Shuttle replacement
Michael V. Kent
>I think it was a terrible mistake to offload all those payloads
>from the Shuttle in 1986-88. Of our unmanned boosters, only Delta seems to
>be operating reliably. It is my opinion that NASA should have continued
>using Shuttle for as many payloads as possible, while diverting as much
>booster development money as possible into NLS or some other unmanned
>launch system.
[Description of Titan IV problems deleted]
>Titan IV has flown 6 times since June, '89. STS has flown 22 missions in
>that time frame. Of course, STS is more expensive. But its already paid
>for, and all that money for Titan IV (not including Martin's Titan III
>program) has bought us little.
[more deleted]
>It seems to me
>that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best returns on
>investment in the space community!
I agree wholeheartedly with that last statement, but I still believe that
removing commercial and non-Shuttle-unique payloads from the Shuttle was a
good idea. As I explained in my previous post, the Shuttle is a very unique
and versatile vehicle. It has tremendous capabilities no other vehicle can
touch, but it can only fly eight times a year. In that situation, using it
to do things that can easily be done on other vehicles (e.g. launching spy
or commercial satellites) is a waste of a valuable resource. The Shuttle
should be used exclusively for missions like the Hubble revisit, the Intelsat
satellite rescue, Tethered Satellite System, International Microgravity Lab,
Wake Shield Facility, etc. There are no shortage of payloads to fly. NASA
has no flight opportunities and less than a half dozen payload opportunities
between now and the start of Space Station operations.
According to the mission control status briefings, the astronauts were working
12 to 16 hour days. Payload volume may not have been the active constraint
for STS-52.
Mike
--
Michael Kent ke...@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92 Apple II Forever !!
Matt J. Martin
>
>NASA will not set a date to end Shuttle missions until a replacement system
>is online, but current thinking is that the Shuttle will fly through 2005.
>The flight rate will remain at about 8 flights per year, maybe slightly
>lower. However with a reduced flight rate the per mission cost goes up. A
>Rockwell consultant stated that the orbiters will likely last far beyond
>their design lifetime of 100 flights each.
>
>There are currently two major ideas for the replacement.
>
>...
>
>The Shuttle is a very versatile, albeit expensive, system. It can launch
>satellites, retrieve them, ferry a crew and experiments to a space station,
>serve as a space station, serve as an orbital repair facility, and serve
>as a technology testbed. In order to replace it you need to replace all
>of these functions with newer (hopefully better and less expensive) systems.
>
>Since designing a new vehicle to perform all of these functions will create
>a vehicle with nearly the same qualities as the Shuttle, this path should
>be avoided as unlikely to reduce costs enough to justify its development
>cost. Gains can be more cheaply made by improving the current system
>instead of building a new one. However, each individual function can be
>performed at reduced cost, and newer systems should be designed to do just
>that. When all of the fuctions of the Shuttle have been off-loaded from
>it to other systems, the Shuttle will have been replaced. But not until then.
>
What about the SSTO DC-Y? It's my understanding that the DC-1 should be
able to do just about everything that the shuttle can do (with the possible
exeption of carry the SpaceLab). And a lot cheapter to boot.
##########################################################################
## / ## Progress Before Peace! ## / ##
## // ## Matt J. Martin, Technosociology and Space Politics ## // ##
## ///// ######################################################## ///// ##
## // ## Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN ## // ##
## / ## myem...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu ## / ##
##########################################################################
Allen W. Sherzer
>It seems to me that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best
>returns on investment in the space community!
Atlas and Delta are providing profits for the companies which build them.
That means they offer a return on investment.
How can the Shuttle possibly be said to offer ANY (much less the best) return
on investment? Shuttle has LOST billions.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------159 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Charles Behre
|> What about the SSTO DC-Y? It's my understanding that the DC-1 should be
|> able to do just about everything that the shuttle can do (with the possible
|> exeption of carry the SpaceLab). And a lot cheapter to boot.
|>
|>
|> ##########################################################################
|> ## / ## Progress Before Peace! ## / ##
|> ## // ## Matt J. Martin, Technosociology and Space Politics ## // ##
|> ## ///// ######################################################## ///// ##
|> ## // ## Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN ## // ##
|> ## / ## myem...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu ## / ##
|> ##########################################################################
|>
What level of success would the DCX testing program have to show to make it a
viable candidate? Does this program have the ability to fascinate congress and
Al Gore if it demonstrates what it intendend to do? On the other hand, would a
DCX program shifted to taking on the duties of a HL-20 be a disasterous
move in terms of the programs efficiency?
Also on a side note, the Nov 2 issue of Av Week reports that Pratt & Whitney has
finished testing the DCX's preproduction version of the RL10A-5 engines and will
begin shipping them by years end.
--Chip
Michael V. Kent
>
>|> What about the SSTO DC-Y? It's my understanding that the DC-1 should be
>|> able to do just about everything that the shuttle can do (with the possible
>|> exeption of carry the SpaceLab). And a lot cheapter to boot.
It will hopefully be able to perform crew transfer and small satellite launches
more reliably and for less money than the Shuttle or even expendables. I don't
see it replacing all of the Shuttle's functions, but it's a start.
>What level of success would the DCX testing program have to show to make it a
>viable candidate? Does this program have the ability to fascinate congress and
>Al Gore if it demonstrates what it intendend to do? On the other hand, would a
>DCX program shifted to taking on the duties of a HL-20 be a disasterous
>move in terms of the programs efficiency?
Crew transfer to the space station is already included in the standard view-
graph pitch. Whether the potential cost reductions and increased access to
space will excite Congress is a question I can't answer. NASP made a go of
it and failed, but DC is doing things a bit differently. The main point in
DC's favor is they are FLYING. Being able to show that the first $58 million
has already produced results should make funding for DCY easier to come by.
Of course with Congress, you never know.
Brian Stuart Thorn
As for Delta, absolutely, positively right. But I fail to see how depositing
two enormously expensive satellites in the Atlantic can be said to be
a profit for General Dynamics and the Atlas. One more misfire, and GD might
be relegated to government flights only (Ariane will make a killing).
Besides, you seem to have missed my point.
The Space Shuttle was already more-or-less paid for, so why not use it.
I was trying to say (got sidetracked, I must admit) that the U.S. should
have put its money into a new unmanned booster system, not tired old
designs like Titan and Atlas. In the meantime, we should have continued to
use Shuttle to launch as much as possible until an NLS-or-whatever came
online. It would be online by now, I think, if we hadn't taken the Titan IV
plunge.
-Brian
John DeVenezia
>
> In article <69...@cup.portal.com> Bri...@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>
> >It seems to me that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best
> >returns on investment in the space community!
>
> Atlas and Delta are providing profits for the companies which build them.
> That means they offer a return on investment.
>
> How can the Shuttle possibly be said to offer ANY (much less the best) return
> on investment? Shuttle has LOST billions.
>
Well, considering that the Shuttle project also provides/provided profits for the
companies which launch/re-furbish/built it can you tell us what the difference
is? Consider that the Atlas and Delta carry many goverment payloads.
> Allen
>
> --
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
> | a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
> +----------------------159 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
John DeVenezia
deve...@euler.jsc.nasa.gov
--> insert favorite disclaimer here <--
david michelson
post a critical summary of the program for us?
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ee.ubc.ca
Herity D.
>In article <1e8qk2...@spock.usc.edu> cbe...@spock.usc.edu (Charles Behre) writes:
>>
>>|> What about the SSTO DC-Y? It's my understanding that the DC-1 should be
>>|> able to do just about everything that the shuttle can do (with the possible
>>|> exeption of carry the SpaceLab). And a lot cheapter to boot.
>It will hopefully be able to perform crew transfer and small satellite launches
>more reliably and for less money than the Shuttle or even expendables. I don't
>see it replacing all of the Shuttle's functions, but it's a start.
AAARRRGGGHHH!!!
The main reason the shuttle failed is that it tried to do too much.
It was specced to be a cheap reusable satellite launcher/crew launcher/space
station/satellite retreiver/glider.
Lets not fall into the same trap with DC-1. Lets settle for cheap reusable
satellite launcher and take it from there. The shuttle can be kept flying
for those tasks where their flexibility is needed until the DC-1 or something
else takes over those functions.
>>What level of success would the DCX testing program have to show to make it a
>>viable candidate? Does this program have the ability to fascinate congress and
>>Al Gore if it demonstrates what it intendend to do? On the other hand, would a
>>DCX program shifted to taking on the duties of a HL-20 be a disasterous
>>move in terms of the programs efficiency?
Probably. I wouldn't want to risk it. _Why_ risk it? To get funding? If the
politicians set the technical agenda, the project is in big trouble.
--
================================================================================
| Dominic Herity, dherity@.cs.tcd.ie, | Something clever |
| Computer Science Dept, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.| coming soon to a |
| Tel : +353-1-6772941 ext 1720 Fax : +353-1-6772204 |signature near you|
Allen W. Sherzer
>However, in the current budget climate, I just don't see NASA
>having the money do pursue these ideas until after SSF has reached the
>Permanently Manned Configuration (PMC).
Even if then.
What your assessment ignores is the posibility of BUYING from commercial
sources what you need. Each of the Shuttles capabilities can be replaced
with available or near term commercial systems.
Not only are these systems far cheaper but they don't require a single
dime of development money from the Feds. All that is needed is for the
government to aggree to buy the cheaper service when it is available.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------158 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Allen W. Sherzer
> What about the SSTO DC-Y? [as shuttle replacement]
A set of Delta Clipper vehicles can do most of what a Shuttle does. It
can launch and retrieve payloads weighing less than 20K pounds but that is
only half the Shuttle payload. A Clipper stationed at SSF could work as an
OTV.
>And a lot cheapter to boot.
At $1 to $10 million per flight it will be a lot cheaper. Just the
expendable for a HL20 will be over ten times this amount.
This BTW is a source of trouble for SSTO. The people working on HL-20
have twice worked on efforts to kill the SSTO program. So far we have
been able to fight back these efforts. If you want to help with the
effort to convince Congress to fund development of a SSTO prototype,
let me know.
Allen W. Sherzer
>What level of success would the DCX testing program have to show to make it a
>viable candidate?
There are two things which need to be validated. First is the aerodynamics of
the 'flip maneuver' they use on re-entry. The second thing is to verify
their models and simulations on tasks needed for rapid operations (can the
engines be serviced as fast as they think, ect).
>Does this program have the ability to fascinate congress and
>Al Gore if it demonstrates what it intendend to do?
I hope so. We are working hard on that (again, let me know if you want
to help). We have shown a few key people that there is support for this.
>On the other hand, would a
>DCX program shifted to taking on the duties of a HL-20 be a disasterous
>move in terms of the programs efficiency?
Depends on who executes it and how.
Allen W. Sherzer
>Allen, is it concievable that an SSTO vehicle could be built with the same
>payload weight capability as the shuttle with the same base technologies?
As I understand it you can scale up to some degree. Eventually you will
want to lighter NASP materials which aren't being used in DC-Y and more
powerful engines. There is also the tri-propellent engines which have
the potential to greatly increase payload.
I believe that if DC-Y works and can deliver 15 to 20 thousand pounds to
LEO then building a 40K version should be possible.
>By the way, I am in the process of trying to convince Gore to back the
>SSTO and NASP programs as well as the SEI program. Any ideas you could provide
>would be appreciated. Also, let me know if I can be of service to your
>efforts.
Do you have one of our packets? If not, email me your address and I'll
send you one. It will help you with selling Gore. If you can get a meeting
with Gore, let me know. If it helps, offer to meet him anywhere and I'll
get you there (within reason :-)).
Henry Spencer
>payload weight capability as the shuttle with the same base technologies?
Yes, it's entirely plausible, although it might end up being somewhat
larger than the shuttle for the same payload. NASA studied SSTO concepts
early in the shuttle development, although the conclusion was "too
much risk of performance shortfall".
Gary Hudson claims that you could put six SSMEs on a shuttle external
tank, without SRBs, and get it into orbit carrying a payload about 50%
greater than the shuttle's. It wouldn't be reusable, though.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
-Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)| he...@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Josh 'K' Hopkins
>In article <69...@cup.portal.com> Bri...@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>It seems to me that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best
>>returns on investment in the space community!
>Atlas and Delta are providing profits for the companies which build them.
>That means they offer a return on investment.
I agree with Allen that ELVs are better than Shuttle for many things, but I'm
quite certain that I read that Atlas was actually loosing money for GD and
had been for a while.
--
Josh Hopkins jbh5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"Why put off 'til tomorrow what you're never going to do anyway?"
Carlos G. Niederstrasser
Whatever program you support lets make sure is flying before the shuttle stops.
In my opinion giving a more or less specific date such as 2005 for the shuttle
to stop is a bad mistake, if we don't have realtively certain dates for any
replacements.
Let us not forget history. Twenty years ago 3 (or more) fully operational
Saturn V were left as museum pieces accross the country. As much as I would
like to see Columbia at KSC, let's try not to shoot ourselves in the foot again
and let go of our heaviest capacity lift vehicle. (notice I said heaviest and
not heavy :)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser | It is difficult to say what |
| Princeton Planetary Society | is impossible; for the dream of |
| | yesterday, is the hope of today |
| | and the reality of tomorrow |
| car...@phoenix.princeton.edu |---------------------------------|
| sp...@phoenix.princeton.edu | Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser | It is difficult to say what |
| Princeton Planetary Society | is impossible; for the dream of |
| | yesterday, is the hope of today |
Allen W. Sherzer
>> How can the Shuttle possibly be said to offer ANY (much less the best) return
>> on investment? Shuttle has LOST billions.
>Well, considering that the Shuttle project also provides/provided profits for the
>companies which launch/re-furbish/built it can you tell us what the difference
>is?
Your saying that since the subcontractors are turning a profit it therefore
follows that NASA is making a profit. If you think about that for a moment
you will see that it makes no sense. It's like saying that Boeing is making
a profit and therefore American Airlines must be profitable as well.
Profit is when you collect more in fees/sales than you spend. If you add
up all the money collected in fees and subtract out the amount spent you
will see that Shuttle has lost billions.
>Consider that the Atlas and Delta carry many goverment payloads.
Sure. But they charge the government more than their costs. They make
a profit and therefore have a return on investment. Shuttle simply
doesn't have either.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------157 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Henry Spencer
>The US shouldn't be putting it's money into the design of ANY expendable
>launcher. We have done that for too long and it's hasn't reduced launch
>costs by a dime.
Actually, this isn't a very sound argument. The US has been putting big
bucks into small improvements to the performance and reliability of 50s-
vintage expendable launchers. It *hasn't* made any serious effort to
build a cheaper one (which cannot be done without changing the way the
launchers are built and operated -- it's not the fuels and metals that
cost all that money, but the way they're used). All that money has been
going into squeezing one more ounce out of existing designs, and any sane
engineer will predict a lousy cost/benefit ratio for that approach.
No conclusion can be drawn about the possibility of cheaper expendables;
it has not been tried. Even the projects that have officially included
"lower costs" in their objectives have always had higher-priority objectives
(typically, maximum payload and maximum reliability) that pushed them
toward higher, not lower, costs.
Certainly, even after you get past complications like different accounting
systems, there is no possible doubt that launchers like Soyuz and Long
March really are substantially cheaper to run than Atlas or Delta. It
*can* be done.
Edward V. Wright
>There are two things which need to be validated. First is the aerodynamics of
>the 'flip maneuver' they use on re-entry. The second thing is to verify
>their models and simulations on tasks needed for rapid operations (can the
>engines be serviced as fast as they think, ect).
The second goal is vastly more important than the first. If the flip
manuever proves problematical, the next vehicle could be redesigned
to use a more conventional base-first reentry (like Apollo). If the
maintenance goals can't be achieved, however, it would undermine the
entire justification for the project.
>>Does this program have the ability to fascinate congress and
>>Al Gore if it demonstrates what it intendend to do?
>I hope so. We are working hard on that (again, let me know if you want
>to help). We have shown a few key people that there is support for this.
Nothing that doesn't have "ecological disaster" in its title has
the ability to fascinate Al Gore. However, Milton Freidman used
to tell a story about geese and politicians. If you watch a flock
of geese, flying in "V" formation behind the leader, everyone once
in a while you will see them start to head in the wrong direction.
The other geese, realizing something's wrong, turn and continue in
the correct direction. Finally the "leader" turns his head, realizes
no one is following him, and starts to flap like mad to get in front
of everybody else again. Politicians operate much the same way.
The critical test, I think, is public opinion. If the American
people get really excited about this, Clinton and Gore will quickly
move into the "I said it was a good idea all along" camp. That will
happen around the time of the first test launch, if it happens at all.
When a project goes from zero visibility to the network news, it makes
all the difference in the world because most politicians (and most
Americans) don't care about anything that doesn't make the network
news. (Let's just hope the launch happens on a slow news day.)
Gary Coffman
>In article <69...@cup.portal.com> Bri...@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>
>>It seems to me that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best
>>returns on investment in the space community!
>
>Atlas and Delta are providing profits for the companies which build them.
>That means they offer a return on investment.
>
>How can the Shuttle possibly be said to offer ANY (much less the best) return
>on investment? Shuttle has LOST billions.
I suspect Shuttle returned a handsome profit for Rockwell. It has cost
the US Government billions to develop and maintain Shuttle capabilities,
but the US Government isn't a profit making institution. It considers
those costs fully sunk. At $350 million per launch *operating* expense,
the Shuttle is giving launch capabilities unmatched by any other system
at bargain rates per fractional payload.
Gary
Hugh Emberson
Henry> In article <1992Nov17.1...@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <laf...@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>... is it concievable that an SSTO vehicle could be built with the same
>payload weight capability as the shuttle with the same base technologies?
Henry> Gary Hudson claims that you could put six SSMEs on a shuttle external
Henry> tank, without SRBs, and get it into orbit carrying a payload about 50%
Henry> greater than the shuttle's. It wouldn't be reusable, though.
This sounds a lot like Shuttle-C, whatever happened to that idea?
As I understand it, Shuttle-C was an idea for using up old SSMEs. The
idea was to take a normal stack (an ET and 2 SRBs) and bolt on a
fairing containing the payload and some SSMEs in place of the shuttle.
This was meant to be a cheap expendable HLV using parts that NASA was
already familiar with. I guess it's payload would have been at least
100,000 lbs, probably a lot more. Some of the pictures I saw had 4
SRBs.
Hugh
Carl Hage
: By the way, I am in the process of trying to convince Gore to back the
: SSTO
: and NASP programs as well as the SEI program. Any ideas you could provide
: would be appreciated.
From a prior post:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR AL GORE
Goddard Space Flight Center
Monday, October 19, 1992
...
Probably one of the most critical issues facing the space
program today is the need to reduce the cost of launching payloads,
whether they be military, scientific, or commercial satellites. Our
only existing choices are the Space Shuttle, which currently costs
more than $4 billion a year to operate, and decades-old technology in
our fleet of expendable launch vehicles. The urgency of this problem
is readily apparent to everyone associated with the U.S. space
program.
...
In their own right, each of these systems may have some merit,
even given the fact that the Space Plane and the Single Stage
Technology program may provide significant benefits only in the
long-term future. But, trying to fund all three in the current
budget environment is ridiculous.
...
However, Quayle's National Space
Council let politics determine how the NLS program would be
structured. Rather than tailoring the program to suit realistic
launch needs of either NASA, the military, or the commercial launch
industry, the Council made a politically expedient decision.
...
However, any decision to develop the next generation
of launch vehicles must be based on cost-effective criteria with a
clear concept of mission requirements in mind.
...
Although Gore was flamed here for this speech, it would seem to me that he
could be a very strong supporter of SSTO. To convince him and the others
in Washington to support SSTO, they need to believe:
1. DC-X/Y/1 will provide dramatically lower launch costs.
2. There is a clear concept of mission requirements in mind.
3. Benifits will not be "in the long-term future".
4. The SSTO program is well managed.
5. SSTO development costs will not be extraordinarily high.
6. SSTO deserves a higher priority than the alternatives.
As to point 1, there has been significant discussion on the net as to the
potential of lower costs. Since probably everyone would agree that
reducing launch costs is the most critical issue facing the space program,
what will be needed will be making a credible argument. Since SSTO has been
part of SDI, there is probably a built-in bias against credibility.
Development of DC-X has been relatively low cost, but can you convince
everyone that DC-1 will be cheap? Are the cost predictions realistic?
(BTW: I wasn't sure about the engines for DC-1. In scaling up, are
more engines added or larger engines added? If larger, does that mean
using SSME type engines or a whole new design?)
a...@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
: At $1 to $10 million per flight it will be a lot cheaper. Just the
: expendable for a HL20 will be over ten times this amount.
:
: This BTW is a source of trouble for SSTO.
A source of trouble? HL20 won't win any arguments claiming to be better
because it's more expensive. They might win if SSTO is making exagerated
claims though. Of course, as Gore said, "trying to fund all [alternatives]
in the current budget environment is ridiculous", so every project is
going to have to compete for it's existence.
Claims of $1M or even $10M launch costs seem too low to be believable.
Since the claims for the Space Shuttle, nuclear power (too cheap to meter),
etc. were very wrong in the past figures like this are taken with a
great deal of skepticism. Does your info kit offer clear and complete
information that will convince a skeptic?
For point 2, lower cost and somewhat lighter payloads meets the bulk
of launch requirements.
For point 3, there seems to be a particular timetable in mind for
producing DC-X/Y/1. How does that timetable compare with the alternatives?
It seems to me that the idea of building a cheap scale prototype (DC-X)
and developing the technology on that is a good idea for a number of
reasons. I would think the total project cost would be lower and the
time to get the final working system would even be lower. Also this
would provide a better opportunity to manage the program with more short
term goals/milestones. I would guess that DC-X will uncover problems that
will delay DC-Y/1, but the delays and extra cost will be less than the
delays and cost overruns from building DC-1 directly.
The unknowns in the timetable probably relate to developing new technologies
to address problems which have not yet been solved. What are the major
new technologies which need to be developed by DC-X and DC-Y?
On point 4, we haven't had an opportunity on the net to find out how well the
project is managed. Conceputally, as stated above, the idea of scaling up
seems like a plus and allows funding to be contingent on success. However,
I don't understand the GAO (?) report which was critical of the project.
How about summarizing the objections given in the report with a response.
Technically, it seems that DC-X makes a lot of sense. If the project is
mismanaged, then maybe some changes need to be made. Could we have some
discussion on this here?
On point 5, the development costs should be less than the alternatives
proposed, at least from what I get from the discussions here. We don't
know the costs on DC-Y/1, but fixing the problems on DC-X will be a lot
cheaper than it would be if we built DC-1 first. Are there some ballpark
estimates for total costs to develop DC-1?
If points 1-5 are true, then point 6 is obvious. One could say that
none of 1-5 are true for the alternatives. I fail to understand why
NASA, etc. isn't enthusiastic about SSTO. I won't buy that the reason
is bureaucracy, or it is an "outside" project. It must be that are not
convinced of points 1-5.
Oh, I forgot one other point.
7. The chance of success is high
It seems like it is a matter of a few simple calculations to show that
it is theoretically possible/impossible given some basic assumptions
about current rocket technology like, weight, engine efficiency, fuel
weight, etc. Presumably you have shown that it is possible.
What are the areas in which others might conclude that there is an
unsolved problem which presents a significant risk to the success of the
project? The NASP needs to have an engine developed, and this is not a
simple matter of engineering a design. Are there similar sorts of problems
with DC-Y? It seems like from the discussions, that DC-X didn't require
basic research projects, and is mainly a matter of engineering to put
together existing technology to build a prototype.
If there are arguments against SSTO because of risk associated with an
unsolved problem, then perhaps discussing these arguments and possible
solutions will reduce peoples perceptions of risk.
Allen W. Sherzer
>>The US shouldn't be putting it's money into the design of ANY expendable
>>launcher. We have done that for too long and it's hasn't reduced launch
>>costs by a dime.
>Actually, this isn't a very sound argument.... [Henry goes on to say
>that it hasn't been tried and examples from China and Russia show it
>CAN be a lot cheaper]
Allow me to rephrase: NASA has shown that it cannot execute large multi-year
multi-billion $$ projects in a cost effective manner. Some blame for this
goes to Congress, and some to NASA. Asking them to do it again will simply
waste more money and delay the creation of a spacefaring civilization.
I don't doubt that much cheaper expendables CAN be build (Zenith Star
launchers for example cut costs in half). I simply don't believe that the US
government can build them.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------156 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Allen W. Sherzer
>The second goal is vastly more important than the first. If the flip
>manuever proves problematical, the next vehicle could be redesigned
>to use a more conventional base-first reentry (like Apollo).
Agreed but with one minor nit. The flip maneuver allows DC to use existing
conventional bell nozzles. The GD design could enter base first but had
to have an aerospike nozzle to do it. Since aerospike nozzles have never
flown, that would add another risk to the propulsion system.
>Nothing that doesn't have "ecological disaster" in its title has
>the ability to fascinate Al Gore.
Hmmm... this gives me an idea. Maybe the way to sell SSTO to Gore is
to emphasize the non-poluting fuel it uses. Deltas and Titans burn
nasty stuff which wold cause problems in large quantities.
>However, Milton Freidman used to tell a story about geese and politicians...
>[story deleted]
>The critical test, I think, is public opinion. If the American
>people get really excited about this, Clinton and Gore will quickly
>move into the "I said it was a good idea all along" camp.
Exactly! And we need to let them do it and thank them for it.
>When a project goes from zero visibility to the network news, it makes
>all the difference in the world because most politicians (and most
>Americans) don't care about anything that doesn't make the network
>news. (Let's just hope the launch happens on a slow news day.)
We need to do other things as well. There was an article on this in
a recent issue of Design News and the British newspaper The Guardian
is also working on an article.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------156 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Allen W. Sherzer
>I suspect Shuttle returned a handsome profit for Rockwell.
Irrelevant. That's like saying that American Arilines is profitable
because Boeing is profitable.
>It has cost
>the US Government billions to develop and maintain Shuttle capabilities,
>but the US Government isn't a profit making institution.
The principles can still apply (as indeed the original poster intended).
NASA charges people for Shuttle even if it is just moving money from
one account in NASA to another. Shuttle costs FAR exceed prices charged
which means it looses money.
>It considers those costs fully sunk.
I'm not talking about development costs. NASA doesn't even get enough to
cover OPERATIONAL costs.
>At $350 million per launch *operating* expense,
Nope. Shuttle flights cost half a billion each minimum.
>the Shuttle is giving launch capabilities unmatched by any other system
>at bargain rates per fractional payload.
Sure. Whenever I want to spend half a billion to recover a $150 million
satellite I use Shuttle. Granted I loose a third of a billion $$ for
each satellite but NASA accountants assure me that I will make up for it
in volume. :-)
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------156 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Allen W. Sherzer
>Whatever program you support lets make sure is flying before the shuttle stops.
That's the rub. Shuttle is a very expensive thing to fly. So much so that
all the money which could go to building a replacement is spent operating
the Shuttle. Every year we fly Shuttle delays its replacement by one year.
Shuttle doesn't do anything which can't be done by existing and near term
systems. Let's phase it out so we can build them!
>and let go of our heaviest capacity lift vehicle.
Titan IV can lift any existing or planned payload Shuttle can lift.
Michael V. Kent
>
>Your saying that since the subcontractors are turning a profit it therefore
>follows that NASA is making a profit. If you think about that for a moment
>you will see that it makes no sense.
I would hope this country could do more with its space program than just keep
its contractors profitable. But NASA isn't a contractor -- it's a government
agency. Government agencies don't earn profits, nor should they. They should
be doing things in the public interest that can't earn a profit. If it earns
a profit, then it should be done by private industry, not government.
>Profit is when you collect more in fees/sales than you spend. If you add
>up all the money collected in fees and subtract out the amount spent you
>will see that Shuttle has lost billions.
So? The Shuttle was never supposed to earn a profit -- it's run by a govern-
ment agency called NASA. The interstate highway system didn't earn a profit
either, but most people consider it money well spent.
Michael V. Kent
>
>This sounds a lot like Shuttle-C, whatever happened to that idea?
The Shuttle-C and ALS programs were combined to form NLS, then Shuttle-C was
never heard from again.
Michael V. Kent
>
>I don't doubt that much cheaper expendables CAN be build (Zenith Star
>launchers for example cut costs in half). I simply don't believe that the US
>government can build them.
Then why do you propose that the U. S. government build Delta Clipper?
Michael V. Kent
I think a better approarch might be the cost reductions to EOS that could be
had if we could use a Delta Clipper to launch them.
>>When a project goes from zero visibility to the network news, it makes
>>all the difference in the world because most politicians (and most
>>Americans) don't care about anything that doesn't make the network
>>news. (Let's just hope the launch happens on a slow news day.)
I'm not so sure that we even want the public to know about it until its ready
to fly. Skunkworks only works in a low-profile situation. The minute DC
grabs public attention there will be demands for Congressional oversight.
"To make sure the taxpayers' hard-earned money is spent properly."
Allen W. Sherzer
>>I don't doubt that much cheaper expendables CAN be build (Zenith Star
>>launchers for example cut costs in half). I simply don't believe that the US
>>government can build them.
>Then why do you propose that the U. S. government build Delta Clipper?
I don't.
I do propose that government build the DC-Y which is a research vehicle
and not an operational vehicle. I believe that the operational Delta
Clipper should be build with private funds.
Even here you will note that great care is going to find the agency to
build DC-Y. Using conventional procurement practices nither NASA nor
DoD could build DC-Y. However, SDIO and a few sections within DoD
are open enough to execute the program.
Allen W. Sherzer
>I would hope this country could do more with its space program than just keep
>its contractors profitable. But NASA isn't a contractor -- it's a government
>agency. Government agencies don't earn profits, nor should they.
1. The original poster said that Shuttle had the 'highest return on
investment' of any launcher. I am simply pointing out that isn't correct
and I am glad that you seem to agree.
2. No, government shouldn't be making a profit but nither should they
provide subsidies to lock out private competition. Shuttle has not only
been a sink into which we dump billions but it also was very nearly
responsible for killing the private US launch industry. If Chalenger
had happened just a few years later then Ariane would now have 100%
of the world launch market.
>They should
>be doing things in the public interest that can't earn a profit.
Since providing launch services is a profitable buisness then I am glad
to see we agree.
Allen W. Sherzer
>Although Gore was flamed here for this speech, it would seem to me that he
>could be a very strong supporter of SSTO.
Let's hope so.
>Development of DC-X has been relatively low cost, but can you convince
>everyone that DC-1 will be cheap? Are the cost predictions realistic?
No, you can never convince everybody. However, the cost predictions are
the best available. If nothing else the fact that the design and construction
of DC-X is on time and on budget gives a good indication that their cost
estimators know what they are talking about.
There are risk areas and it would be a good idea to spend a few million
to test those.
>(BTW: I wasn't sure about the engines for DC-1. In scaling up, are
>more engines added or larger engines added? If larger, does that mean
>using SSME type engines or a whole new design?)
DC-Y will use larger engines (about 200K pounds of thrust each). There
are two options available:
1. A new engine called the RL-200 which initially is composed of some
off the shelf components and some new components.
2. Using Apollo J2 engines. This will significantly cut into payload
but will support continuous imporvement of the overall system.
>: This [being cheaper than HL-20] BTW is a source of trouble for SSTO.
>A source of trouble? HL20 won't win any arguments claiming to be better
>because it's more expensive. They might win if SSTO is making exagerated
>claims though.
Another way is to make exagerated claims yourself and throw dirt on the
competition.
>Of course, as Gore said, "trying to fund all [alternatives]
>in the current budget environment is ridiculous", so every project is
>going to have to compete for it's existence.
Exactly.
>Claims of $1M or even $10M launch costs seem too low to be believable.
>Since the claims for the Space Shuttle, nuclear power (too cheap to meter),
>etc. were very wrong in the past figures like this are taken with a
>great deal of skepticism. Does your info kit offer clear and complete
>information that will convince a skeptic?
Only circumstantial. If the models are correct than DC will fly for
$1 to $10M per flight. However we need DC-X to verify the models.
However the circumstantial evidence supports it. After all, the cost and
part count of a launcher is about the same as a commercial airliner. The
rest is up to the technology and to date nobody questions that it can
be done as far as the technology is concerned.
>For point 3, there seems to be a particular timetable in mind for
>producing DC-X/Y/1. How does that timetable compare with the alternatives?
An operational DC-1 should be flying in 97 IF (this is a big if) we can
get Congress to fund it properly. BTW, since we are only looking at $1B
per year over about four years this is an achieveable goal provided
supporters put and keep pressure on Congress.
>The unknowns in the timetable probably relate to developing new technologies
>to address problems which have not yet been solved. What are the major
>new technologies which need to be developed by DC-X and DC-Y?
Very few. The main ones relate to the turbopumps and some of the structural
materials. Proposals exist to build test articles on all of these which
should answer most if not all open questions for about $25 million.
>On point 4, we haven't had an opportunity on the net to find out how well the
>project is managed.
Their performance to date has been excellent. They are still on time and
on budget.
>Conceputally, as stated above, the idea of scaling up
>seems like a plus and allows funding to be contingent on success. However,
>I don't understand the GAO (?) report which was critical of the project.
>How about summarizing the objections given in the report with a response.
I assume you mean the review by the Surveys and Investigations staff
at Appropriations or the NASA Assessment. (BTW, every other group
from the NRC to the Aerospace Corporation who has looked at it has
endorsed it; even the NASA assessment says it is possible if they
are allowed to do it).
There is much to call the S&I report into question. First of all, the
committee is keeping the document to itself and will only allow
Congresspersons to see it and even then only with a committee member
present. Even staffers who advise Congresspersons aren't allowed to
see it. Note that the document isn't classified. Anything held this
closely and not subject to open review cannot be taken seriously.
Of what we do know about the report, they only seem to have used
comments from people at NASA Langly especially people 'competing'
with SSTO. SSTO proponents don't seem to have been contacted. Of the
specific comments we know about, all seem to have come from documents
which are several years old and obsolete.
>Are there some ballpark estimates for total costs to develop DC-1?
$2 to $4 billion.
>I fail to understand why
>NASA, etc. isn't enthusiastic about SSTO. I won't buy that the reason
>is bureaucracy, or it is an "outside" project.
Well I think that IS the main reason. NASA is famous for its Not Invented
Here (NIH) attitude about technology. Look at it this way, your a mid level
NASA manager. You are counting on HL-20 to keep you and your people funded
into the next decade. Yet a working SSTO calls all that into question. What
do you do?
> 7. The chance of success is high
Every agency who has looked at it says that it is or will soon be possible.
>project? The NASP needs to have an engine developed, and this is not a
>simple matter of engineering a design. Are there similar sorts of problems
>with DC-Y?
The project emphasises using existing technology and rapid prototyping.
This reduces risk and provides an excellent platform for both research
and continuous improvement of the concept.
Michael V. Kent
>systems.
The Shuttle does many many things that nothing else in the fleet will do. The
most obvious is serve as a manned spacecraft. The original article in this
thread listed many more.
>Titan IV can lift any existing or planned payload Shuttle can lift.
The Shuttle has twice the payload capacity of the Titan IV. It can also
launch cargoes the Titan IV can't touch. Would _you_ volunteer to fly a
Spacelab mission in a Titan IV payload fairing?
Steinn Sigurdsson
In article <1992Nov19.0...@netcom.com> ha...@netcom.com (Carl Hage) writes:
>Although Gore was flamed here for this speech, it would seem to me that he
>could be a very strong supporter of SSTO.
Let's hope so.
>Development of DC-X has been relatively low cost, but can you convince
>everyone that DC-1 will be cheap? Are the cost predictions realistic?
No, you can never convince everybody. However, the cost predictions are
the best available. If nothing else the fact that the design and construction
of DC-X is on time and on budget gives a good indication that their cost
estimators know what they are talking about.
...
>Claims of $1M or even $10M launch costs seem too low to be believable.
Only circumstantial. If the models are correct than DC will fly for
$1 to $10M per flight. However we need DC-X to verify the models.
However the circumstantial evidence supports it. After all, the cost and
part count of a launcher is about the same as a commercial airliner. The
rest is up to the technology and to date nobody questions that it can
be done as far as the technology is concerned.
While I'm strongly in favour of the DC-X/Y/1(-2-3!) this causes me
a little concern. I'm willing to believe that the DCs can be developed
and constructed on budget as long as they can avoid some appropriations
nightmare, but the operation costs do seem quite optimistic, in
particular I'd have thought the early years operation would be higher
while ground support learned some maintenance procedures and
operational experience was developed on what needs inspection and
refurbishing between flights? I just don't see any way around that,
are the DCs really that much simpler?
>For point 3, there seems to be a particular timetable in mind for
>producing DC-X/Y/1. How does that timetable compare with the alternatives?
An operational DC-1 should be flying in 97 IF (this is a big if) we can
get Congress to fund it properly. BTW, since we are only looking at $1B
per year over about four years this is an achieveable goal provided
supporters put and keep pressure on Congress.
Hmm, didn't you just say that Congress should just fund the DC-X,Y?
I thought after prototyping McD would pay for construction of the
production models! ;-)
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------156 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
| Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night |
| Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites |
| ste...@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? |
| "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 |
Bill Goffe
[material deleted]
>>When a project goes from zero visibility to the network news, it makes
>>all the difference in the world because most politicians (and most
>>Americans) don't care about anything that doesn't make the network
>>news. (Let's just hope the launch happens on a slow news day.)
>We need to do other things as well. There was an article on this in
>a recent issue of Design News and the British newspaper The Guardian
>is also working on an article.
I understand that there will be an article in the British newspaper
The Daily Telegraph on Nov. 20.
Bill Goffe
bgo...@seq.uncwil.edu
Henry Spencer
>Henry> tank, without SRBs, and get it into orbit carrying a payload about 50%
>
>This sounds a lot like Shuttle-C...
Not very closely related, actually, since Hudson's design deletes the SRBs
and doesn't put engines+payload in a mock-orbiter.
>...whatever happened to that idea?
Too little demand and too much politics. It quietly died.
>...idea was to take a normal stack (an ET and 2 SRBs) and bolt on a
>fairing containing the payload and some SSMEs in place of the shuttle.
That's right. The fairing started out to be a stripped-down orbiter,
but it didn't take long to figure out that if you're throwing it away,
there are cheaper ways to build it.
>... Some of the pictures I saw had 4 SRBs.
There have been a wide variety of shuttle-derived heavylift-booster
designs over the years. It looks like a sensible thing to do if you've
got a few heavy payloads to lift and don't want to invest in developing
a whole new launch system (including new pads etc.) just for them. The
idea has been revived once again by Griffin's how-to-launch-the-space-
station "red team".
Henry Spencer
>
>A source of trouble? HL20 won't win any arguments claiming to be better
Remember that money = jobs; being a lot cheaper is *not* an unmixed political
blessing.
The big problem HL20 presents for SSTO is that a lot of NASA people see
HL20 as work for them and SSTO as work for somebody else... and NASA is
the established source of expertise on spaceflight, so any space project
that NASA dislikes has an uphill battle ahead of it. (This isn't a new
problem, by the way.) All the more so because SSTO challenges NASA's
credibility, not just its turf, by being (if it works) a vastly-superior
system built at low cost with off-the-shelf technology. This is bad news
if you've spent your career defending very expensive projects as "the only
way it can be done".
>Claims of $1M or even $10M launch costs seem too low to be believable.
>... Does your info kit offer clear and complete
>information that will convince a skeptic?
Nothing short of a flight demonstration will convince really skeptical
observers. A successful on-budget DC-X, especially with a demonstration
of rapid reflight with minimal refurbishing, will help a lot.
>It seems like it is a matter of a few simple calculations to show that
>it is theoretically possible/impossible given some basic assumptions
>about current rocket technology like, weight, engine efficiency, fuel
>weight, etc. Presumably you have shown that it is possible.
It's been (theoretically) possible at least since the 60s, perhaps earlier.
(Ed Heinemann, Douglas's military-aircraft miracle-worker, sketched an
expendable SSTO launcher in the late 40s... Pity he never got the chance
to build it.)
Henry Spencer
>... the operation costs do seem quite optimistic, in
>particular I'd have thought the early years operation would be higher
>while ground support learned some maintenance procedures and
>operational experience was developed on what needs inspection and
>refurbishing between flights? I just don't see any way around that,
>are the DCs really that much simpler?
Wrong question. There are two ways to go about this. One is to assume
that between-flights turnaround will be very complex, but it will get
better if we look for ways to improve it. The other is to assume that
it will be simple, although a few complications may be found. Oddly
enough, only the second approach ever results in something simple and
cheap. You can always come up with reasons why complexity is needed,
especially after you've already written the manuals and hired the staff.
Simple systems do not evolve from complex ones.
The right question is: why should the DCs be much more complex than
high-performance aircraft?
Steinn Sigurdsson
In article <STEINLY.92...@topaz.ucsc.edu> ste...@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>... the operation costs do seem quite optimistic, in
>particular I'd have thought the early years operation would be higher
>while ground support learned some maintenance procedures and
>operational experience was developed on what needs inspection and
>refurbishing between flights? I just don't see any way around that,
>are the DCs really that much simpler?
Wrong question. There are two ways to go about this. One is to assume
that between-flights turnaround will be very complex, but it will get
better if we look for ways to improve it. The other is to assume that
it will be simple, although a few complications may be found. Oddly
enough, only the second approach ever results in something simple and
cheap. You can always come up with reasons why complexity is needed,
especially after you've already written the manuals and hired the staff.
Simple systems do not evolve from complex ones.
The right question is: why should the DCs be much more complex than
high-performance aircraft?
Intrinsically I see no reason why an orbital launcher should be
more complex than that - as a matter of practicality though there is the
fact that you have a lot of energy to be controlled in a very short
time - the SSME's power rating is a respectible fraction of US
capacity! Now, the DCs are not being designed on the margin,
they have to be robust if they are not to be stripped down and
inspected every time. I guess my question really is whether they've
succeeded in reducing the number of parts _and_ gotten the reliability
of each part to the point where maintenance will be as low as claimed.
There is no intrinsic reason why it can't be done, but it is not clear
that the knowledge base to decide what is necessary refurbishment and
what is waste is there yet. Of course the only way to find out
is to fly the thing :-)
Henry Spencer
> The right question is: why should the DCs be much more complex than
> high-performance aircraft?
>
>Intrinsically I see no reason why an orbital launcher should be
>more complex than that - as a matter of practicality though there is the
>fact that you have a lot of energy to be controlled in a very short
The engines are the one part of the DC birds that really do have to be
built to much more severe specs than anything found in aircraft. But
this is a solved problem. The RL10 (which DC-X will use) has already
demonstrated a dozen (test-stand) firings in a row without maintenance.
Most mature liquid-fuel rocket engines are really quite reliable and
would not need a lot of maintenance. The SSME is not typical.
Allen W. Sherzer
>...but the operation costs do seem quite optimistic, in
>particular I'd have thought the early years operation would be higher
>while ground support learned some maintenance procedures and
>operational experience was developed on what needs inspection and
>refurbishing between flights?
That is largely what DC-X & Y are for. Things will change with an operational
system, but not that much. One goal is five flights without major maintenance.
That means all it needs for the second launch is to be re-fueled.
Most of the savings are because we are approaching the problem in a different
way. The old way costs did need to be high because designs where complex
and always pushed the technology. Keeping it simple (the first rule of good
engineering), using existing well tested technology, and not pushing
envelopes reduces costs.
>Hmm, didn't you just say that Congress should just fund the DC-X,Y?
A mis-statement on my part. I ment if Congress properly funds DC-Y. I
do expect that DC-1 would be built by the private sector.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------155 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Allen W. Sherzer
>The Shuttle does many many things that nothing else in the fleet will do. The
>most obvious is serve as a manned spacecraft.
Nonsense. In a pinch we can stick a Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan.
>The original article in this thread listed many more.
All of which have existing or near term alternatives.
>>Titan IV can lift any existing or planned payload Shuttle can lift.
>The Shuttle has twice the payload capacity of the Titan IV.
Nonsense.
>It can also
>launch cargoes the Titan IV can't touch. Would _you_ volunteer to fly a
>Spacelab mission in a Titan IV payload fairing?
What I would do is to use the Titan to launch it, dock with any of the
simple, easially built space station ideas exising today and operate it
year round. That way we can use Spacelab 365 days a year instead of
a week or so every two years.
Let's not forget that one capability of the Shuttle is the ability to
insure that key experiments are only done once every few years or so.
It is only one of the many ways that the space shuttle is hampering
routine cheap access to space.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------155 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Edward V. Wright
>We need to do other things as well. There was an article on this in
>a recent issue of Design News and the British newspaper The Guardian
>is also working on an article.
That's good, but the critical articles are the ones that appear
just after the first launch. There were lots of articles written
about the Space Shuttle in the years before it flew, many of them
by good writers who actually knew what they were talking about it.
But none of them succeeded in mobilizing very much support for the
Space Shuttle. That didn't happen until the public saw the launch
on television and read the (often inaccurate) front-page articles
from the usual AP wire service hack "science" writers.
Timing is critical. I know that McDAC isn't spending a lot of money
on advertising and PR, but I hope they're ready with a good press
kit to hand out at the first launch. Space groups supporting SSTO
should have their own press kits ready also.
Edward V. Wright
>Hmmm... this gives me an idea. Maybe the way to sell SSTO to Gore is
>to emphasize the non-poluting fuel it uses. Deltas and Titans burn
>nasty stuff which wold cause problems in large quantities.
Actually, the biggest polluter is the Space Shuttle. (Hydrochloric
acid and other byproducts from those big SRBs.)
Brad Whitehurst
...
>Most of the savings are because we are approaching the problem in a different
>way. The old way costs did need to be high because designs where complex
>and always pushed the technology. Keeping it simple (the first rule of good
>engineering), using existing well tested technology, and not pushing
>envelopes reduces costs.
>
>>Hmm, didn't you just say that Congress should just fund the DC-X,Y?
>
>A mis-statement on my part. I ment if Congress properly funds DC-Y. I
>do expect that DC-1 would be built by the private sector.
>
the gov't. pay for any of the craft? I'll agree that NASA has fumbled
several balls in the arena of routine space tranportation. One of
its original missions, and the one I hope it returns to is to indeed
"push the envelope". Do the R&D for NASP; do the R&D (and even
initial construction) for space habitat/labs (I'll leave the question
of Freedom's suitability open); do the lunar/planetary explorations.
But if your claim to fame is that you can do all the transportation
using current technology and are not pushing the envelope, then
convince private concerns that they'll turn a profit, and invest in it
themselves. If GD, McD, Boeing and the rest really wanted to, they
could put enough heat on NASA to convince NASA to leave the "space
truck" market altogether.
--
Brad Whitehurst | Aerospace Research Lab
rb...@Virginia.EDU | We like it hot...and fast.
Henry Spencer
> If you are using well tested current technology, why should
>the gov't. pay for any of the craft?
The components are mostly well tested. The combination is not.
>But if your claim to fame is that you can do all the transportation
>using current technology and are not pushing the envelope, then
>convince private concerns that they'll turn a profit, and invest in it
>themselves...
Indeed so. But the first step to showing profit potential is establishing
that the concept works in practice, and this involves enough up-front
financial risk that the private concerns have not been willing to fund it.
(People have tried.) Nobody is confident enough in the concept that they
are willing to bet their future plans on it, which means no firm orders
for SSTO launchers... and not even Boeing will build an airliner without
getting at least a few firm orders signed first.
Allen W. Sherzer
> If you are using well tested current technology, why should
>the gov't. pay for any of the craft?...
First of all, this is being done to test the concept. Most (not all) of
the parts exist but they are still being used in a new way. The key is the
parts which don't exist yet and to veryfy the overall concept. Since DC-Y
is an experimental craft then we will have a nice testbed to try new
ideas. For example, after DC-Y flies we can replace the engines with
aerospike engines and see if performance improves.
Second of all it the issue of risk. We are currently in a catch-22: nobody
launches much because costs are too high and costs are too high because
nobody luanches much. SSTO offers the promise of greatly reducing costs
and thereby opening the markets.
wingo%csp...@fedex.msfc.nasa.gov
>In article <BxxDL...@zoo.toronto.edu> he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>>>The US shouldn't be putting it's money into the design of ANY expendable
>>>launcher. We have done that for too long and it's hasn't reduced launch
>>>costs by a dime.
>
>>Actually, this isn't a very sound argument.... [Henry goes on to say
>>that it hasn't been tried and examples from China and Russia show it
>>CAN be a lot cheaper]
>
>Allow me to rephrase: NASA has shown that it cannot execute large multi-year
>multi-billion $$ projects in a cost effective manner. Some blame for this
>goes to Congress, and some to NASA. Asking them to do it again will simply
>waste more money and delay the creation of a spacefaring civilization.
>
No Allan, what has been shown is that when you micromanage a program and or
cut the budget below the request and or stretch the program to "save money"
Nasa nor anyone else for that matter can complete a job in a cost effective
manner. There are many NASA programs that have been completed on time and
under budget WHEN that whole budget has been provided AND no recissions or
redesigns or other crap has been foisted on the program.
>I don't doubt that much cheaper expendables CAN be build (Zenith Star
>launchers for example cut costs in half). I simply don't believe that the US
>government can build them.
>
The baby saturn can do the same thing. Funny thing is that the NLS 1 design
ended up in the single engine configuration that we propose for the Baby
Saturn. Oh by the way I have confirmed the existence of at least 8 well
preserved Saturn F1 engines at the Marshall Space Flight center. They are
doing some work on them. However it looks like the cost of refurbing the
F1 test stand is a bit high to implement right now.
By the way Henry, I found out some interesting stuff there are three versions
of the Saturn V first Stage. These are as follows
S1C-T Test Stage for Manufacturing and Ground firings
This is the one at the Alabama Space & Rocket Center
S1C-D Dynamic Test model. Was later scrapped at the end of
the program.
S1C-1,2,3.... Flight Saturn S1 C stages.
Hugh Emberson
Edward> In <1992Nov19.1...@iti.org> a...@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>We need to do other things as well. There was an article on this in
>a recent issue of Design News and the British newspaper The Guardian
>is also working on an article.
Anyone know which issue of design news that was?
Edward> Timing is critical. I know that McDAC isn't spending a lot of money
Edward> on advertising and PR, but I hope they're ready with a good press
Edward> kit to hand out at the first launch. Space groups supporting SSTO
Edward> should have their own press kits ready also.
My mother tells me that a TV show we get here (NZ) called "Beyond
2000" (its Austrailian, but I believe that lots of countries get it)
had a segment on DC-{X,Y,1} a couple of weeks ago. I missed it :-(.
Anyway the segment was enough to get my mother excited enough to rave
about it to me. This leads me to believe that it could have quite an
public appeal if it was sold to the public properly.
Hugh
Rich Kolker
time.
Simulator testing for the DC-X/Y/1 pilots is underway. As you know, DC-X
will be flown remotely, DC-Y will be crew-capable. Among the pilots trainingh
is Pete Conrad. If that name sounds familiar....it should!
++rich
-------------------------------------------------------------------
rich kolker rko...@nuchat.sccsi.com
It's been a long, long time
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Spencer
>The question is whether or not there's enough profit to recoup that kind
>of up-front development. In the space market, I sincerely doubt it,
>unless the launch rate goes *way* up (see below)...
Anybody considering sinking a bunch of cash into developing a much cheaper
launcher is automatically assuming new markets, not existing ones. The
existing markets aren't badly hampered by existing launch prices -- they
shop for lowest price, sure, but they don't object to paying the going
rate if it buys them things they care about, like reliability -- and are
not going to respond to lower prices with great increases in volume.
This is one of the bigger obstacles to novel launcher development: it's
not enough to build the launcher, you also need to have the resources to
hang in there while patiently nurturing a new market to use the new
capabilities. If there was an assured market that you could point to,
commercial launcher development would be underway all over the place.
It's not an accident that the more farsighted schemes for encouraging
commercial launchers focus on guaranteeing a market, not on providing
direct support.
am...@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
>
Well, I'll pick a rather important nit: No pilot in their right mind
gets behind the wheel/stick without doing a careful walkaround
pre-flight. I expect that an operational DC1 vehicle will put the
pilot back into the loop in a way they never were or could be on the
Shuttle. With aviation style operations and complexity comes aviation
style checklists and hands on pilot responsibility. And a hearty amen
to that, brother.
a former almost-pilot
priced out of the air
by lawyers and bureaucrats,
Dale Amon
Brian Stuart Thorn
Yep, lots of nasty stuff in those SRBs. But I can say from observation
that the wildlife at Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, surrounding
Launch Complex 39, doesn't seem effected one bit. If pollution from the
SRBs were a serious threat, it should show up there first, right?
More Bald Eagles and alligators there than most places. Not to mention
all those fish, snakes, birds, and insects inhabiting the place.
I grew up around there too, and there's nothing wrong (hack hack) with
me (cough) either. ;-)
-Brian
Brian Stuart Thorn
There is still *one* thing that the Space Shuttle can do that no other
launch system is capable of... bringing things back from orbit.
Whether or not it is efficient to do so is another question. I posted
another question about why Hubble Space Telescope is not brought back
home for repairs. There are many reasons in this case, mostly concerning
cost and loss of productivity (however limited it would be).
The Shuttle, as you continually point out, is enormously expensive to
operate and inefficient when it is operating. But I don't think putting
a Soyuz on an Atlas (which *doesn't* have the lift capacity, BTW) or a
Titan IV (which isn't much better than Shuttle) is a reasonable solution.
Shuttle certainly does not have 'twice the lift capacity' of Titan IV as
an earlier poster contended, but it does have about one-third more, I
believe. NASA just doesn't use that capability. Instead, NASA is flying
Shuttles with half-full payload bays (STS-52). Someday, we might actually
have a payload requiring all that lift, or return capacity, and as we did
after the demise of Saturn V, we'll be saying "why did we abandon it?"
Or maybe not.
On a related topic (your informative background on Delta Clipper) this
sounds like an excellent idea, but I'm nervous about it. Having grown up
in the Cape Canaveral area, and seen my share of boosters blow up or go
tumbling into the Atlantic, the idea of a powered descent and vertical
landing gives me the willies... I sure hope that thing has plenty of
redundancy... rocket engines have a way of conking out at innopportune
times.
-Brian
Allen W. Sherzer
>There is still *one* thing that the Space Shuttle can do that no other
>launch system is capable of... bringing things back from orbit.
At the moment there is no requirement for this capability. There simply
isn't anything we can return. The only things brought back have been LDEF
and a coupld of satellites. LDEF can be split up into several experiments
(which would allow greater access) and fly every Soyuz mission.
Satellites cannot be brought back in a cost effective manner. The only
ones brought back had to recive hundreds of millions is subsidies from
us taxpayers.
>Whether or not it is efficient to do so is another question. I posted
>another question about why Hubble Space Telescope is not brought back
>home for repairs. There are many reasons in this case, mostly concerning
>cost and loss of productivity (however limited it would be).
Brinning Hubble back and flying it again would cost well over a billion
$$. For less, we could build a new one and launch on a Titan.
>The Shuttle, as you continually point out, is enormously expensive to
>operate and inefficient when it is operating. But I don't think putting
>a Soyuz on an Atlas (which *doesn't* have the lift capacity, BTW) or a
Atlas is close. If it can't, we can go with Titan III for far far less.
>Titan IV (which isn't much better than Shuttle) is a reasonable solution.
A Titan IV launch costs about a third of what a Shuttle flight costs.
>Shuttle certainly does not have 'twice the lift capacity' of Titan IV as
>an earlier poster contended, but it does have about one-third more, I
>believe.
The new Titan SRMs will close most if not all of that gap.
>Someday, we might actually
>have a payload requiring all that lift, or return capacity, and as we did
>after the demise of Saturn V, we'll be saying "why did we abandon it?"
We wo't have those payloads as long as Shuttle is consuming a third of
the NASA budget. It is a millstone holding us all to the Earth.
There are plenty of heavy lift options we can go with when we need them.
All are far cheaper than Shuttle.
On a related topic (your informative background on Delta Clipper) this
>sounds like an excellent idea, but I'm nervous about it. Having grown up
>in the Cape Canaveral area, and seen my share of boosters blow up or go
>tumbling into the Atlantic,
In the last ten years or so almost all the boosters have been blown up
by range safety.
>the idea of a powered descent and vertical
>landing gives me the willies...
Much safer than airplanes for most people. A DC crash will only affect the
Spaceport. When aircraft crash they tend to kill people on the ground.
>I sure hope that thing has plenty of
>redundancy... rocket engines have a way of conking out at innopportune
>times.
All SSTO designs I have ever seen have at least one engine out capability.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------153 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Henry Spencer
>>the idea of a powered descent and vertical
>>landing gives me the willies...
>
>Much safer than airplanes for most people. A DC crash will only affect the
>Spaceport. When aircraft crash they tend to kill people on the ground.
And as any Harrier pilot will tell you, a vertical powered landing is
safer than a horizontal powered landing. And either one is *much* safer
than a Shuttle-style horizontal landing *without* power.
Allen W. Sherzer
>Simulator testing for the DC-X/Y/1 pilots is underway. As you know, DC-X
>will be flown remotely, DC-Y will be crew-capable. Among the pilots trainingh
>is Pete Conrad. If that name sounds familiar....it should!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It sure does! He was one of the actors on the made-for-tv movie Plymouth.
:-)
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------152 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Allen W. Sherzer
>> That means all it needs for the second launch is to be re-fueled.
>Well, I'll pick a rather important nit: No pilot in their right mind
>gets behind the wheel/stick without doing a careful walkaround
>pre-flight.
To quote Sir Gawain: 'I stand a fool and you a wise man proved'.
>I expect that an operational DC1 vehicle will put the
>pilot back into the loop in a way they never were or could be on the
>Shuttle. With aviation style operations and complexity comes aviation
>style checklists and hands on pilot responsibility. And a hearty amen
>to that, brother.
That's an important point. When the Shuttle was first going up,
comentators called it 'the most complex vehicle ever built'. The
problem was that they said it like it was a good thing. Complexity
is NOT a good thing and its about time we realized it.
Allen W. Sherzer
>It's not an accident that the more farsighted schemes for encouraging
>commercial launchers focus on guaranteeing a market, not on providing
>direct support.
The problem with a 'Kelly act for space' is that the Government can
no longer be trusted to maintain the program long enough to do any
good.
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> In article <1992Nov20.2...@nuchat.sccsi.com> rko...@nuchat.sccsi.com (Rich Kolker) writes:
>
>>Simulator testing for the DC-X/Y/1 pilots is underway. As you know, DC-X
>>will be flown remotely, DC-Y will be crew-capable. Among the pilots trainingh
>>is Pete Conrad. If that name sounds familiar....it should!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> It sure does! He was one of the actors on the made-for-tv movie Plymouth.
>
O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/
- ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
/ \ (_) (_) / | \
| | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
\ / Bitnet: HIG...@FNAL.BITNET
- - Internet: HIG...@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS
John F. Woods
>>Whether or not it is efficient to do so is another question. I posted
>>another question about why Hubble Space Telescope is not brought back
>>home for repairs. There are many reasons in this case, mostly concerning
>>cost and loss of productivity (however limited it would be).
>Brinning Hubble back and flying it again would cost well over a billion
>$$. For less, we could build a new one and launch on a Titan.
And, of course, since Hubble wasn't designed to withstand the rigors of
being brought back (though that was the original intention), doing so could
result in *needing* to build a new one -- after having spent a billion dollars
:-). [The ride down is not all that smooth, and Hubble is a big, delicate
piece of optics.]
Henry Spencer
>>It's not an accident that the more farsighted schemes for encouraging
>>commercial launchers focus on guaranteeing a market, not on providing
>>direct support.
>
>The problem with a 'Kelly act for space' is that the Government can
Unfortunately true. One can think of ways around this, but they're not
things the government is likely to be willing to do...
am...@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
> sounds like an excellent idea, but I'm nervous about it. Having grown up
> in the Cape Canaveral area, and seen my share of boosters blow up or go
> landing gives me the willies... I sure hope that thing has plenty of
> redundancy... rocket engines have a way of conking out at innopportune
> times.
>
Absolutely correct. And so do 747's. They make one *HELL* of a mess when they
come down on an apartment block. Too 747's don't go straight up and down so
they'd keep the incredible destruction of an accident inside the bounds of the
airport. (Tongue in cheek, but barely...)
Lets face it. The fuel load of a modern jumbo (and the superjumbo's they are
talking about in Europe) is not significantly different from a DC-1. Because
of the VTVL the DC-1 is probably less of a hazard to people than an airliner.
Accidents usually happen at take off and landing. Both of these will be much
more within the confines of the airport than airliners.
BTW... Did the pictures of the Isreali crash into an apartment block get shown
on the air over in the US (and the rest of the world) as much as here? Anyone
heard outcries to allow 747's to only take off and land over water?
Gary Coffman
>In article <1992Nov22....@iti.org> a...@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>>the idea of a powered descent and vertical
>>>landing gives me the willies...
>>
>>Much safer than airplanes for most people. A DC crash will only affect the
>>Spaceport. When aircraft crash they tend to kill people on the ground.
>
>And as any Harrier pilot will tell you, a vertical powered landing is
>safer than a horizontal powered landing. And either one is *much* safer
>than a Shuttle-style horizontal landing *without* power.
As any glider pilot will tell you, gliders don't burn on impact. Nor
do they pinwheel across the sky when a thrust diverter fails.
Gary
Gary Coffman
>
>What I would do is to use the Titan to launch it, dock with any of the
>simple, easially built space station ideas exising today and operate it
>year round. That way we can use Spacelab 365 days a year instead of
>a week or so every two years.
It's awfully hard to dock with an idea. Real hardware may not work as
well as a paper spaceship, but it has the advantage of being real and
tangible.
Gary
Dan Vento
wrote:
>
> In article <69...@cup.portal.com> Bri...@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
> >Allen...
>
> >There is still *one* thing that the Space Shuttle can do that no other
> >launch system is capable of... bringing things back from orbit.
>
> At the moment there is no requirement for this capability. There simply
> isn't anything we can return. The only things brought back have been LDEF
> and a coupld of satellites. LDEF can be split up into several experiments
> (which would allow greater access) and fly every Soyuz mission.
>
Whoa, wait a minute! What about the dozens (probably hundreds, I haven't
counted) of microgravity, space science, DoD, and astronomy payloads that
have flown and been returned. This is a capability that the Shuttle has
that no other launch system can even come close to matching.
Dan Vento
ve...@mars.lerc.nasa.gov
Thomas Clarke
writes:
>
> Splash.
>
> Boom.
>
> Boom, boom.
>
> Classic mistake to abandon working hardware until flight
^Booming^
> proven replacements for the capabilities are in place. No more paper
> spaceships please.
>
> Small confort to a crewed vehicle. Boom is boom.
I think (USSR?) Shuttle is only rocket to have killed crew during
the boost phase. We've got to replace it before it happens
again. Get rid of those damn SRBs. If they're no good on a titan
then they're no good on the shuttle. Everytime I watch a launch
I find myself holding my breath for the 2 minutes it takes to
expend the SRBs.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, cla...@acme.ucf.edu
Allen W. Sherzer
>Spacelab and Astro are two payloads that we want very much to return
>from orbit on a regular basis.
No, Spacelab and Astor are two payloads that we want very much to keep
in orbit so they can be used. Building multi-billion $$ payloads and then
flying them for a few days every two years isn't cost effective.
>Not that they are all that
>cheap mind you, but the experimental community thinks them worthwhile.
The experimental community doesn't pay for them so this should come
as no suprise.
>Deadheading is never cost effective. But that's a management problem,
>not a Shuttle problem per se. If you have to charge an entire Shuttle
>mission against a satellite return, then it is expensive,
To date it has never been done. Shuttle flights are so expensive
that it isn't likely it can ever be done. You would need to return
at least five or so satellites.
>>A Titan IV launch costs about a third of what a Shuttle flight costs.
>Boom.
So? When a Titan goes boom the crew has a very good chance of surviving.
There hasn't been a Titan failure which would have resulted in loss of
crew for at least 10 and more likely 20 years.
When Shuttle goes boom on the other hand, people die.
>>The new Titan SRMs will close most if not all of that gap.
>Boom, boom.
Does the word 'Chalenger' ring a bell? Remember the old saying about
people in glass houses?
>That's the excuse used to abandon Saturn, Shuttle was supposed to be
>far cheaper. Classic mistake to abandon working hardware until flight
>proven replacements for the capabilities are in place.
Would you consider a pickup truck which only worked one day a week and
cost $200 per mile to operate 'working hardware'? I wouldn't which is
why I don't consider Shuttle working hardware.
>>In the last ten years or so almost all the boosters have been blown up
>>by range safety.
>Small confort to a crewed vehicle. Boom is boom.
If your in Shuttle, true enough. On the other hand if your in a Delta
Clipper made of much simpler components (less likely to fail) and with
abort modes throughout the entire flight envelope it is a great deal
of comfort.
A range safety officer can blow up a Shuttle, not so with Delta Clipper.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------151 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Allen W. Sherzer
>>And as any Harrier pilot will tell you, a vertical powered landing is
>>safer than a horizontal powered landing. And either one is *much* safer
>>than a Shuttle-style horizontal landing *without* power.
>As any glider pilot will tell you, gliders don't burn on impact.
Nither do Delta Clippers which are made of non-flamable composits and
have little fuel in them when they land.
>Nor do they pinwheel across the sky when a thrust diverter fails.
DC doesn't have thrust diverters.
Simplicity often = safety.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------151 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Allen W. Sherzer
>It's awfully hard to dock with an idea.
Not if your a good engineer.
Pat
>
>with new experiment racks and reflown. *That's* more cost effective
>than throwing them away each time or refitting them in space. Neither
>spam in a can nor a space station can handle the needs of those missions
>as effectively or as cheaply as Shuttle. Not that they are all that
>cheap mind you, but the experimental community thinks them worthwhile.
>
I think astro only returns because the shuttle returns. Most astro
program objectives could be flown on expendable sattellites rather
like IUE. i am certain IUE, COBE, IRAS have performed as ably as ASTRO
without the launch delays or costs. Notice NASA is funding the 4 great
observatories. if ASTRO was so great, they'd fly it more.
Space lab is useful, certainly, but you could automate it and fly most of
the experiments on disposables with return capacity if you really wanted.
certainly the shuttle has certain unique capacities but judging how often
LDEF, ASTRO and SPacelab have flown over the last 12 years, i dont think
people are dying for those missiions.
>wasteful. Might as well bring down a satellite or two at the marginal
>cost of a little maneuvering fuel. It's only useful for LEO satellites
>due to the lack of direct to GEO capability of the Shuttle, which is
>a shame, but it is a viable approach for those cases where Shuttle
>will be going to those orbital altitudes anyway. The problem is that
>
I think this is easier said then done. Henry, Alan????
>>Atlas is close. If it can't, we can go with Titan III for far far less.
>
>Splash.
>
>
>>
>>The new Titan SRMs will close most if not all of that gap.
>
>Boom, boom.
>
Easy slam. but an ad hominem attack doesnt make an argument.
I believe henry pointed out awhile ago that the shuttle has no greater
flight safety record then any expendable launcher. actually i think
he pointed out that the man rated versions of launchers were
not statiscally significantly improved over the non man rated versions.
fact is you could describe the shuttle with the same Boom Boom.
>
>>
>>In the last ten years or so almost all the boosters have been blown up
>>by range safety.
>
>Small confort to a crewed vehicle. Boom is boom.
>
Nonsense. a booster destroyed by the RSO is part of a planned process.
All previous manned missions had emergency escape provisions for the
crew during boost. I cant remember wether apollo used a escape rocket
or the SM engines, but the crew could get clear. certainly not fun,
but probably no worse then ejection seats. certainly any manned vehicle
would have this capacity. Henry, does the Soyuz have an escape rocket????
>>>the idea of a powered descent and vertical
>>>landing gives me the willies...
>>
>>Much safer than airplanes for most people. A DC crash will only affect the
>>Spaceport. When aircraft crash they tend to kill people on the ground.
>
>And a Shuttle crash landing is that of a glider, no boom, and perhaps
>survivable by the crew. Plus who says the SSTO will crash on the Spaceport
>grounds, few aircraft do. If they have a guidance failure, it might be
>downtown Disney World. All those kids, consumed in flaming rocket fuel,
>I can see the headlines now.
>
Actually, i think you are wrong there. i doubt a guidance failure would
be any worse for a DC-Y,1 then for a 747. remember it is a piloted
ppowered vehicle. if the ILS screws, the crew is still able to visualy
guide as well as get instructions from ground control. now a control
systems failure is possible, but with triple redundancy and smart pilots
even many severe control failures can be flown around. i know of
L-1011's flown in without elevator controls. United almost landed
a DC-10 minus an engine and all controls. Convertibles have been landed.
Besides, a DC flies on LOX/LH. coming in it should be low fuel and
LOX/LH does not really explode effficiently. you get steam and water
not a big boom. Several thousand pounds of JP-4 burns much better then
LOX/LH i would bet. the LOX should disperse rapidly and the LH burns
but not as persistently as a petroleum fire.
Pat
>
>Would you consider a pickup truck which only worked one day a week and
>cost $200 per mile to operate 'working hardware'? I wouldn't which is
>why I don't consider Shuttle working hardware.
>
Sounds like a Jaguar XJ-12E circa 1977 :-)
Pat
>
>BTW... Did the pictures of the Isreali crash into an apartment block get shown
>on the air over in the US (and the rest of the world) as much as here? Anyone
>heard outcries to allow 747's to only take off and land over water?
>
YES, We get Cnn here:-) and usually we route aircraft over water,
but they call it noise abatement. The pilots hate it BTW.
Dan Vento
wrote:
>
>
> >Spacelab and Astro are two payloads that we want very much to return
> >from orbit on a regular basis.
>
> No, Spacelab and Astor are two payloads that we want very much to keep
> in orbit so they can be used. Building multi-billion $$ payloads and then
> flying them for a few days every two years isn't cost effective.
>
No, you definitely want to be able to bring these kinds of payloads back on
a regular basis at least until we have gained much more experience. Many,
if not most of the Spacelab type payloads are very new concepts, flying for
the first time, often built by organizations with little space hardware
experience. Rethinking and reflight are part of the learning curve.
Remember the Shuttle type small Space Experiments world (except for life
sciences) has really only been around since the late 70's and we are only
just learning to do many things that are taken for granted in ground-based
laboratories. Being able to retrieve and refly payloads before building
the space station version is the only way to prevent having a whole lot of
space junk inside your $30 Billion dollar space station.
Dan Vento
ve...@mars.lerc.nasa.gov
Dave Jones
>
> Deadheading is never cost effective. But that's a management problem,
> not a Shuttle problem per se. If you have to charge an entire Shuttle
> return mission is piggybacked on a mission that carries things *to*
> orbit, or does other experimental work, then landing *empty* is also
> wasteful. Might as well bring down a satellite or two at the marginal
> cost of a little maneuvering fuel.
Folding two missions into one is not a trivial matter. Doing de-orbit with
x tons of satellite aboard is a whole different ball game from doing it
empty. You have to consider extra fuel to take up there for de-orbit,
extra to maneuver from deployment orbit to pickup orbit, more supplies
for extra time on orbit, more fuel to drive the extra supplies around,
launch windows, and so on. Trying to retrieve an object can make the
original payload objective impossible to achieve. NASA must love people
who say "While you're up there, why don't you......". It ain't exactly
climbing around on the roof of a house.
--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones (d...@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY |
Chris Jones
>Nonsense. a booster destroyed by the RSO is part of a planned process.
>All previous manned missions had emergency escape provisions for the
>crew during boost.
All US missions up through the fourth shuttle launch had crew escape
provisions. After the loss of Challenger, the escape pole was added to the
shuttle, so there were 21 missions flown with no escape provisions after
launch, and I'd say that the shuttle currently has no escape provision during
boost.
> I cant remember wether apollo used a escape rocket
>or the SM engines,
It had an escape rocket.
> but the crew could get clear. certainly not fun,
>but probably no worse then ejection seats. certainly any manned vehicle
>would have this capacity. Henry, does the Soyuz have an escape rocket????
Yes, all Soyuz flights have had an escape rocket. There have been two launch
aborts of Soyuz flights: one just before liftoff in which the escape rocket
pulled the spacecraft and its occupants to safety, and one during the third
stage burn, which was again non-fatal, although a gruelling reentry featuring G
forces around the 15 level.
The two Soviet Voskhod flights (first multi-man crew and first EVA,
respectively) had neither ejection seats (as flown on Vostok) or an escape
rocket.
--
Chris Jones c...@ksr.com
Allen W. Sherzer
>> No, Spacelab and Astor are two payloads that we want very much to keep
>> in orbit so they can be used.
>No, you definitely want to be able to bring these kinds of payloads back on
>a regular basis at least until we have gained much more experience.
We want to bring back individual experiment racks. We don't want to bring
back the entire lab.
>if not most of the Spacelab type payloads are very new concepts, flying for
>the first time, often built by organizations with little space hardware
>experience. Rethinking and reflight are part of the learning curve.
Exactly. Those users are ill served by a Spacelab which flies one time
every couple of years. They WOULD be well served by something like
ISF which is up there all the time and so offers far more flight
opportunities.
>Remember the Shuttle type small Space Experiments world (except for life
>sciences) has really only been around since the late 70's
I hope you aren't referring to 'get away specials' since NASA doesn't fly
them anymore.
Henry Spencer
>
>No, you definitely want to be able to bring these kinds of payloads back on
We want to bring back *individual items* from Spacelab, at varying times.
But returning *small* payloads has never been a problem. The issue here
is whether we want to be able to return *big* payloads in one piece. I
see no major requirement to return a payload larger than one Spacelab
experiment rack. Taking the infrastructure -- pressure hull, services,
etc. -- up and down all the time is crazy. As is limiting the mission
length to a week or two for the sake of hauling it up and down.
Henry Spencer
>>safer than a horizontal powered landing. And either one is *much* safer
>>than a Shuttle-style horizontal landing *without* power.
>
>As any glider pilot will tell you, gliders don't burn on impact. Nor
>do they pinwheel across the sky when a thrust diverter fails.
Ask any airline pilot how he'd prefer to land a 747: as a glider with
tanks bone-dry, or low on fuel but with all four engines running.
If gliders were big enough and heavy enough and fast enough to need
10,000ft concrete runways for a safe landing, most of them would have
engines, so they could abort a landing approach and go around for
another try.
No, gliders don't burn on impact; they just go "crunch". It's still
just about as fatal.
Neither airliners nor rockets "pinwheel across the sky when a thrust
diverter fails". A Titan launch a few years ago had one of the core
engines lose gimbal control and lock in position (just about hard over
to one side, I believe it was); the other engine compensated and only
the technical crew noticed -- the launch was successful.
Henry Spencer
>All US missions up through the fourth shuttle launch had crew escape
>provisions. After the loss of Challenger, the escape pole was added to the
>shuttle, so there were 21 missions flown with no escape provisions after
>launch, and I'd say that the shuttle currently has no escape provision during
>boost.
More precisely, the shuttle has never had any provision for escape during
boost. Both its escape systems -- the ejection seats carried for the first
four flights, and the escape pole carried now -- require gliding flight at
relatively low altitude. (Technically the seats could have been used during
boost, but the probability of survival approached zero.) Both were meant
as alternatives to a (probably unsurvivable) ditching or belly landing,
not for instant escape during powered flight.
>> I cant remember wether apollo used a escape rocket
>>or the SM engines,
>
>It had an escape rocket.
Actually, it used either one, depending on timing. The escape rocket
was jettisoned after it was no longer needed.
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> In article <1992Nov24....@ke4zv.uucp> ga...@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>Spacelab and Astro are two payloads that we want very much to return
>>from orbit on a regular basis. That allows them to be easily refitted
>>with new experiment racks and reflown.
> program objectives could be flown on expendable sattellites rather
Hmmph. I'd like to hear Greg Hennessey's opinion on this, Pat.
ASTRO (a bunch of telescopes in the .5 m to 1 m class working mostly
in the ultraviolet) made sense if you flew it frequently, like every
year or two. They were stupid if you flew them just once after a
decade of development, which is what has happened so far.
(Fortunately, they're scheduled for an ASTRO-2 reflight, and I hope
they do more).
They are similar to the fully-automated satellite IUE (International
Ultraviolet Explorer) but IUE is pretty much a spectroscopy mission,
where ASTRO had (1)a 1-m spectroscopic scope with far-ultraviolet
capability, (2) the world's first imaging UV telescope in orbit, (3) a
dedicated photopolarimetry scope. Plus NASA threw in a couple of
X-ray telescopes on the same mission. They also incorporate
Would it make sense to put the ASTRO telescopes onto one or more
free-flying platforms? Well, it would be a pain to do *now*, and
maybe not cost-effective, since they're designed to run from the
Shuttle. (For instance, UIT uses film, not CCDs, so you have to bring
it back.) Hey, Greg, do your guys ever talk about how to do this?
But suppose it's 1980 and you're running this project. A gypsy
fortuneteller gives you a glimpse of the Shuttle's troubles and
ASTRO's electronics problems once it *does* fly (the primary and backup
control computers both crapped out and a manual kluge was created for
pointing)-- well, you would dash out and buy a free-flyer
faster than you could say "Son of IUE."
Or am I all wet?
> Space lab is useful, certainly, but you could automate it and fly most of
> the experiments on disposables with return capacity if you really wanted.
> certainly the shuttle has certain unique capacities but judging how often
> LDEF, ASTRO and SPacelab have flown over the last 12 years, i dont think
> people are dying for those missiions.
Aaarrgh. Are you saying ASTRO and other Spacelab missions have flown
infrequently because they have little scientific merit? *I* think
they've flown infrequently because the Shuttle has flown infrequently!
As I said, they were conceived when frequent reflights were supposed
to be part of the Shuttle science program.
Bill Higgins | Sign in window of
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | Alice's bookstore:
Bitnet: HIG...@FNAL.BITNET | "EVER READ BANNED BOOKS?
Internet: HIG...@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | YOU SHOULD!"
SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | Gee, I hope it doesn't become
| *compulsory*.
Greg Hennessy
#Hmmph. I'd like to hear Greg Hennessey's opinion on this, Pat.
Sure. I would have chipped in earlier, but for some reason sci.space
got unsubscribed.
#ASTRO (a bunch of telescopes in the .5 m to 1 m class working mostly
#in the ultraviolet) made sense if you flew it frequently, like every
#year or two. They were stupid if you flew them just once after a
#decade of development, which is what has happened so far.
#(Fortunately, they're scheduled for an ASTRO-2 reflight, and I hope
#they do more).
There is no doubt that *all* four of the telescopes in the Astro
mission would be much better off as IUE type projects, but the screwey
budget situation does not allow this. BBXRT is basically being done as
a permanent telescope as ASTRO-D, but the three UV telescopes are SOL.
If the three UV instruments, WUPPE and HUT (one a spectro-polarimeter,
the other a spectroscope mainly from 912-1216 AA, but can go down to
450 AA), are easily convertible in scope to IUE type instruments, BUT
NOTE, that isn't saying that the existing instruments would be
converted. It is probably just as expensive to retrofit the existing
instruments as it is to design new ones. I'm not very familar with how
much HUT overlaps with the FUSE mission, so that one may not be very
useful.
UIT is a bit harder. I have the origional proposal on my desk, and it
is dated 1978. *AT THE TIME* it was clear that using film as a
recorder was far better than CCD's, especially considering the 40 mm
field of view. There is an announcement of opportunity for Small
Mission EXplorer instruments, and it is highly likely that a UV survey
instrument (using a mosiac of 2Kx2K CCD's) will be chosen. This would
do an all sky survey, then deeper direct pointings for the rest of the
spacecraft's life.
#where ASTRO had
#(2) the world's first imaging UV telescope in orbit,
Sorry, not true. HST beat us to orbit, and FAUST also flew before us,
and there were some UV wide field imagers on some of the Apollo
missions. Most of them returned of order 10 or so images, while UIT
returned 900 exposures, but we weren't the first.
#(For instance, UIT uses film, not CCDs, so you have to bring
#it back.) Hey, Greg, do your guys ever talk about how to do this?
Only at bars while drinking, since 1) there is no hope for a budget
for this, 2) using CCD's would lose a large fraction of the field of
view, and 3) there is no hope for a budget for this.
Also add in the lack of a budget, and you see it isn't feasable.
#But suppose it's 1980 and you're running this project. A gypsy
#fortuneteller gives you a glimpse of the Shuttle's troubles and
#ASTRO's electronics problems once it *does* fly (the primary and backup
#control computers both crapped out and a manual kluge was created for
#pointing)-- well, you would dash out and buy a free-flyer
#faster than you could say "Son of IUE."
#
#Or am I all wet?
Well, in 1980 the scientists were *TRYING* to get Son of IUE, since we
knew the shuttle was bad for science, but there was no budget. It was
the shuttle or nothing. The astronomers didn't have to pay for a
shuttle launch, but would have to pay for a unmanned rocket launch, so
it was either launch on the shuttle, or watch someone else launch on
the shuttle. Also remember that IUE wasn't paid for untill *AFTER*
"Large Space Telescope" aka HST was ordered. IUE was basically a
proving ground for much of HST, not the first of a series of
telescopes it *SHOULD* have been!
#Aaarrgh. Are you saying ASTRO and other Spacelab missions have flown
#infrequently because they have little scientific merit? *I* think
#they've flown infrequently because the Shuttle has flown infrequently!
They were designed when the shuttle was going to fly 24 times a year,
so they would fly once every 24 flights. According to schedule,
Astro-2 will fly on about the 60th flight, basically on schedule. :^(
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gs...@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Simon E. Booth
amount of hypergolic fuels on board for the OMS and RCS thrusters.
Which means a big explosion w/toxic gas clouds, as well as the loss of the
crew.
Josh 'K' Hopkins
(Henry Spencer) writes:
(Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>>>the idea of a powered descent and vertical
>>>>landing gives me the willies...
>>>
>>>Much safer than airplanes for most people. A DC crash will only affect the
>>>Spaceport. When aircraft crash they tend to kill people on the ground.
>>
>>And as any Harrier pilot will tell you, a vertical powered landing is
>>safer than a horizontal powered landing. And either one is *much* safer
>>than a Shuttle-style horizontal landing *without* power.
>As any glider pilot will tell you, gliders don't burn on impact. Nor
>do they pinwheel across the sky when a thrust diverter fails.
The only thing a shuttle landing has in common with a standard glider landing
is that neither uses engines. I've heard astronauts describe the shuttle
while it's landing as performing like a greased brick. If I recall correctly,
a 747 with engines off can glide better than a shuttle. Besides, crash landing
the shuttle would not just cause a piddly little mess. The shuttle weighs
much more than a glider, lands faster than a glider and happens to carry fuel
anyway.
A vertical powered descent probably is safer than other methods. Of course,
this doesn't mean that the safety issues should be ignored.
--
Josh Hopkins jbh5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"Why put off 'til tomorrow what you're never going to do anyway?"
Josh 'K' Hopkins
>>>In the last ten years or so almost all the boosters have been blown up
>>>by range safety.
>>Small confort to a crewed vehicle. Boom is boom.
>If your in Shuttle, true enough. On the other hand if your in a Delta
>Clipper made of much simpler components (less likely to fail) and with
>abort modes throughout the entire flight envelope it is a great deal
>of comfort.
>A range safety officer can blow up a Shuttle, not so with Delta Clipper.
Why not? Is there some reason why DC can't end up uncontrolled on a trajectory
that doesn't terminate on the pad? It may be safer than shutte, but you need
to show this before you tell everyone that there won't be a need for range
safety.
Josh 'K' Hopkins
>I believe henry pointed out awhile ago that the shuttle has no greater
>flight safety record then any expendable launcher. actually i think
>he pointed out that the man rated versions of launchers were
>not statiscally significantly improved over the non man rated versions.
>fact is you could describe the shuttle with the same Boom Boom.
There are ELVs with worse records that shuttle's, but I think there are also
a few with better records.
>Nonsense. a booster destroyed by the RSO is part of a planned process.
>All previous manned missions had emergency escape provisions for the
>crew during boost. I cant remember wether apollo used a escape rocket
>or the SM engines,
There was an special escape rocket on top of the stack. It's easily visible
in most pictures.
>but probably no worse then ejection seats. certainly any manned vehicle
>would have this capacity.
Actually, I'm not sure the shuttle has abort modes for the very first part of
flight and I know that most people don't consider certain abort modes
survivable.
>Henry, does the Soyuz have an escape rocket????
It does indeed and I believe it's been used before. In fact, some of the
pictures I've seen seem to have escape rockets on unmanned payloads. Am I
mistaken or is there a reason for this?
>L-1011's flown in without elevator controls. United almost landed
>a DC-10 minus an engine and all controls. Convertibles have been landed.
Convertibles? Do you fly them with the top down?
>Besides, a DC flies on LOX/LH. coming in it should be low fuel and
>LOX/LH does not really explode effficiently. you get steam and water
>not a big boom. Several thousand pounds of JP-4 burns much better then
>LOX/LH i would bet. the LOX should disperse rapidly and the LH burns
>but not as persistently as a petroleum fire.
I read a great anecdote relating to this when I was researching zeppelins.
Apparently the DOE once did a test of the flammability of hydrogen and gasoline.
They filled two eight foot balloons with hydrogen gas and gasoline vapors
resectively and then fired tracers into them. The gasoline balloon ignited
immediately and exploded in all directions. It took three tracers to ignite
the hydrogen balloon which then burned upwards for thirty seconds without the
flames ever touching the ground.
Dan Vento
wrote:
>
>
> >> No, Spacelab and Astor are two payloads that we want very much to keep
> >> in orbit so they can be used.
>
> >No, you definitely want to be able to bring these kinds of payloads back on
> >a regular basis at least until we have gained much more experience.
>
> We want to bring back individual experiment racks. We don't want to bring
> back the entire lab.
>
> >if not most of the Spacelab type payloads are very new concepts, flying for
> >the first time, often built by organizations with little space hardware
> >experience. Rethinking and reflight are part of the learning curve.
>
> Exactly. Those users are ill served by a Spacelab which flies one time
> every couple of years. They WOULD be well served by something like
> ISF which is up there all the time and so offers far more flight
> opportunities.
>
> >Remember the Shuttle type small Space Experiments world (except for life
> >sciences) has really only been around since the late 70's
>
> I hope you aren't referring to 'get away specials' since NASA doesn't fly
> them anymore.
>
> Allen
>
No I'm not referring to Get Away Specials. I mean all of the Middeck,
Hitchiker, MSL, MPESS, SMIDEX, Spacelab Glovebox, etc. experiments, most of
which get very little public attention. They fly as secondary payloads on
*every* flight and come from a wide variety of sources including
government, universities, and private industry. We (the world, not just
NASA) are in the process of inventing the business of space applications.
Much basic engineering needs to be rethought before you try to apply it to
microgravity.
An ISF type facility would be useful for some things, but I am skeptical
that there would be sufficient commercial interest to develope enough
hardware to fill it. The bean counters would not be able to see the return
on investment for an unproven $10 or $12 Million piece of industrial
hardware, where you might not even be able to get it back to make it work.
Most of the hardware that will be filling the experiment racks on SSF will
be checked out and tested on various Spacelab missions long before being
sent to SSF.
Note that NASA does fly "Get Away Specials" all the time, though they are
often called by other names (e.g. Complex Autonomous Payloads, GAS bridges,
etc.). The fact of the matter is that we currently have considerable excess
capacity in the system for smaller experiments. These smaller experiments
are the basic building blocks for the hardware that will fill your ISF or
long duration Orbiter, or SSF, or whatever.
Dan Vento
ve...@mars.lerc.nasa.gov
Dan Vento
Spencer) wrote:
>
> In article <vento-241...@elwood.lerc.nasa.gov> ve...@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dan Vento) writes:
> >> No, Spacelab and Astor are two payloads that we want very much to keep
> >> in orbit so they can be used...
> >
> >No, you definitely want to be able to bring these kinds of payloads back on
> >a regular basis at least until we have gained much more experience...
>
> We want to bring back *individual items* from Spacelab, at varying times.
> But returning *small* payloads has never been a problem. The issue here
> is whether we want to be able to return *big* payloads in one piece. I
> see no major requirement to return a payload larger than one Spacelab
> experiment rack. Taking the infrastructure -- pressure hull, services,
> etc. -- up and down all the time is crazy. As is limiting the mission
> length to a week or two for the sake of hauling it up and down.
> --
I agree. But you will find that if you leave your Spacelab in orbit, you
still will need to haul up quite large resupply payloads containing gasses,
water, propellant, etc. Modifying the Shuttle - the only thing we will have
for some time to come - so it can carry Spacelab for 30 day missions is the
best we are going to be able to do. The Spacelab and the Shuttle were never
intended to be ends in themselves. Until either the government of the
private sector is willing to spend a $Billion or two, we need to live with
what we have.
Dan Vento
ve...@mars.lerc.nasa.gov
Allen W. Sherzer
>>A range safety officer can blow up a Shuttle, not so with Delta Clipper.
>Why not?
Same reason we don't have RSOs for airliners.
>Is there some reason why DC can't end up uncontrolled on a trajectory
>that doesn't terminate on the pad?
You mean like that 747 which smashed into the apartment complex? Sure
it could happen.
>It may be safer than shutte, but you need
>to show this before you tell everyone that there won't be a need for range
>safety.
It needs a degree of certification before it flies out of anywhere
(like civil aircraft) but it doesn't need destruct charges.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------150 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Allen W. Sherzer
>No I'm not referring to Get Away Specials. I mean all of the Middeck,
>Hitchiker, MSL, MPESS, SMIDEX, Spacelab Glovebox, etc. experiments...
Whatever. The point is that they take up a very small amount of space
and we wouldn't need Shuttle to transport them to and from an orbital
facility.
An orbiting permanent space lab would provide several times the
utilization of Shuttle spacelab which flies only once a year.
>Much basic engineering needs to be rethought before you try to apply it to
>microgravity.
Exactly. Doing this requires LOTS of flights which we don't get with
Shuttle.
>An ISF type facility would be useful for some things, but I am skeptical
>that there would be sufficient commercial interest to develope enough
>hardware to fill it.
Well if you can fill up Shuttle and Spacelab this shouldn't be any
problem.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------150 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
wingo%csp...@fedex.msfc.nas.gov
>In article <1992Nov24....@ke4zv.uucp> ga...@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Spacelab and Astro are two payloads that we want very much to return
>>from orbit on a regular basis.
>
>No, Spacelab and Astor are two payloads that we want very much to keep
>in orbit so they can be used. Building multi-billion $$ payloads and then
>flying them for a few days every two years isn't cost effective.
>
Allan, dost thou have a reference for your "multibillion dollar" statement.
Methinks the cost is far lower unless you count the cost of an entire spacelab
which you would have to do on a Titan flight.
>>Not that they are all that
>>cheap mind you, but the experimental community thinks them worthwhile.
>
>The experimental community doesn't pay for them so this should come
>as no suprise.
The experimental community does pay for the instruments in the spacelab, and
they also put several years of their lives into the effort.
>
>>Deadheading is never cost effective. But that's a management problem,
>>not a Shuttle problem per se. If you have to charge an entire Shuttle
>>mission against a satellite return, then it is expensive,
>
>To date it has never been done. Shuttle flights are so expensive
>that it isn't likely it can ever be done. You would need to return
>at least five or so satellites.
>
I seem to remember several satellites that were returned and later launched
on other vehicles. Also there was LDEF that is contributing greatly to
lowering the cost of all of the other spaceflight missions due to the
information gathered about the effects of materials in a long term LEO. Mind
you this is not figured in Allans accounting but it is in mine where my
reliablity is greater for the information.
>>>A Titan IV launch costs about a third of what a Shuttle flight costs.
>
>>Boom.
>
Last I heard Titan IV flights were $281 million according to Space Week. Your
own figures Allan put the Shuttle cost at $500 million per flight. Take a
look at the fraction, its kinda closer to 1.8 to 1.
>So? When a Titan goes boom the crew has a very good chance of surviving.
>There hasn't been a Titan failure which would have resulted in loss of
>crew for at least 10 and more likely 20 years.
>
Not so the Titan that blew up about 100 ft above the pad a few years ago.
There was zero warning, the SRB's just went poof
boom
>When Shuttle goes boom on the other hand, people die.
>
yep its called the cost of doing business
>>>The new Titan SRMs will close most if not all of that gap.
>
>>Boom, boom.
>
>Does the word 'Chalenger' ring a bell? Remember the old saying about
>people in glass houses?
>
yep sure do
>>That's the excuse used to abandon Saturn, Shuttle was supposed to be
>>far cheaper. Classic mistake to abandon working hardware until flight
>>proven replacements for the capabilities are in place.
>
>Would you consider a pickup truck which only worked one day a week and
>cost $200 per mile to operate 'working hardware'? I wouldn't which is
>why I don't consider Shuttle working hardware.
>
We are not talking about pickup trucks
>>>In the last ten years or so almost all the boosters have been blown up
>>>by range safety.
>
>>Small confort to a crewed vehicle. Boom is boom.
>
Not so the one right off the pad, it went boom with no warning.
>If your in Shuttle, true enough. On the other hand if your in a Delta
>Clipper made of much simpler components (less likely to fail) and with
>abort modes throughout the entire flight envelope it is a great deal
>of comfort.
Uh this is kinda strange when you think of all of the complex piping and
fittings and multiple engines on the bird. Seem to me that there is more
of a chance of a random or otherwise failure. One good aspect of this is that
DC is robust enough to compensate for the failure, unless they miswire the
controllers like they did on the first Saturn V flight.
>
>A range safety officer can blow up a Shuttle, not so with Delta Clipper.
>
> Allen
>--
Hate to bust your bubble on this one but on ANY launch from ANY facility
operated by the US government, range safety can push the boom button whenever
they see the mission deviating sufficiently from its mission parameters. DC
will not be an exception for this.
Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville.
wingo%csp...@fedex.mfsc.nasa.gov
>In article <vento-241...@elwood.lerc.nasa.gov> ve...@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Dan Vento) writes:
>
>>> No, Spacelab and Astor are two payloads that we want very much to keep
>>> in orbit so they can be used.
>We want to bring back individual experiment racks. We don't want to bring
>back the entire lab.
>
This is like saying we want to bring back the windshield wipers not the whole
car after a rain.
>>if not most of the Spacelab type payloads are very new concepts, flying for
>>the first time, often built by organizations with little space hardware
>>experience. Rethinking and reflight are part of the learning curve.
>
>Exactly. Those users are ill served by a Spacelab which flies one time
>every couple of years. They WOULD be well served by something like
>ISF which is up there all the time and so offers far more flight
>opportunities.
Nope ISF does not exist and therefore does not serve anyone. Spacelab has
flown three times theis year and will fly at least that many times per
year until SSF gets to PMC. SpaceHab also will be serving the microgravity
material processing community starting on STS57 in April of 93. No Allan
the shuttle is getting more and more viable as we work to drive down the
costs of the experiments by using more and more commercial hardware that
could never be flown on recoverable capsules. WE are flying a Macintosh II
SI for a system controller for our experiment on SpaceHab I and II. We will
also fly it on Spacelab SLS II next time.
>
>>Remember the Shuttle type small Space Experiments world (except for life
>>sciences) has really only been around since the late 70's
>
>I hope you aren't referring to 'get away specials' since NASA doesn't fly
>them anymore.
>
Hey Allan wake up. We have flown three here from UAH in the last 18 months and
will fly five more in the next 18. There have been over 50 GAS payloads in
the last 2 years and the que has just opened up for a new round.
Henry Spencer
>There are ELVs with worse records that shuttle's, but I think there are also
>a few with better records.
A very few. The Saturns are the only ones that come to mind. The last
few years haven't been good for expendable reliability records.
>Actually, I'm not sure the shuttle has abort modes for the very first part of
>flight and I know that most people don't consider certain abort modes
>survivable.
There is no officially-sanctioned abort mode while the SRBs are burning,
last I heard. (Oh, you might try SRB jettison or orbiter/ET separation,
but the orbiter won't survive either one.) It was looked at during early
design, and again after Challenger; that is a *hard* problem.
Once the SRBs burn out, you can try an RTLS (Return To Launch Site) abort,
which is essentially a hypersonic U-turn, but the pilots consider it
unsurvivable or nearly so. An alternative, also fairly unappealing, is
to ride the orbiter down to low altitude and bail out into the Atlantic.
There are times during post-SRB ascent when a multiple engine failure is
unsurvivable, because the orbiter is too high and too slow and will hit
atmosphere too hard.
The first really attractive abort mode is the transAtlantic abort, with
a landing in Spain or Africa.
>[Soyuz] In fact, some of the
>pictures I've seen seem to have escape rockets on unmanned payloads. Am I
>mistaken or is there a reason for this?
One doesn't normally put escape rockets on unmanned missions, because
there's no point in incurring the hazard to the pad crews unless you're
rescuing something important. A major exception is unmanned tests of
hardware intended to be manned. A second exception is systems originally
designed to be manned, in which the escape rocket's jettison sequence
accomplishes something useful like pulling a payload shroud off. I
believe the Progress freighters launch with an escape rocket for that
reason.
>>L-1011's flown in without elevator controls. United almost landed
>>a DC-10 minus an engine and all controls. Convertibles have been landed.
>
>Convertibles? Do you fly them with the top down?
He's referring, somewhat obscurely, to the Aloha Airlines accident where
a 737 lost half the top of its fuselage and was landed safely. There have
been one or two other less-dramatic incidents.
>... DOE once did a test of the flammability of hydrogen and gasoline.
>They filled two eight foot balloons with hydrogen gas and gasoline vapors
>resectively and then fired tracers into them. The gasoline balloon ignited
>immediately and exploded in all directions. It took three tracers to ignite
>the hydrogen balloon which then burned upwards for thirty seconds without the
>flames ever touching the ground.
Most people don't realize that (a) half the people aboard the Hindenberg
survived, and (b) many of the fatalities were due to the fall rather than
the fire. If you look at the standard photograph, you see a big impressive
ball of fire... billowing *upward*, away from the airship.
Gary Coffman
>
>No, gliders don't burn on impact; they just go "crunch". It's still
>just about as fatal.
Actually it's not. The safety record for gliders is quite good, and they
don't burn blocks of apartments on the ground when they do smack in
like the *powered* Navy jet did in Marietta last year, or the *powered*
C-130 that *burned* the hotel in Evansville did this year, or the Israeli
jet freighter in the Netherlands.
>Neither airliners nor rockets "pinwheel across the sky when a thrust
>diverter fails". A Titan launch a few years ago had one of the core
>engines lose gimbal control and lock in position (just about hard over
>to one side, I believe it was); the other engine compensated and only
>the technical crew noticed -- the launch was successful.
But you mentioned *Harriers*, and *they* have lost thrust on one side
and *have* pinwheeled, and *have* crashed and *burned*. Helicopters,
another VTOL, also have lost tail rotors and spun into the ground. I've
covered two such crashes in the last year. The pilots would probably
have survived, if they hadn't *burned* to death. Airliners aren't
VTOL aircraft, and rockets going *up* have room for a bobble in their
course without smartly contacting the ground. Rockets coming *down*
are an entirely different issue. An engine or control failure means
a crash of a vehicle containing *rocket* fuel, perhaps miles from
intended touchdown, like main street in Disney World for example.
I'd feel a lot better if they landed these suckers at sea, far out
at sea. And that's not a crazy idea. There have been proposals for
sea launched and sea landed space vehicles. Sea Dragon comes to mind.
Gary
Gary Coffman
>In article <1992Nov24....@ke4zv.uucp> ga...@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>That's the excuse used to abandon Saturn, Shuttle was supposed to be
>>far cheaper. Classic mistake to abandon working hardware until flight
>>proven replacements for the capabilities are in place.
>
>Would you consider a pickup truck which only worked one day a week and
>cost $200 per mile to operate 'working hardware'? I wouldn't which is
>why I don't consider Shuttle working hardware.
When the only other available alternative is to stay home, yes I'd
consider it working hardware. Deliver 50 out of 51 successful flights
on different hardware with the same capabilities and lower cost, then
we can talk about working hardware.
>A range safety officer can blow up a Shuttle, not so with Delta Clipper.
Goodbye Disney World. A flying bomb with no destruct sequence isn't
acceptable.
Gary
Henry Spencer
>>>not a Shuttle problem per se. If you have to charge an entire Shuttle
>>>mission against a satellite return, then it is expensive,
>>To date it has never been done. Shuttle flights are so expensive
>>that it isn't likely it can ever be done. You would need to return
>>at least five or so satellites.
>
>I seem to remember several satellites that were returned and later launched
>on other vehicles.
Exactly two, and that mission was financially feasible only because NASA was
itching to try it and gave the insurers a *very* good deal. It was worth
doing once for the experience -- for one thing, we learned yet again that
human hands are much more reliable than automatic machinery when you're
doing more than just snapping pictures -- but could not be justified as
an operational (as opposed to experimental) mission.
>Also there was LDEF that is contributing greatly to
>lowering the cost of all of the other spaceflight missions due to the
>information gathered about the effects of materials in a long term LEO...
As Allen has pointed out, we'd have been better off flying several smaller
LDEFs over varying periods. Some of the LDEF experiments were completely
ruined by being in space *too* long. (For that matter, before you get too
enthusiastic about LDEF, please bear in mind that
(a) it was meant to be reflown several times for varying periods
and (b) it was meant as a general-purpose way to fly cheap experiments,
and it has not met either of those hopes and never will. The undeniably-
useful information from LDEF is being had by sifting the ashes of the
original mission plans.) Nobody denies that returning things from space
is useful now and then in small amounts, but bringing back (say) one LDEF
pallet at a time is not difficult without the shuttle.
>>... if your in a Delta
>>Clipper made of much simpler components (less likely to fail) and with
>>abort modes throughout the entire flight envelope it is a great deal
>>of comfort.
>
>Uh this is kinda strange when you think of all of the complex piping and
>fittings and multiple engines on the bird. Seem to me that there is more
>of a chance of a random or otherwise failure.
Of course, if you're flying in a Delta Clipper, it has been test-flown
before you were allowed on board. (That *same* vehicle has been tested,
not just the general design.) A 747 is considerably more complex than
a Delta; it is also considerably more reliable, because it can be tested.
>One good aspect of this is that
>DC is robust enough to compensate for the failure, unless they miswire the
>controllers like they did on the first Saturn V flight.
It was the second Saturn V flight, and note that the Saturn V survived it
and a DC probably would too...
>>A range safety officer can blow up a Shuttle, not so with Delta Clipper.
>
>Hate to bust your bubble on this one but on ANY launch from ANY facility
>operated by the US government, range safety can push the boom button whenever
>they see the mission deviating sufficiently from its mission parameters. DC
>will not be an exception for this.
This is one reason why operational DCs would not fly from US government
missile ranges. (There are lots of others, like enormous bureaucracies,
stupid regulations, and massive costs.) The FAA does not require or
permit range-safety charges aboard airliners -- yes, even when they fly
from airport facilities operated by the US government -- and DC-1 will
not be an exception for *this*.
Yes, McDD has talked to the FAA about certifying the DC-1 as an airliner,
and last I heard, the FAA was interested and cautiously willing.
Allen W. Sherzer
>Allan, dost thou have a reference for your "multibillion dollar" statement.
Spacelab alone cost $1B. Add in the cost of Astro plus flights and other
work and we are talking billions.
>>The experimental community doesn't pay for them so this should come
>>as no suprise.
>The experimental community does pay for the instruments in the spacelab, and
>they also put several years of their lives into the effort.
We where talking about launches. The experimental community doesn't pay
for launches. Do you think the Italians would have paid the hundreds
of millions in actual cost for their payload launch in the last Shuttle
flight? I think they would have said 'hell no' and launched on a Pegasus
for an order of magnitude less $$.
Now if NASA goes ahead with the authorized voucher program, we may
see this change.
>>To date it has never been done. Shuttle flights are so expensive
>>that it isn't likely it can ever be done. You would need to return
>>at least five or so satellites.
>I seem to remember several satellites that were returned and later launched
>on other vehicles.
You are referring to the two Palpa communication satellites. It was about
all the Shuttle could do and it cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions
in launch subsidies.
We spent half a billion $$ to recover $75 million worth of satellites. Only
a NASA employee could consider that a good deal.
>Also there was LDEF that is contributing greatly to
>lowering the cost of all of the other spaceflight missions due to the
>information gathered
ERROR: You are assuming LDEF as is was the one and only way to get this
infromation. This is incorrect.
>you this is not figured in Allans accounting but it is in mine where my
>reliablity is greater for the information.
If you read my stuff in the past you will see I do include recovery of
LDEF type payloads. I simply do it in a different (and much cheaper) way.
>>>>A Titan IV launch costs about a third of what a Shuttle flight costs.
>Last I heard Titan IV flights were $281 million according to Space Week.
That is including a Centaur upper stage. Configured in a similar manner
the cost is about a third.
>Your
>own figures Allan put the Shuttle cost at $500 million per flight. Take a
>look at the fraction, its kinda closer to 1.8 to 1.
Even if true, so what? We are still talking about a factor of 2 cost
difference. If your goal is to keep us all on the ground, by all means
buy the expensive one. On the other hand, if you want to open up the
space frontier, you got to reduce costs.
Which are you Dennis?
>>So? When a Titan goes boom the crew has a very good chance of surviving.
>Not so the Titan that blew up about 100 ft above the pad a few years ago.
>There was zero warning, the SRB's just went poof
Still a good chance of survival. All the pilot needs is 1/2 a second
to hit the button (rest assured his hand would have already been on it).
>>When Shuttle goes boom on the other hand, people die.
>yep its called the cost of doing business
Agreed. But that doesn't change the fact that capsules are safer than
Shuttle.
>>Would you consider a pickup truck which only worked one day a week and
>>cost $200 per mile to operate 'working hardware'? I wouldn't which is
>>why I don't consider Shuttle working hardware.
>We are not talking about pickup trucks
It's called an analogy. If you don't know what that is or can't deal with
it, then remove this part of the thread. Otherwise tell us all if you
think the truck works.
>>If your in Shuttle, true enough. On the other hand if your in a Delta
>>Clipper made of much simpler components (less likely to fail) and with
>>abort modes throughout the entire flight envelope it is a great deal
>>of comfort.
>Uh this is kinda strange when you think of all of the complex piping and
>fittings and multiple engines on the bird.
Compared to what? DC has fewer engines than Shuttle and needs less to support
them. Hell, even the DC RCS uses the same fuel as the main engine! Not only
does Shuttle have more engines, but it has four different types of engines.
Shuttle supporters who think DC is complex should go back to engineering
school.
>DC is robust enough to compensate for the failure, unless they miswire the
>controllers like they did on the first Saturn V flight.
Delta Clipper is fully reusable. That means it isn't likely the
controller was miswired. If it was miswired, the DC couldn't have
flown to the spaceport.
DC is no more complex than a 747. 747 techs rarely mess up the
hardware.
>>A range safety officer can blow up a Shuttle, not so with Delta Clipper.
>Hate to bust your bubble on this one but on ANY launch from ANY facility
>operated by the US government, range safety can push the boom button whenever
>they see the mission deviating sufficiently from its mission parameters. DC
>will not be an exception for this.
DC-X will have charges. DC-Y may have charges but DC-1 will not have
charges. It won't need them any more than airliners need them.
You got to change your mindset Dennis. You won't make it as long as you
continue to equate more money and more complexity with better.
Allen W. Sherzer
>>>> No, Spacelab and Astor are two payloads that we want very much to keep
>>>> in orbit so they can be used.
>>We want to bring back individual experiment racks. We don't want to bring
>>back the entire lab.
>This is like saying we want to bring back the windshield wipers not the whole
>car after a rain.
Your getting confused. A car is a transportation device. A lab isn't. A car
*was designed* to move. Lab's aren't.
When I go home from work, I bring whatever papers I need and maybe a book or
two. I don't bring back my entire lab. If I did, I would need a much larger
and far more expensive car to go home in. Special roads would need to be
built just for me and it would be very very expensive. Worse, my co-workers
could only use the lab when I saw fit to bring it back to work.
This is why I prefer to keep my lab where it is. I can only wonder why
you feel the need to reduce productivity and increase costs by dragging
it everywhere and preventing others from using it.
>Nope ISF does not exist and therefore does not serve anyone.
You know, I'll bet that if somebody said that Freedom does not exist
and therefore does not serve anyone you would disagree.
>the shuttle is getting more and more viable as we work to drive down the
>costs
Care to document any cost savings?
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| a...@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------150 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Allen W. Sherzer
>>Would you consider a pickup truck which only worked one day a week and
>>cost $200 per mile to operate 'working hardware'? I wouldn't which is
>>why I don't consider Shuttle working hardware.
>When the only other available alternative is to stay home, yes I'd
>consider it working hardware.
I myself would ask just what I wanted to do which was worth waiting for
it to be available and to pay $200 per mile for.
Fortunatlly, we don't need to stay home since we have available trucks
which are available almost all the time and cost $0.30 per mile.
>>A range safety officer can blow up a Shuttle, not so with Delta Clipper.
>Goodbye Disney World. A flying bomb with no destruct sequence isn't
>acceptable.
A bit less zenophobia please! what the hell do you think an airliner is?