says...
>
>>We've built two-stage vehicles and know what's involved. An SSTO is
>>unknown. So for the near term, TSTO would be easier. SSTO is for the
>>long term, and can be devloped while the TSTO is operational.
>
>No, a single-stage vehicle is not unknown. The Atlas that put John Glenn
>into orbit was nearly a single-stage vehicle ...
^^^^^^^
Key word: NEARLY. It wasn't REALLY. And the variants that followed it --
Atlas Able, Atlas Agena, Atlas A/F and Atlas Centaur weren't/aren't
REMOTELY.
> ... A two-stage vehicle is
>actually two single-stage vehicles, connected a staging system, often
>using complicated, dangerous systems such as explosive bolts.
>
Which we have several decades of familiarity with.
>The belief that multistage vehicles are easier to develop is just
another
>quaint technological superstition.
>
But we still have yet to actually DO it! And the job may still be a bit
bigger than you expect. I'm not saying its impossible. or undesireable.
JUST NOT EASY!
Ok?
Michael Gallagher
>says...
>
>>No; I'm saying that we could reduce the ground support requirements of
a
>>TSTO enough to make the costs of developing and operating one to
>>compliment and/or replace the Shuttle palatable.
>
>The Shuttle is currently the high-cost launch vehicle. Saying that your
>design could be made cheap enough to replace the Space Shuttle is to
>admit that it would be hideously expensive to operate.
>
Not necessarily. Part of the reason the shuttle is "hidesously
expensive" is because thousands of people work on it for weeks before
flight, and thousands more work on it after landing. They all have to be
paid. Reduce the size of ground support and it costs less. An
operational SSTO promises this, but we won't know by how much until we
fly it. A TSTO may not give QUITE as big a reduction, but it might be
ready to go sooner. Because the question this all started with is, which
is a better hedge against losing another orbiter?
Asidew from that, why don't we just agree to disagree, and consign each
other to kill files? Because this is getting nowhere.
Cathy Mancus
Michael Gallagher wrote:
> I guess I have to bring you up to speed: the whole discussion got going
> about a week ago over what to do in the event of losing another orbiter,
> and I proposed a "better, faster, cheaper," TSTO as an alternative if
> building a new orbiter is not an option. So I've tried to keep that in
> my thinking, how to hedge against losing an orbiter, and why I bring up
> replacing/complimenting the shuttle. Since I mentioned TSTO, Cathy
> sure if an SSTO would be ready quickly enough. So the real question is
> (in my mind), which is a better hedge against losing an orbiter, TSTO or
> SSTO? Which could be ready to go reasonably quickly, and satisfy our
> needs for getting cargo AND personel into orbit and back?
And the answer to *that* questin is neither; if you want to
get people into orbit quickly, an X-34/Soyuz type vehicle on top of
an expendable is clearly the quickest thing to develop. We just design
a new capsule and stick it on top of an existing booster. Cargo goes
up on expendables all the time. The capability to "get cargo...back
from orbit" is not really needed, and we could ignore it until
some flavor of reusable is ready. (And let's all remember that
RLV != SSTO; you can have SSTO w/out RLV and vice versa.)
--Cathy
Alan Anderson
In <4mrrs7$1g...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
MMF...@prodigy.com (Michael Gallagher) writes:
>*cough* (1) The Atlas flight still involved staging, ie paralell staging.
> They just didn't drop any fuel tanks.
With a slight improvement in thrust/weight ratio, they wouldn't have had
to drop any engines, either. Near-SSTO has certainly been demonstrated,
and incremental improvements that have also been demonstrated would have
made it true SSTO.
>(2) Glen's capsule separated
>from the Atlas and reentered on its own after three orbits and splashed
>down; the entire Atlas-Mercury stack did not reenter together and land on
>the pad it had launched from!
Please don't try to confuse the issue. SSTO and fully-reusable are not
the same thing.
>>Every journey looks like a big departure to those who are too timid to
>>take the first step.
>>
>I'll remember that the next time I fly to England.
Huh? Flights across the Atlantic Ocean not only are demonstrated, but are
commercially available. So are flights from California to Australia. The
*first* attempted transatlantic flights were extraordinarily risky, and if
the timid ones had prevailed, nobody would have tried it; thus nobody ever
would have succeeded. But the bold met the challenge, and today we can go
from New York to London by air without undue concern.
= === === === = = = === === === === = = === = = = === = = === =
# Alan Anderson # Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent. #
(I do not speak for Delco Electronics, and DE does not speak for me.)
Pat
In article <4moqkv$r...@news.microsoft.com>,
Edward V. Wright <edwr...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>In article <4mom0k$8...@clarknet.clark.net>, p...@clark.net says...
>
>>While everyone hates the CinC, let's not forget that now twice a
>>GOP congress has bypassed quite a few opportunities to dump the
>>ISSA.
>>
>>If it was that stupid a concept, wouldn't Newt have killed it by now?
>
>willing to tick off. Besides, I didn't say the space station was "a
>stupid concept," I said its only defined mission was to cooperate with
>the Russians -- and you haven't identified any other mission to refute
>that.
hey, i am not disputing your point. I've always supported the ISSA
as a foreign policy venture, in fact it's the only thing that bought
my support. it's science value is silly compared to the cost.
I just don't think foreign policy is a stupid thing.
neither does the congress or they would have killed the station.
Pat
In article <4moqcu$1u...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,>>In article <4mncjm$20...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
>>Michael Gallagher <MMF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>>>edwr...@microsoft.com (Edward V. Wright) wrote:
>>>>
>>>cooperate
>>>
>>>Actually, that's the reason Clinton (eventually) supported it, and ...
>
>>
>>And that is the reason the congress supported it.
>>
>Not wholeheartedly. The redesigned space station was approved in the
>House by ONE VOTE in 1993. And Republicans were never very comfortable
>bringing the Russians into it. They have supported it so far, but
>grudgingly. If the project falls apart because of a Russian pullout,
>it's not hard to imagine Newt & co. blaming Clinton for it because he
>brought the Russians onboard in the first place! Hence, egg on his face.
Please don't re-write history.
in 1993, a Democratic congress only barely supported ISSA by one vote.
Sometime after that, the russians were brought on board, later in 1994,
the GOP won the congress, and twice (TWICE) a GOP congress has
supported ISSA/R by much larger majorities.
So given Newt and Bob supported bringing the russians on board,
it is going to be hard to escape any blame.
pat