Conference 7.286::space

    An interesting sounding project!  I hope that when SDIO gets its
    inevitable cut, it won't hurt work like this.  /jlr

    I hope it takes off too (literally) as it appears more and more that
    NASP is getting the ax. (I don't understand the short sightedness of
    people). This may end up to be the only SSTO machine to reach
    construction and testing for a long time.
    
    Roger

  Do we need both? If the Clipper can provide one stage to orbit, why build
the other one. Between the Clipper, NASP, and what ever the Skunk Works
has been buzzing around with it appears that there are several efforts
under way. Seems that one unified effort out of all these projects might
be the best idea.

  George

    I don't care what it is, but the world needs quick and inexpensive
    access to orbit. Both for people and materials...

    The Delta Clipper if its costs and performances are anywhere near
    what is described here would be a dream come true!!! 

    But I tend to doubt it, its already hard enough when a vehicle 
    carries only fuel to go up, or not even that (i.e. NASP uses air as 
    well) but for it to carry all propellants to go up and then come down 
    again ????  not with today's allowed technology.

    Now if it used Nuclear Thermal Engines the Delta Clipper might work...

    			...................

    Quick and inexpensive access to orbit will eventually happen, but
    first lots and lots of money need to be invested on it. before we
    can get some payback out of it... And these days governaments all
    over don't seem to hot for it; maybe if they all got together (-;

    What will win:

    	o	A mature/improved Space Shuttle
    	o	A mature/improved trow-away rocket

    	o	NASP
    	o	Delta Clipper ?
    	o	The Dual Expander Engine Space Shuttle
    	o	A two-stage 100% recoverable Space Shuttle
    		(Like the Space Shuttle could have been)

    	o	...  Nuclear Shuttle ... 
    		(Only if we are really desperate)

    	o	...  Other 

    Gil

    Really, I'm for delta clipper AND NASP.
    
    Space station is virtually worthless without lower cost to orbit.  Fund
    both, to keep competition (a wonderful thing) and reduce the risk of
    failure.
    
    In all objective honesty, cheaper access to space will make a space
    station viable.  
    
    NASA is still running off the Wherner von Braun tape.  Go to the moon,
    build the shuttle, then build the space station.  They are acting like
    the space shuttle is a great success that we can live with for the next
    20 years.  How ignorant.
    
    Tony
    

    re .-1
    
    Sure, I'ld like to see both Delta Clipper and NASP developed but I
    don't think it's realistic as far as the funding goes. You run the risk
    of spreading the money too thinly and getting nothing. I certainly
    agree with the points about the impact of cost-to-orbit on Freedom.
    
    If I had to choose between the two, I'ld prefer NASP as more of an
    incremental development and being further along the development path
    than DC. Isn't Delta Clipper going down the same path of great *new*
    idea - let's develop it?

    Doesn't this feel too much like putting all your eggs in one basket!!
    What if the DC is flawed or delayed for whatever reason. With more than
    one development effort under way at least one of the designs stand a
    chance of being developed fully. With everything cancelled except one
    unproven design are we not setting ourselves up for big delays and
    disappointments if it doesn't work.
    
    
    I prefer a more destributed and competetive approach.
    

I suppose that since I am not an american taxpayer my opinion doesn't count for 
much with the people who decide where to spend the money, but so what...

NASP, or some other vehicle using atmospheric lift to support it's weight while
accelerating should be the primary means of transport from the EARTH's surface
to orbit. But such a vehicle is of NO use at all on the MOON. (NO-AIR!!!)

I do not have figures, but I believe that the amount of fuel used to 
get 100 tons of conventional aircraft to 50,000 ft and/or 500 Mph is RADICALLY
less than ANY vertical take-off system. 
If I were designing a surface to orbit system, I would build a massive flying 
wing, hook something like NASP *UNDERNEATH* it, and drop the orbiter at 50Kft or
higher. This would mean that the undercarriage needed for the orbiter is purely 
LANDING gear only, and need not be able to carry take-off weight. Also, the 
aerodynamics can be tuned for low landing weight and high altitude acceleration 
to orbit.

Delta-Clipper seems to me tailor made for LUNAR suface to orbit and back. When 
we go back there to stay we will need something very much like what I understand
DC to be. 

Go for BOTH, to do different jobs.

		John Travell.

re .8
    
>I suppose that since I am not an american taxpayer my opinion doesn't count
>for much with the people who decide where to spend the money, but so what...
    
    Neither am I, except in relation to agricultural subsidies (-:

>NASP, or some other vehicle using atmospheric lift to support it's weight while
>accelerating should be the primary means of transport from the EARTH's surface
>to orbit. But such a vehicle is of NO use at all on the MOON. (NO-AIR!!!)
    
    I suspect that no single vehicle will be useful in all space
    environments. As you observe NASP is essentially useless on the moon
    but the other side of the coin is that aerodynamic lift is there to be
    used on Earth.
    
>This would mean that the undercarriage needed for the orbiter is purely 
>LANDING gear only, and need not be able to carry take-off weight.
    
    Be careful about abort modes that result in the payload being returned
    to Earth.
    
>Delta-Clipper seems to me tailor made for LUNAR suface to orbit and back.
    
    Not sure about this. The lower gravity and lack of atmosphere may make
    the design overkill and then there's the availability of propellant.
    The lack of need for a looong runway must be an advantage when
    considering landing on the Moon.
    
>When we go back there to stay we will need something very much like what I
>understand DC to be. 
    
    The timing of a permanent return to the Moon makes me think that cheaper
    Earth to LEO is a higher priority not to mention the fact that
    initially everything that goes into a lunar base will be going from
    Earth.

Article: 50317
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!uunet!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DCX Status?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 17:43:33 GMT
Lines: 354
 
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Scott Fisher) writes:
 
>Q: Why is the DCX designed to take off and land vertically, taking off
>I can perhaps understand, but landing??  What are the advantages?
 
To answer this I am enclosing a paper written by Henry Spencer as
a technical introduction to some concpets behind SSTO. (He wrote
it for our Congressional Briefing Packet and has our thanks for doing
so).
 
  Allen
 
 
----------------------------------------
(Semi-)Technical Aspects of SSTO
 
This paper will try to give you some idea of why SSTO makes technical
sense and is a reasonable idea.  We'll concentrate on the overall issues,
trying to give you the right general idea without getting bogged down
in obscure detail.  Be warned that we will oversimplify a bit at times.
 
Why Is SSTO Challenging?
 
Getting a one-stage reusable rocket into orbit doesn't look impossible,
but it does look challenging.  Here's why.
 
The hard part of getting into orbit is not reaching orbital altitude,
but reaching orbital velocity.  Orbital velocity is about 18,000mph.
To this, you have to add something for reaching orbital altitude and for
fighting air resistance along the way, but these complications don't
actually add very much.  The total fuel requirement
is what would be needed to accelerate to 20-21,000mph.
 
So how much is that?  (If you don't want to know the math, skip to the
next paragraph for the results.)  The "rocket equation" is
desired_velocity = exhaust_velocity * ln(launch_weight / dry_weight),
where "ln" is the natural logarithm.  The exhaust velocity is determined
by choice of fuels and design of engines, but 7,000mph is about right
if you don't use liquid hydrogen, and 10,000mph if you do.
 
The bottom line is that the launch weight has to be about 20 times the
dry weight (the weight including everything except fuels) if you don't
use liquid hydrogen, and about 8 times the dry weight if you do.  This
sounds like hydrogen would be the obvious choice of fuel, but in practice,
hydrogen has two serious problems.  First, it is extremely bulky,
meaning that hydrogen tanks have to be very big; the Shuttle External
Tank is mostly hydrogen tank, with only the nose containing oxygen.
Second, some of the same properties that make hydrogen do well on the
weight ratio make it difficult to build hydrogen engines with high thrust,
and a rocket *does* need enough thrust to lift off!  Both of these
problems tend to drive up the dry weight, by requiring bigger and heavier
tanks and engines.
 
So how bad is this?  Well, it's not good.  Even with hydrogen, an SSTO
launcher which weighs (say) 800,000lbs at launch has to be 7/8ths fuel.
We've got 100,000lbs for tanks to hold 700,000lbs of fuel, engines to
lift an 800,000lb vehicle, a heatshield to protect the whole thing on
return, structure to hold it all together at high acceleration... and
quite incidentally, for some payload to make it all worthwhile.  Most
of the dry weight has to go for the vehicle itself; only a small part
of it can be payload.  (That is, the "payload fraction" is quite small.)
To get any payload at all, we need to work hard at making the vehicle
very lightweight.
 
The big problem here is:  what happens if the vehicle isn't quite as
light as the designer thought it would be?  All rockets, and most aircraft
for that matter, gain weight during development, as optimistic estimates
are replaced by real numbers.  An SSTO vehicle doesn't have much room for
such weight growth, because every extra pound of vehicle means one less
pound for that small payload fraction.  Particularly if we're trying to
build an SSTO vehicle for the first time, there's a high risk that the
actual payload will be smaller than planned.
 
That is the ultimate reason why nobody has yet built an SSTO space
launcher:  its performance is hard to predict.  Megaprojects like the
Shuttle can't afford unpredictability -- they are so expensive that
they must succeed.  SSTO is better suited to an experimental vehicle,
like the historic "X-planes", to establish that the concept works and
get a good look at how well it performs... but there is no X-launcher
program.
 
Why Does SSTO Look Feasible Now?
 
The closest thing to SSTO so far is the Atlas expendable launcher.  The
Atlas, without the Centaur upper stage that is now a standard part of
it, has "1.5" stages:  it drops two of its three engines (but nothing
else) midway up.  Without an upper stage, Atlas can put modest payloads
into orbit:  John Glenn rode into orbit on an Atlas.  The first Atlas
orbital mission was flown late in 1958.  But the step from 1.5 stages
to 1 stage has eluded us since.
 
Actually, people have been proposing SSTO launchers for many years.
The idea has always looked like it *just might* work.  For example,
the Shuttle program looked at SSTO designs briefly.  Mostly, nobody has
tried an SSTO launcher because everybody was waiting for somebody else
to try it first.
 
There are a few things that are crucial to success of an SSTO
launcher.  It needs very lightweight structural materials.  It needs
very efficient engines.  It needs a very light heatshield.  And it
needs a way of landing gently that doesn't add much weight.
 
Materials for structure and heatshield have been improving steadily
over the years.  The NASP program in particular has helped with this.
It now looks fairly certain that an SSTO can be light enough.
 
Existing engines do look efficient enough for SSTO, provided they can
somehow adapt automatically to the outside air pressure.  The nozzle
of a rocket engine designed to be fired in sea-level air is subtly
different from that of an engine designed for use in space, and an
SSTO engine has to work well in both conditions.  (The technical
buzzword for what's wanted is an "altitude-compensating" nozzle.)
Solutions to this problem actually are not lacking, but nobody has
yet flown one of them.  Probably the simplest one, which has been
tentatively selected for DC-Y, is just a nozzle which telescopes,
so its length can be varied to match outside conditions.  Making
nozzles that telescope is not hard -- many existing rocket nozzles,
like those of the Trident missile, telescope for compact storage --
but nobody has yet flown one that changes length *while firing*.
However, it doesn't look difficult, and there are other approaches
if this one turns out to have problems.
 
We'll talk about landing methods in more detail later, but this is one
issue that will be resolved pretty soon.  The primary goal of the DC-X
experimental craft is to fly DC-Y's landing maneuvers and prove that
they will work.
 
So... with materials under control, engines looking feasible, and
landing about to be test-flown, we should be able to build an SSTO
prototype:  DC-Y.  The prototype's performance may not quite match
predictions, but if it works *at all*, it will make all other launchers
obsolete.
 
Why A Rocket?
 
As witness the NASP (X-30) program, air-breathing engines do look like
an attractive alternative to rockets.  Much of the weight of fuel in
a rocket is oxygen, and an air-breathing engine gets its oxygen from
the air rather than having to carry it along.  However, on a closer
look, the choice is not so clear-cut.
 
The biggest problem of using air-breathing engines for spaceflight is
that they simply don't work very well at really high speeds.  An
air-breathing engine tries to accelerate air by heating it.  This works
well at low speed.  Unfortunately, accelerating air that is already
moving at hypersonic speed is difficult, all the more so when it has
to be done by heating air that is already extremely hot.  The problem
only gets worse if the engine has to work over an enormous range of
speeds:  NASP's scramjet engines would start to function at perhaps
Mach 4, but orbital speeds are roughly Mach 25.  Nobody has ever built
an air-breathing engine that can do this... but rockets do it every week.
 
Air-breathing engines have other problems too.  For one thing, to use
them, one obviously has to fly within the atmosphere.  At truly high
speeds, this means major heating problems due to air friction.  It
also means a lot of drag due to air resistance, adding to the burden
that an air-breathing engine has to overcome.  Rocket-based launchers,
including SSTO, do most of their accelerating in vacuum, away from
these problems.
 
Perhaps the biggest problem of air-breathing engines for spaceflight
is that they are *heavy*.  The best military jet engines have thrust:weight
ratios of about 8:1.  (This is at low speed; hypersonic scramjets are not
nearly that good.)  The Space Shuttle Main Engine's thrust:weight ratio,
by comparison, is 70:1 (at any speed).  The oxygen in a rocket's tanks
is burned off on the way to orbit, but the engines have to be carried
all the way, and air-breathing engines weigh a lot more.
 
And what's the payoff?  The X-30, if it is built, and if it works
perfectly, will just be able to get into orbit with a small payload.
This is about the same as SSTO, at ten times the cost.  Where is the
gain from air-breathing engines?
 
The fact is, rockets are perfectly good engines for a space launcher.
Rockets are light, powerful, well understood, and work fine at any
speed without needing air.  Oxygen may be heavy, but it is cheap (about
five cents a pound) and compact.  Finally, rocket engines are available
off the shelf, while hypersonic air-breathing engines are still research
projects.  Practical space launchers should use rockets, so SSTO does.
 
Why No Wings?
 
With light, powerful engines like rockets, there is no need to land
or take off horizontally on a runway, and no particular reason to.
Runway takeoffs and landing are touchy procedures with little room
for error, which is why a student pilot spends much of his time on
them.  Given adequate power, vertical takeoffs and landings are easier.
In particular, a vertical landing is much more tolerant of error than
a horizontal one, because the pilot can always stop, straighten out
a mistake, and then continue.  Harrier pilots confirm this:  their
comment is "it's easier to stop and then land, than to land and then
try to stop".
 
What if you don't have adequate power?  Then you are in deep trouble
even if your craft takes off and lands horizontally.  As witness the
El Al crash in Amsterdam recently, even airliners often don't survive
major loss of power at low altitude.  To make a safe horizontal landing,
especially in less-than-ideal weather conditions, you *must* have enough
power to abandon a bad landing approach and try again.  Shuttle-style
gliding landings are dangerous, and airline crews go to great lengths
to avoid them; the Shuttle program, with the nation's best test pilots
doing the flying and no effort spared to help them, has already had
one near-crash in its first fifty flights.  Routine access to space
requires powered landings.
 
If we are going to rely on powered landings, we must make sure that power
will be available.  Airliners do this by having more than one engine,
and being able to fly with one engine out.  SSTO is designed to survive
a single engine failure at the moment of liftoff, and a second failure
later.  Since (at least) 7/8ths of the takeoff weight of SSTO is fuel,
it will be much lighter at landing than at takeoff.  Given good design,
it will have enough power for landing even if several engines fail.
If SSTO has an engine failure soon after liftoff, it will follow much
the same procedure as an airliner:  it will hover to burn off most of
its fuel (this is about as quick as an airliner's fuel dumping), and
then land, with tanks nearly empty to minimize weight and fire hazard.
 
Note that in an emergency, vertical landing has one major advantage
over horizontal landing:  horizontal landing requires a runway, preferably
a long one with a favorable wind, while a vertical landing just requires
a small flat spot with no combustible materials nearby.  A few years ago,
a Royal Navy Harrier pilot had a major electronics failure and was unable
to return to his carrier.  He made an emergency landing on the deck of a
Spanish container ship.  The Harrier suffered minor damage; any other
aircraft would have been lost, and the pilot would have had to risk
ejection and recovery from the sea.
 
Given vertical landing and takeoff, is there any other use for wings?
One:  crossrange capability, the ability to steer to one side during
reentry, so as to land at a point that is not below the orbit track.
The Shuttle has quite a large crossrange capability, 1500 miles.
However, if we examine the history of the Shuttle, we find
that this was a requirement imposed by the
military, to make the Shuttle capable of flying some demanding USAF missions.
A civilian space launcher needs a crossrange capability of, at most, a
few hundred miles, to let it make precision landings at convenient times.
This is easily achieved with a wingless craft:  the Apollo spacecraft
could do it.
 
Finally, wings are a liability in several important ways.  They are heavy.
They are difficult to protect against reentry heat.  And they make the
vehicle much more susceptible to wind gusts during landing and takeoff
(this is a significant limitation on shuttle launches).
 
SSTO does not need wings, would suffer by carrying them, and hence does
not have them.
 
Why Will It Be Cheap And Reliable?
 
This is a good question.  The Shuttle was supposed to be cheap and
reliable, and is neither.  However, there is reason for hope for SSTO.
 
The Shuttle's costs come mainly from the tremendous army of people
needed to inspect and refurbish it after each flight.  SSTO should get
by with many fewer.
 
The basic SSTO concept opens major possibilities for simple, quick
refurbishment.  With no discarded parts, nothing needs to be replaced.
With no separating parts, there is no need to re-assemble anything.
In principle, an SSTO vehicle should be able to "turn around" like
an airliner, with little more than refuelling.
 
Of course, this is easier said than done.  But there is no real reason
why SSTO should need much more.  Its electronics experience stresses
not much worse than those of an airliner -- certainly no worse than
those of a jet fighter.  Its structure and heatshield, designed to fly
many times, will have sufficient margins that they will not need
inspection and repair after every flight.  Most space-vehicle components
don't inherently need any more attention than airliner components.
 
The one obvious exception is the engines, which do indeed run at much
higher power levels than airliner engines.  But even here, airliner
principles can be applied:  the way to make engines last a long time
is to run them at less than 100% power.  SSTO engines have it easy in
one respect:  they only have to run for about ten minutes at the start
of the flight and two or three minutes at the end.
 
Still, the Shuttle engines certainly are not a shining example of low
maintenance and durability.  However, it's important to realize that
the Shuttle engines are not the only reusable rocket engines.  Most
liquid-fuel engines could be re-used, were it not that the launchers
carrying them are thrown away after every flight.  And the durability
record of these other engines -- although limited to test stands -- is
*much* better.  The RL-10 engine, which will be used in DC-X, is rated
to fire for over an hour, in one continuous burn or with up to ten
restarts, with *no* maintenance.  Several other engines have comparable
records.  Conservatively-designed engines are nowhere near as flakey
and troublesome as the Shuttle engines.
 
Here again, DC-X should soon supply some solid evidence.  Although its
engines and other systems are not the same ones that DC-Y would use,
they should be representative enough to demonstrate rapid, low-effort
refurbishment, and the DC-X program will try to do so.
 
Airliners typically operate at about three times fuel costs.  The fuel
cost for an SSTO vehicle would be a few dollars per pound of payload.
It may be a bit optimistic to try to apply airline experience to the
first version of a radically new vehicle.  However, even advanced
aircraft typically cost no more than ten times fuel cost.  Even if
SSTO comes nowhere near these predictions, it should still have no
trouble beating existing launchers, which cost several thousand dollars
per pound of payload.
 
We can look at this another way:  head counts.  Airlines typically have
about 150 people per aircraft, and most of those sell tickets or look
after passengers' needs.  Perhaps a better example is the SR-71, which
is like SSTO in that it was an advanced craft, pushing the frontiers
of technology, operated in quite small numbers.  Although it is hard
to get exact numbers because of secrecy, it appears that USAF SR-71
operations averaged perhaps one flight per day, using perhaps eight
flight-ready aircraft, with a total staff of about 400 people.  That's
50 per aircraft.  If SSTO can operate at such levels -- and there is
every reason to think it can -- it should have no trouble beating
existing launchers, which typically have several thousand people
involved in preparations for each and every launch.  (NASA's Shuttle
ground crew is variously estimated at 6,000-10,000 for a fleet of
four orbiters flying about eight flights a year.)
 
As for reliability, the crucial reason for thinking that SSTO will do
a lot better than existing launchers is simple:  testing.  It should
be feasible and affordable to test an SSTO launcher as thoroughly as
an aircraft.  This is *vastly* more thorough than any launcher.  The
F-15 fighter flew over 1,500 test flights before it was released for
military service.  No space launcher on Earth has flown that many
times, and the only one that even comes close is an old Soviet design.
It is no wonder that the Shuttle is somewhat unreliable, when it was
declared "operational" after a grand total of four test flights.
By aircraft standards, the Shuttle is still in early testing.  Some
expendable launchers have been declared operational after *two* tests.
 
Each and every SSTO vehicle can be tested many times before it carries
real payloads.  Moreover, since SSTO can survive most single failures,
it can be tested under extremes of flight conditions, like an aircraft.
For example, unlike Challenger, an SSTO vehicle would launch with
passengers and cargo in freezing temperatures only after multiple
test flights in such conditions.  There will always be surprises when a new
craft is flown in new conditions, but SSTO should encounter -- and
survive -- most of them in test flights.
 
Conclusion
 
Although there is reason for some uncertainty about the exact performance
of the first SSTO spacecraft, the basic approach being taken is sensible
and reasonable.  It should work.  The imminent test flights of the DC-X
test craft should resolve most remaining technical concerns.  Nobody can
be sure about costs and reliability until DC-Y is flying, but there is
reason to believe that SSTO should be much better than current launchers.
If the program is carried through to a flying DC-Y prototype in a timely
way, it really could revolutionize spaceflight.
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [email protected]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------188 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
    

Which shuttle flight is it that Henry is saying "almost" crashed on landing?
Detail?  Or a pointer to its note?

Thanks,

Burns

  I remember reading somewhere, ..., it may have been in "The Right Stuff" or
Collins' "Carrying the Fire" (effectively the sequel to "The Right Stuff") but
I'm not sure ... that one of the landings of the Enterprise was a bit rough. I
remember reading something like "Today we learned that the shuttle can recover
from a rough landing and the crew can go home for supper" or something to that
effect. 

  The Enterprise was the one that was drop tested from the 747 carrier before
any shuttle went into space.

  George

RE: <<< Note 819.12 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

The third or fourth Enterprise landing was a fairly hard landing and a bounce,
followed by a second touchdown a couple of seconds later. Very interesting to
see; definitely not the standard smooth Shuttle landing.

A flight within the last year or so landed at the KSC and touched down in the
approach-end over-run zone of the Shuttle Landing Facillity's runway; it was
short of the "official" runway surface by a few hundred feet. This could also
be the near-crash referred to.
						-- Tom

>A flight within the last year or so landed at the KSC and touched down in the
>approach-end over-run zone of the Shuttle Landing Facillity's runway; it was
>short of the "official" runway surface by a few hundred feet. This could also
>be the near-crash referred to.

This is the one Henry refers to as a "near crash".

My recollection is that there was a errant forecast of winds, etc. and the
shuttle ended up a bit short on the runway (as mentioned by Tom).  The crew
was "not pleased".

Another "near miss" (I love that term) was when the cross-winds at KSC were
a bit harsh and they blew a tire or two.   While they had made it to the ground,
the result of an orbiter scooting off into the swamps at 200 MPH might
qualify as a crash.   Nose wheel steering and the new drag chutes are supposed
to reduce the chance of this happening again.  [The original steering mechanism
was differential braking]


- dave

    Re .10
    
    The Delta Clipper still a bit nubelous for me. The base note and
    reply .10 give many reasons why it should be better, and strangely
    no reasons why it is worse. (Could it be better on everything)
    
    Also not many hard facts are presented, I would thing that some
    studies must have designed a typical Delta Clipper. And used it
    for comparation purposes, at least at a top level design analysys.
    
    If so, and is anyone has access to it I would be thankfull if it 
    was posted here. 
    
    I would like to know, things like just how much payload to orbit.
    The dry mass; fuels mass and type for take off, orbital insertion, 
    orbital maneuvers, re-entry burn, vertical landing (including hover
    margins time/fuel); engines types and power numbers, and so on.
    
    Gil

re .15
    
>    I would like to know, things like just how much payload to orbit.
    
    .0 gives payload capacity (also gives number of engines).
    
>orbital insertion, orbital maneuvers, re-entry burn
    
    I would speculate that DC would use its engines for orbital man�uvres,
    unlike the Space Shuttle which having ditched the ET has no fuel for
    the SSMEs. This is presumably why previous articles talk about
    'altitude compensating' nozzle so that the engines can be used in
    space.
    
>vertical landing (including hover margins time/fuel)
    
    One wonders what would happen if a DC used all its fuel in orbit or in
    the de-orbit burn. It couldn't land. In-flight (on orbit) refuelling
    perhaps?

    .0 said that the Clipper would use liquid hydrogen for fuel, but
    .10 went into great detail on the problems with it.  Is the DC-X
    actually using LH2?  If not, what will they use?  /jlr

    Some more questions ...
    
    Will the Delta Clipper use parachutes at all (to slow down to landing
    velocity ?).  
    
    It it does, then it must release them before its landing rockets take
    over. If it doesn't then this is an extra requirement for the rockets,
    thus increasing the overall launch mass.
    
    I have made a few calculations based on data from the note, and it
    appears that the Delta Clipper needs between 9 and 11 times its dry 
    mass (including payload) in fuel (that is using H2 and O2). Not the
    7 times mentioned.
    
    And its dry mass should be between 150 and 200 tons, giving a total
    launch mass of up to 2400 metric tons. In other words it will be big
    at least twice as big as the shuttle stack.
    
    Finally it would require the development of a H2/O2 engine that is
    at least 2.5 times more powerfull then the Shuttle main engines. This
    is in order to have the capability to orbit even if one of its engines
    fails at launch. 
    
    Gil
    
    PS  Once again, and it would be bey helpfull if the main design
    parameters were posted here. Lacking that, all we can do is speculate
    not make meaninfull comparations between the Delta Clipper and the
    Shuttle, NASP, etc vehicles.
    

Article: 52360
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Another SSTO paper
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 16:06:40 GMT
 
Here is another paper for the Freshmen Orientation written by Henry Spencer.
 
   Allen
-------------------------------------
 
(Semi-)Technical Aspects of SSTO by Henry Spencer
 
This paper will try to give you some idea of why SSTO makes technical
sense and is a reasonable idea.  We'll concentrate on the overall issues,
trying to give you the right general idea without getting bogged down
in obscure detail.  Be warned that we will oversimplify a bit at times.
 
Why Is SSTO Challenging?
 
Getting a one-stage reusable rocket into orbit doesn't look impossible,
but it does look challenging.  Here's why.
 
The hard part of getting into orbit is not reaching orbital altitude,
but reaching orbital velocity.  Orbital velocity is about 18,000mph.
To this, you have to add something for reaching orbital altitude and for
fighting air resistance along the way, but these complications don't
actually add very much.  The total fuel requirement
is what would be needed to accelerate to 20-21,000mph.
 
So how much is that?  (If you don't want to know the math, skip to the
next paragraph for the results.)  The "rocket equation" is
desired_velocity = exhaust_velocity * ln(launch_weight / dry_weight),
where "ln" is the natural logarithm.  The exhaust velocity is determined
by choice of fuels and design of engines, but 7,000mph is about right
if you don't use liquid hydrogen, and 10,000mph if you do.
 
The bottom line is that the launch weight has to be about 20 times the
dry weight (the weight including everything except fuels) if you don't
use liquid hydrogen, and about 8 times the dry weight if you do.  This
sounds like hydrogen would be the obvious choice of fuel, but in practice,
hydrogen has two serious problems.  First, it is extremely bulky,
meaning that hydrogen tanks have to be very big; the Shuttle External
Tank is mostly hydrogen tank, with only the nose containing oxygen.
Second, some of the same properties that make hydrogen do well on the
weight ratio make it difficult to build hydrogen engines with high thrust,
and a rocket *does* need enough thrust to lift off!  Both of these
problems tend to drive up the dry weight, by requiring bigger and heavier
tanks and engines.
 
So how bad is this?  Well, it's not good.  Even with hydrogen, an SSTO
launcher which weighs (say) 800,000lbs at launch has to be 7/8ths fuel.
We've got 100,000lbs for tanks to hold 700,000lbs of fuel, engines to
lift an 800,000lb vehicle, a heatshield to protect the whole thing on
return, structure to hold it all together at high acceleration... and
quite incidentally, for some payload to make it all worthwhile.  Most
of the dry weight has to go for the vehicle itself; only a small part
of it can be payload.  (That is, the "payload fraction" is quite small.)
To get any payload at all, we need to work hard at making the vehicle
very lightweight.
 
The big problem here is:  what happens if the vehicle isn't quite as
light as the designer thought it would be?  All rockets, and most aircraft
for that matter, gain weight during development, as optimistic estimates
are replaced by real numbers.  An SSTO vehicle doesn't have much room for
such weight growth, because every extra pound of vehicle means one less
pound for that small payload fraction.  Particularly if we're trying to
build an SSTO vehicle for the first time, there's a high risk that the
actual payload will be smaller than planned.
 
That is the ultimate reason why nobody has yet built an SSTO space
launcher:  its performance is hard to predict.  Megaprojects like the
Shuttle can't afford unpredictability -- they are so expensive that
they must succeed.  SSTO is better suited to an experimental vehicle,
like the historic "X-planes", to establish that the concept works and
get a good look at how well it performs... but there is no X-launcher
program.
 
Why Does SSTO Look Feasible Now?
 
The closest thing to SSTO so far is the Atlas expendable launcher.  The
Atlas, without the Centaur upper stage that is now a standard part of
it, has "1.5" stages:  it drops two of its three engines (but nothing
else) midway up.  Without an upper stage, Atlas can put modest payloads
into orbit:  John Glenn rode into orbit on an Atlas.  The first Atlas
orbital mission was flown late in 1958.  But the step from 1.5 stages
to 1 stage has eluded us since.
 
Actually, people have been proposing SSTO launchers for many years.
The idea has always looked like it *just might* work.  For example,
the Shuttle program looked at SSTO designs briefly.  Mostly, nobody has
tried an SSTO launcher because everybody was waiting for somebody else
to try it first.
 
There are a few things that are crucial to success of an SSTO
launcher.  It needs very lightweight structural materials.  It needs
very efficient engines.  It needs a very light heatshield.  And it
needs a way of landing gently that doesn't add much weight.
 
Materials for structure and heatshield have been improving steadily
over the years.  The NASP program in particular has helped with this.
It now looks fairly certain that an SSTO can be light enough.
 
Existing engines do look efficient enough for SSTO, provided they can
somehow adapt automatically to the outside air pressure.  The nozzle
of a rocket engine designed to be fired in sea-level air is subtly
different from that of an engine designed for use in space, and an
SSTO engine has to work well in both conditions.  (The technical
buzzword for what's wanted is an "altitude-compensating" nozzle.)
Solutions to this problem actually are not lacking, but nobody has
yet flown one of them.  Probably the simplest one, which has been
tentatively selected for DC-Y, is just a nozzle which telescopes,
so its length can be varied to match outside conditions.  Making
nozzles that telescope is not hard -- many existing rocket nozzles,
like those of the Trident missile, telescope for compact storage --
but nobody has yet flown one that changes length *while firing*.
However, it doesn't look difficult, and there are other approaches
if this one turns out to have problems.
 
We'll talk about landing methods in more detail later, but this is one
issue that will be resolved pretty soon.  The primary goal of the DC-X
experimental craft is to fly DC-Y's landing maneuvers and prove that
they will work.
 
So... with materials under control, engines looking feasible, and
landing about to be test-flown, we should be able to build an SSTO
prototype:  DC-Y.  The prototype's performance may not quite match
predictions, but if it works *at all*, it will make all other launchers
obsolete.
 
Why A Rocket?
 
As witness the NASP (X-30) program, air-breathing engines do look like
an attractive alternative to rockets.  Much of the weight of fuel in
a rocket is oxygen, and an air-breathing engine gets its oxygen from
the air rather than having to carry it along.  However, on a closer
look, the choice is not so clear-cut.
 
The biggest problem of using air-breathing engines for spaceflight is
that they simply don't work very well at really high speeds.  An
air-breathing engine tries to accelerate air by heating it.  This works
well at low speed.  Unfortunately, accelerating air that is already
moving at hypersonic speed is difficult, all the more so when it has
to be done by heating air that is already extremely hot.  The problem
only gets worse if the engine has to work over an enormous range of
speeds:  NASP's scramjet engines would start to function at perhaps
Mach 4, but orbital speeds are roughly Mach 25.  Nobody has ever built
an air-breathing engine that can do this... but rockets do it every week.
 
Air-breathing engines have other problems too.  For one thing, to use
them, one obviously has to fly within the atmosphere.  At truly high
speeds, this means major heating problems due to air friction.  It
also means a lot of drag due to air resistance, adding to the burden
that an air-breathing engine has to overcome.  Rocket-based launchers,
including SSTO, do most of their accelerating in vacuum, away from
these problems.
 
Perhaps the biggest problem of air-breathing engines for spaceflight
is that they are *heavy*.  The best military jet engines have thrust:weight
ratios of about 8:1.  (This is at low speed; hypersonic scramjets are not
nearly that good.)  The Space Shuttle Main Engine's thrust:weight ratio,
by comparison, is 70:1 (at any speed).  The oxygen in a rocket's tanks
is burned off on the way to orbit, but the engines have to be carried
all the way, and air-breathing engines weigh a lot more.
 
And what's the payoff?  The X-30, if it is built, and if it works
perfectly, will just be able to get into orbit with a small payload.
This is about the same as SSTO, at ten times the cost.  Where is the
gain from air-breathing engines?
 
The fact is, rockets are perfectly good engines for a space launcher.
Rockets are light, powerful, well understood, and work fine at any
speed without needing air.  Oxygen may be heavy, but it is cheap (about
five cents a pound) and compact.  Finally, rocket engines are available
off the shelf, while hypersonic air-breathing engines are still research
projects.  Practical space launchers should use rockets, so SSTO does.
 
Why No Wings?
 
With light, powerful engines like rockets, there is no need to land
or take off horizontally on a runway, and no particular reason to.
Runway takeoffs and landing are touchy procedures with little room
for error, which is why a student pilot spends much of his time on
them.  Given adequate power, vertical takeoffs and landings are easier.
In particular, a vertical landing is much more tolerant of error than
a horizontal one, because the pilot can always stop, straighten out
a mistake, and then continue.  Harrier pilots confirm this:  their
comment is "it's easier to stop and then land, than to land and then
try to stop".
 
What if you don't have adequate power?  Then you are in deep trouble
even if your craft takes off and lands horizontally.  As witness the
El Al crash in Amsterdam recently, even airliners often don't survive
major loss of power at low altitude.  To make a safe horizontal landing,
especially in less-than-ideal weather conditions, you *must* have enough
power to abandon a bad landing approach and try again.  Shuttle-style
gliding landings are dangerous, and airline crews go to great lengths
to avoid them; the Shuttle program, with the nation's best test pilots
doing the flying and no effort spared to help them, has already had
one near-crash in its first fifty flights.  Routine access to space
requires powered landings.
 
If we are going to rely on powered landings, we must make sure that power
will be available.  Airliners do this by having more than one engine,
and being able to fly with one engine out.  SSTO is designed to survive
a single engine failure at the moment of liftoff, and a second failure
later.  Since (at least) 7/8ths of the takeoff weight of SSTO is fuel,
it will be much lighter at landing than at takeoff.  Given good design,
it will have enough power for landing even if several engines fail.
If SSTO has an engine failure soon after liftoff, it will follow much
the same procedure as an airliner:  it will hover to burn off most of
its fuel (this is about as quick as an airliner's fuel dumping), and
then land, with tanks nearly empty to minimize weight and fire hazard.
 
Note that in an emergency, vertical landing has one major advantage
over horizontal landing:  horizontal landing requires a runway, preferably
a long one with a favorable wind, while a vertical landing just requires
a small flat spot with no combustible materials nearby.  A few years ago,
a Royal Navy Harrier pilot had a major electronics failure and was unable
to return to his carrier.  He made an emergency landing on the deck of a
Spanish container ship.  The Harrier suffered minor damage; any other
aircraft would have been lost, and the pilot would have had to risk
ejection and recovery from the sea.
 
Given vertical landing and takeoff, is there any other use for wings?
One:  crossrange capability, the ability to steer to one side during
reentry, so as to land at a point that is not below the orbit track.
The Shuttle has quite a large crossrange capability, 1500 miles.
However, if we examine the history of the Shuttle, we find that this
was a requirement imposed by the military, to make the Shuttle capable
of flying some demanding USAF missions. A civilian space launcher
needs a crossrange capability of, at most, a few hundred miles, to let
it make precision landings at convenient times. This is easily
achieved with a wingless craft:  the Apollo spacecraft could do it. 
 
Finally, wings are a liability in several important ways.  They are heavy.
They are difficult to protect against reentry heat.  And they make the
vehicle much more susceptible to wind gusts during landing and takeoff
(this is a significant limitation on shuttle launches).
 
SSTO does not need wings, would suffer by carrying them, and hence does
not have them.
 
Why Will It Be Cheap And Reliable?
 
This is a good question.  The Shuttle was supposed to be cheap and
reliable, and is neither.  However, there is reason for hope for SSTO.
 
The Shuttle's costs come mainly from the tremendous army of people
needed to inspect and refurbish it after each flight.  SSTO should get
by with many fewer.
 
The basic SSTO concept opens major possibilities for simple, quick
refurbishment.  With no discarded parts, nothing needs to be replaced.
With no separating parts, there is no need to re-assemble anything.
In principle, an SSTO vehicle should be able to "turn around" like
an airliner, with little more than refuelling.
 
Of course, this is easier said than done.  But there is no real reason
why SSTO should need much more.  Its electronics experience stresses
not much worse than those of an airliner -- certainly no worse than
those of a jet fighter.  Its structure and heatshield, designed to fly
many times, will have sufficient margins that they will not need
inspection and repair after every flight.  Most space-vehicle components
don't inherently need any more attention than airliner components.
 
The one obvious exception is the engines, which do indeed run at much
higher power levels than airliner engines.  But even here, airliner
principles can be applied:  the way to make engines last a long time
is to run them at less than 100% power.  SSTO engines have it easy in
one respect:  they only have to run for about ten minutes at the start
of the flight and two or three minutes at the end.
 
Still, the Shuttle engines certainly are not a shining example of low
maintenance and durability.  However, it's important to realize that
the Shuttle engines are not the only reusable rocket engines.  Most
liquid-fuel engines could be re-used, were it not that the launchers
carrying them are thrown away after every flight.  And the durability
record of these other engines -- although limited to test stands -- is
*much* better.  The RL-10 engine, which will be used in DC-X, is rated
to fire for over an hour, in one continuous burn or with up to ten
restarts, with *no* maintenance.  Several other engines have comparable
records.  Conservatively-designed engines are nowhere near as flakey
and troublesome as the Shuttle engines.
 
Here again, DC-X should soon supply some solid evidence.  Although its
engines and other systems are not the same ones that DC-Y would use,
they should be representative enough to demonstrate rapid, low-effort
refurbishment, and the DC-X program will try to do so.
 
Airliners typically operate at about three times fuel costs.  The fuel
cost for an SSTO vehicle would be a few dollars per pound of payload.
It may be a bit optimistic to try to apply airline experience to the
first version of a radically new vehicle.  However, even advanced
aircraft typically cost no more than ten times fuel cost.  Even if
SSTO comes nowhere near these predictions, it should still have no
trouble beating existing launchers, which cost several thousand dollars
per pound of payload.
 
We can look at this another way:  head counts.  Airlines typically have
about 150 people per aircraft, and most of those sell tickets or look
after passengers' needs.  Perhaps a better example is the SR-71, which
is like SSTO in that it was an advanced craft, pushing the frontiers
of technology, operated in quite small numbers.  Although it is hard
to get exact numbers because of secrecy, it appears that USAF SR-71
operations averaged perhaps one flight per day, using perhaps eight
flight-ready aircraft, with a total staff of about 400 people.  That's
50 per aircraft.  If SSTO can operate at such levels -- and there is
every reason to think it can -- it should have no trouble beating
existing launchers, which typically have several thousand people
involved in preparations for each and every launch.  (NASA's Shuttle
ground crew is variously estimated at 6,000-10,000 for a fleet of
four orbiters flying about eight flights a year.)
 
As for reliability, the crucial reason for thinking that SSTO will do
a lot better than existing launchers is simple:  testing.  It should
be feasible and affordable to test an SSTO launcher as thoroughly as
an aircraft.  This is *vastly* more thorough than any launcher.  The
F-15 fighter flew over 1,500 test flights before it was released for
military service.  No space launcher on Earth has flown that many
times, and the only one that even comes close is an old Soviet design.
It is no wonder that the Shuttle is somewhat unreliable, when it was
declared "operational" after a grand total of four test flights.
By aircraft standards, the Shuttle is still in early testing.  Some
expendable launchers have been declared operational after *two* tests.
 
Each and every SSTO vehicle can be tested many times before it carries
real payloads.  Moreover, since SSTO can survive most single failures,
it can be tested under extremes of flight conditions, like an
aircraft. For example, unlike Challenger, an SSTO vehicle would launch
with passengers and cargo in freezing temperatures only after multiple
test flights in such conditions.  There will always be surprises when
a new craft is flown in new conditions, but SSTO should encounter --
and survive -- most of them in test flights. 
 
Conclusion
 
Although there is reason for some uncertainty about the exact performance
of the first SSTO spacecraft, the basic approach being taken is sensible
and reasonable.  It should work.  The imminent test flights of the DC-X
test craft should resolve most remaining technical concerns.  Nobody can
be sure about costs and reliability until DC-Y is flying, but there is
reason to believe that SSTO should be much better than current launchers.
If the program is carried through to a flying DC-Y prototype in a timely
way, it really could revolutionize spaceflight.
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [email protected]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------145 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

Article: 53021
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!torn!utzoo!henry
From: [email protected] (Henry Spencer)
Subject: DC info
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 16:22:36 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 93
 
Here's a summary of some interesting pieces of paper a little bird delivered
to me a while ago, concerning the DC-X/Y program.  [And no, before you ask,
the little bird is not willing to make further deliveries; he's tired enough
after flying all this way.]  [And I really must apologize to him for the
long delay in getting this stuff summarized; it got buried in the Spring
Confusion that also stalled my AW&ST summaries for a long time, and this
stuff only just surfaced again.]  The order is semi-random.
 
Space transport fundamental needs:  low cost, reliability, responsiveness.
"Time to enter a new era."
 
Design for Supportability/Operability, performance to follow, operational
costs the crucial factor, subject to development cost/schedule constraints.
 
Rapid development:  get hardware flying, gain experience, provide for
modular improvements.
 
DC concepts.  Vertical takeoff, abort from any altitude, manned or unmanned.
One integral vehicle -- nothing falls off.  Completely reusable.  Minimal
pollution with LOX/LH2 propulsion.  "Man capable" -- certified like MD-11
airliner.  Airliner-like operations:  safe abort from multiple engine
failures, rapid turnaround, self-contained flight control, multiple
spaceports.  Two days in orbit, two more days reserve.  >1200nmi cross-range
during reentry.  Landing within 100ft of chosen point.
 
DC-X fills in database gaps and demonstrates key issues.  The database
for orbital operations and reentry is adequate.  Key points are launch,
landing rotation maneuver, vertical landing (w. ground effects), and
quick turnaround; the database for these is not adequate.
 
DC-X flight crew (on the ground) of two, plus a ground operations
controller, a software controller, a range interface man, and a program
manager.  Total six, the last three needed only for experimental flight.
 
DC-X design for operations and support.  Ready access, fast replacement
of failures and damaged parts.  Removable modules and sections.
 
DC-X schedule.  Vehicle assembled and shipped early Feb 1993 for a static
firing at White Sands, followed by readiness review in early April and
first flight April 23.
 
DC-X flies autonomously, not piloted from ground.  Ground monitors system
performance, initiates thrust termination and parachute deployment in
case of trouble.
 
DC-X ground facilities designed for easy operations.  Existing tank
trailers for fuels and gases, above-ground feed lines.  Operations trailer
with RF and fiber-optic communications links for control.
 
DC-X dry wt 22.2klb, gross liftoff 42.6klb, height 39ft.
 
DC-X flight tests in three phases.  First, low hover, max 600ft:  control,
landing w ground effect, systems performance.  Second, climb and hover,
max 5000ft with substantial speed:  aerodynamic performance including
power-on drag, expanded performance envelope, launch abort demonstration.
Third, rotation, max 20kft:  up, over, down at an angle, turn base first
and land, for the full DC-Y landing maneuver.
 
DC-Y orbital prototype.  Fly autumn 1996.  Dry weight (w. margin) 104klb,
gross liftoff wt 1279klb, height 127ft, payload 25klb LEO, 16klb easterly
400km, 10klb polar 400km, cargo bay 15x15x22ft.  Operational DC-1 by 1998.
 
Crucial technology improvements over shuttle.  Engine performance similar
(not quite as good, but close) without staged combustion.  GOX/GH2 reaction
control system, Al-Li LOX tanks, graphite-epoxy LH2 tank, composite primary
structures, ceramic composite thermal protection.  NASP efforts demonstrate
desired structural weight at greater loads and much higher temperatures.
Structural materials already in use -- composites on ATF fighter prototypes,
existing spacecraft (including Hubble); Al-Li on heavy cargo aircraft.
 
Proposed DC engine.  LOX/LH2, expander cycle, throttlable, two-position
telescoping nozzle, using mostly-existing experimental turbomachinery.
Existing RL10 becomes RL10-A5 for DC-X, reusable with throttling.
Component work on RL200 starts mid-93, produces RL200-X' (no throttling
and some simplification) for testing in mid-94.  Mid-95, DC-X':  a
reusable suborbital test vehicle, with one RL200-X' and eight RL10-A5s.
[DC-X' seems meant as a replacement for SDIO's sounding-rocket program.]
RL200-Y with throttling and improvements runs early 96, supporting
DC-Y orbital flight tests late in 96 with eight RL200-Ys (four booster
without telescoping nozzle, four sustainer with the nozzle).  Ultimately,
the RL200-1 is committed to production in early 97 for first flights
of DC-1 in late 98.
 
DC thermal protection:  carbon/silicon-carbide for nose and other hot
spots (maneuvering flaps), multiwall construction with refractory alloys
for most of fuselage, titanium on the lee side and the base.  All
temperatures below NASP and shuttle, well below material limits.
 
Ample margins to reduce development risk.  Design margins of 15% on dry
weight, 20% on T/W ratio while still preserving ample operational margin.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [email protected]  utzoo!henry
    

Article: 53504
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!aio!news
From: [email protected]
Subject: SSTO Concepts FAQ
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected] (USENET News System)
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:18:05 GMT
Lines: 198
 
 THE SPACE FRONTIER FOUNDATION 
ANSWERS 20 QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE DC-X SSTO PROJECT
 
 
1. What is the Single-Stage-to-Orbit (SSTO) program?
The goal of the SSTO program is to build a new spaceship that will take off
straight up, fly to orbit without dropping anything off, & that will then land
on its tail on a pillar of fire, not gliding but under power, much like the
rocketships of 1950s science fiction movies.  Because of its improved engines,
high-tech lightweight materials, & airplane-like servicing, a reusable SSTO
could reduce the cost of getting to space by 90% or greater.  Because it will
be certified for flight like an aircraft, it will be able to operate from
spaceports located in any state.
 
2. What will it look like?
The production model operational SSTO will probably be cone-shaped,
approximately 130 feet high & 40 feet across the base.  It will have 8 or more
rocket engines, providing a safe return if an engine fails, again just like an
airliner.  SSTO will not have wings like Shuttle but will use small movable
flaps to help maneuver.  It will not require strap-on external tanks or
boosters.
 
3. When will it be flying?
A 1/3rd sized experimental vehicle, the DC-X, is on schedule for its first test
launch in late April, 1993.  A full sized demonstrator capable of reaching
orbit could be ready to fly in the summer of 1997.
 
4. Where will it fly from?
Test flights will be from White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, but once
production of actual operational SSTO vehicles begins any state in the Union
will be able to have its own spaceport.  Unlike Shuttle, SSTO won't need a long
runway, a huge Vehicle Assembly Building, or a Mission Control building; but
only a 200 foot diameter concrete pad, a maintenance hanger, & a
hydrogen/oxygen propellant facility.  SSTO will navigate using the satellite
signals from the existing Global Positioning System.
 
5. What will it cost to design & build a full-size SSTO?
The total cost of developing the first SSTO orbital demonstration vehicle will
be about the same as the development cost of a new commercial airliner such as
the Boeing 777 or McDonnell-Douglas MD-12.
 
6. What will I have to pay to fly on an SSTO?
An orbital tourist trip should cost roughly the same as the cost of a round the
world trip on a cruise ship.
 
7. How dangerous will it be?
Once fully operational a reusable SSTO will be as safe as flying on a typical
commercial airliner.  In fact, the operational SSTO vehicles that are to be
derived from the orbital demonstrator will be certified by the U.S. Department
of Transportation's Office of Commercial Space Transportation.
 
8. What about air pollution, especially near the ozone layer?
Unlike Shuttle, SSTO will burn only hydrogen & oxygen.  Its exhaust will
consist primarily of hot but pure water vapor -- the combustion product of
hydrogen & oxygen.
 
9. What about sonic booms & noise when launching or landing?
When an airplane flies faster than sound it generates a shock wave which we
experience as a sonic boom.  For this reason the Concorde jet is not allowed to
fly supersonically to inland airports in the U.S.  But since SSTO vehicles will
launch straight up, the sonic boom will be limited to the spaceport area.  When
landing an SSTO will slow down to subsonic speed at about 70,000 feet altitude.
 
10. Who's building SSTO?
Under a Defense Department contact McDonnell-Douglas is leading a team to build
the DC-X, a subscale experimental vehicle which will be flown to validate &
verify some elements of the technology & operations of single stage rockets for
supporting orbital flights.  Based on successful tests of the DC-X during the
spring & summer of 1993, the designs & concept will be available to other
government agencies -- such as NASA -- to develop & demonstrate an SSTO orbital
demonstration vehicle.
 
11. How much will the SSTO be able to carry?
Two crew members & 10 tons of cargo and/or passengers into low Earth orbit, or
2 crew members & 5 tons of cargo and/or passengers into polar orbit.
 
12. Will an SSTO be able to fly to the Moon?
An SSTO derivative vehicle, refueled in low Earth orbit, would be able to fly
to the Moon, land there, & return to Earth orbit.
 
13. How often will the SSTO be able to fly?
The anticipated turn-around will be about 1 day.
 
14. What if something goes wrong during a flight?
Commercial airplanes don't need all their engines to fly safely; they're
designed that way.  The same principle will be used to design the SSTO.  If
there is an engine malfunction during ascent, an SSTO would be capable of
either continuing on to orbit or returning to base.  If the ship needs to
return from orbit sooner than expected, it will be able to maneuver to spots
over 1200 miles to either side of its landing orbit trajectory.  Unlike
Shuttle, which requires a 3 mile long landing strip, an SSTO will be able to
land on any reasonably flat spot.
 
15. Why haven't we built a single-stage rocket before?
The reason most rockets, including Shuttle, have parts that drop off (stages)
is this: Every additional pound of vehicle that we lift all the way to orbit
requires additional pounds of fuel.  The additional fuel requires a larger, &
heavier, fuel tank, which then requires even more fuel to carry, & so on.
 
There are 3 ways to address this problem: 1) Make the rocket so huge (keep in
mind that size correlates to cost) that it can carry enough fuel to lift itself
all the way to orbit; or 2) Toss off empty tanks as you go (the traditional
multi-stage method); or 3) Make your engines so efficient & the vehicle
structure so lightweight that you don't need to carry huge amounts of fuel
and/or you won't need to throw away any pieces of your ship.
 
The underlying design principle of the SSTO program is to make a structure
lightweight enough to fly single stage to orbit.  Because of the National
AeroSpace Plane program (NASP) & military airplane development programs of the
1980s, we now have industrially available the strong, lightweight materials
that will enable the SSTO concept to work.  (These materials have been
demonstrated in actual use, too.)
 
16. Why should I believe all these claims for SSTO when similar ones were made
for Shuttle?
The Shuttle's design was "frozen" in the early 1970s.  If we had built a
vehicle like the SSTO's design back then, it could have taken off from New
Mexico & gotten to Greenland, but it would not have been able to reach orbit
(too heavy).  In the 20 years since we have learned a lot about design,
lightweight materials, trajectory optimization, avionics, computers, & engine
design.  (The Shuttle is a multi-stage rocket.)
 
In addition, SSTO is being designed with supportability & operability as
priority design considerations.  For example, the engines on the SSTO won't be
run at 110% of their design capacity, as the Shuttle's do (only about 80% -- by
design), so unlike the Shuttle's engines, the SSTO's engines won't have to be
torn down & rebuilt before each flight.  If on-board diagnostic instruments
indicate a problem with an SSTO engine or any other component, it is designed
so components (called line replaceable units) can be pulled & replaced quickly
after landing.
 
17. Why isn't NASA building an SSTO?
In recent years NASA has been mostly focussed on flying the Shuttle & building
Space Station Freedom.  In the meantime, the Defense Department saw an urgent
need to prove the technologies required for SSTO vehicles.  Because SDIO, with
its streamlined management style, is an excellent agency for developing &
demonstrating new technology initiatives, it was given the job of building the
DC-X.  Once the technology demonstration phase is completed, the concept will
be available for either the DoD or NASA to develop, build, & fly an SSTO
orbital demonstration vehicle.
 
18. Does private industry have a role?
Yes.  McDonnell-Douglas & its SSTO teammates have already made a significant
investment in the basic technologies & the skills & facilities necessary to
develop an SSTO.  Once the orbital demonstration vehicle has been built, these
& other private companies will be able to build & operate commercial-grade SSTO
vehicles so that finally you, the citizen, can buy a ticket into space.
 
19. What could threaten the success of the SSTO program?
Two things.  The first is money --  lack of it.  Despite the fact the proposed
SSTO program will save the government & taxpayers money by making it cheaper &
easier to get civil & military payloads to space, it is still in danger from a
budget conscious (or unconscious!) Congress.
 
Most legislators have never even heard of the currently-funded DC-X project,
let alone the benefits of a full-scale SSTO orbital demonstrator & its
follow-on operational vehicles.  Because the program hasn't (yet) been very
visible in the media, some in Congress may feel the program has no real
constituency.
 
The 2nd threat to SSTO is turf protection.  There are many very powerful
interests involved in the development of old style multi-stage vehicles, such
as Shuttle & the National Launch System.  While these systems do nothing to
accelerate the opening of space, they do keep a lot of people employed & have
friends in Congress who see those jobs as votes & money for the folks back
home.  It's sad that such a revolutionary & common sense idea as SSTO should be
attacked (as it has) by those favoring the old & costly dinosaurs of the past.
 
We in the Space Frontier Foundation have already helped to save the SSTO
project from such attacks, but we need your help now, for as the project grows
& becomes more visible these entrenched interests will attack again.  If they
succeed your chance of ever entering space will remain science fiction.
 
20. OK, you've convinced me.  What can I do to help?
The Space Frontier Foundation is committed to opening the space frontier as
quickly as possible.  The SSTO program is one of the best U.S. space projects
to come along in a long time because it offers the possibility of dramatically
lowering the cost of getting people & cargo into space.  Making it possible,
finally, for you to go.
 
So: Make copies of this flyer & hand 'em out to your friends who want to go,
too.
 
Second, get on the Foundation mailing list (send us a few bucks to help pay our
costs) & be willing to write letters and/or make calls & faxes to Congress
and/or your newspaper when asked.
 
Third, if you're a public speaker, published writer, or can help us develop
materials (artwork, graphics, printing) or take on other volunteer projects,
tell us & we'll help you do it.
 
 JOIN THE SPACE FRONTIER FOUNDATION'S FIGHT FOR CHEAP ACCESS TO SPACE!
Call us at 1-800-78SPACE & leave your address, or write us at the address
below.
 
SPACE FRONTIER FOUNDATION  1110 NASA Road 1, Suite 103 Houston TX 77058
 
    

    Article: 55360
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!srvr1.engin.umich.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!rsoft!mindlink!a752
From: [email protected] (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Making Orbit 93 - The Delta Clipper Program
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:51:36 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected] (Usenet)
Lines: 168
 
I recently attended the "Orbit 93" conference in Berkeley.  The following are
notes I made at the presentation "Delta Clipper"  by Bill Gaubatz, head of
the SSRT program at McDonnell Douglas.  The presentation was given using
professionally prepared view-graphs from MacDonnell Douglas, many of which
were marked "competition sensitive" (presumably reflecting the preparation of
the view-graphs before MacDonnell Douglas won the contract for the DC-X test
vehicle).
 
 
 
Delta Clipper vehicle:
 
The following comments refer to the "Delta Clipper" (name used during the
talk) or DC-1 (name used on the net), the eventual product of a development
program involving a DC-X technology demonstrator and a DC-Y prototype.
 
Planned capability is 16,000 lbs to a 220 nautical mile orbit, 25,000 lbs to
an unspecified LEO (low earth orbit).
 
Vehicle is roughly three times as long as it is broad.  The upper end is
bullet like, becoming wider towards the base.  The cross section is circular,
except at the base where the four main engines give the shape of a round
edged square. In addition to the four main engines, there are four smaller
engines.  Engine type was not specified in the view-graphs.
 
The vehicle burns hydrogen and LOX, and has a cargo bay at mid-vehicle.  The
cargo bay is 15x15x30 feet, and has a door to the side of the vehicle.  The
cargo is supposed to be put into a standard container, and loaded into the
cargo bay using a simple ground-based scissors jack.  The standard container
will have power, coolant, and data transfer connections for maintaining the
health of the payload.
 
Gaubatz says the vehicle is "people capable", a term which he prefers to "man
rated" which he implies is a term which should be used only for older style
launchers.
 
The vehicle has large design margins based on current aircraft practice, so
that the vehicle will have a long lifetime.
 
The vehicle will have "reliability centered maintenance", a buzz term which
was not particularly clearly defined by Gaubatz.
 
Gaubatz says that for design work, MacDonnell Douglas has brought together
people with rocket skills (from their Delta commercial vehicle group) and
airplane skills (from their aircraft group).   In reply to a question from
the audience, he stated that the group was about 60% rocket people, and about
40% aircraft people.
 
The total launch crew in the "flight operations center"  (he points out that
"blockhouse" is not appropriate) is 3 people; a "flight operations manager"
and deputy, and a ground operations controller.  Drawings show something like
a control tower for operations, with no provision for protection against
explosions.
 
Ascent to orbit will involve a burn of 369 seconds, with a maximum G loading
of 3.0  The vehicle will have engine out capability at any time in flight.
On ascent, once past 60,000 feet (about 9 miles downrange) the vehicle will
pass out of FAA control - prior to this FAA clearance will be used.
 
The vehicle enters nose first.  The re-entry aerodynamics of the vehicle are
derived from the very large body of data which is available on missile
warhead re-entry aerodynamics.   The angle of attack of the vehicle is
controlled to minimize thermal loading.  The vehicle has a 1200 to 1500
nautical mile cross range.  Deacceleration is 1.1 g maximum during descent.
On descent, the vehicle goes subsonic at 60,000 feet altitude, and the
engines are then started and idled.  At 5000 to 10,000 feet altitude, the
vehicle is rotated base down. 2 engines are powered up to deaccelerate and
land the vehicle (note that the other two main engines are idling, and can be
powered up if needed).  The vehicle will land on a pad using retractable
landing gear.  Wheels will be attached to the landing gear, and the vehicle
rolled over to a "flight stand". After placement on the flight stand (which
takes the weight of a fueled vehicle), the vehicle will be given a new
payload, fueled, and reflown. Gaubatz notes that the noise footprint for a
vertical takeoff and landing is more restricted than the noise footprint for
a horizontal takeoff vehicle.
 
Most maintenance is projected to take place on the flight stand - in normal
circumstances a 12 hour turnaround is expected.  Minor maintenance with "line
replaceable units" will take less than 24 hours, while major maintenance
involving interior components such as fuel cells will take place in less than
1 week at an adjacent hanger.  Once a year, the vehicle will undergo a 30 day
maintenance and certification.
 
Gaubatz notes that the launch organization for the existing commercial Delta
expendable launcher involves 320 people, who can send off 12 flights per
year. He claims that this is the most efficient launch organization in the
US.  He claims that the same number of people will be able to support 4 to 5
Delta Clipper vehicles, each flying 40 times per year.  He further notes that
for expendable launchers, two thirds of the cost  of a launch is for the cost
of the expended hardware.
 
 
 
DC-X vehicle:
 
The following comments refer to the DC-X experimental vehicle, currently
being built by MacDonnell Douglas for proof of concept testing:
 
The DC-X program is a 2 year program, costing about $60 million.  Gaubatz
states that were the program handled in the "usual NASA manner" it would have
been a $ 1000 million program, taking 5 to 8 years.
 
The DC-X is similar in shape to the final Delta Clipper, but one third scale.
The hydrogen tank is on the bottom of the vehicle, while the oxygen tank is
on the top.  The nosecone and tail of the vehicle is being built of composite
material by Burt Rutan, of Scaled Composites. The interior of the hydrogen
tank is lined with balsa wood bonded to the metal (no- this is not a typo).
All avionics are off-the-shelf from current aircraft instrument
manufacturers.
 
The vehicle is not designed to go above about 30,000 feet and does not carry
enough fuel to get to orbit.  MacDonnell Douglas however seems to be thinking
about using the DC-X as a reusable sounding rocket after testing is finished
("SOAR" = Sub Orbital Applications Rocket").  The vehicle is unmanned, and is
flown by computer with links to ground control.  The major objective of the
flight testing is to verify the design tools and assumptions used, in order
to demonstrate the feasibility of the McDonnell approach to building an SSTO.
 
Vehicle engines are an RL-10 derivative with a reduced expansion ratio for
atmospheric flight.  Isp at ground level is 337, and the engine can be idled
at about 10% power, and run at any setting between  30% to 100 % power (3700
to 13500 lbs force).  Only 30% power is required for landing.  The first
engine tested already has "a couple of hours" of run time (impressive for an
engine originally designed as a throw-away item which only had to run for a
few minutes).   Considerable testing has been done to demonstrate "snap
throttling", or very rapid changes in engine power.  There are probably 4
engines (the viewgraph was confusing so I am not certain on this point).  The
RCS (Reaction Control System) runs on gaseous hydrogen and gaseous oxygen,
and is in a replaceable module in the base of the vehicle between the
engines.  The top of the vehicle has a compartment for a parachute, for a
"belt and suspenders" approach to getting the vehicle back in one piece.  The
top of the vehicle also has GPS receivers.
 
The vehicle is launched by a 3 person crew in a trailer (flight operations
manager, deputy, and ground operations controller).  Total testing crew will
be 35 people.  Testing will be from WSSH, or "White Sands Space Harbor",
starting in late May of this year at the White Sands Missile Range in New
Mexico.  Some provision will be made for the public to watch the testing -
arrangements are not yet firmed up but will be publicized when available.
Gaubatz notes that the White Sands people have been very co-operative.
Gaubatz wants to test at White Sands to "get away from the current launch
culture" (presumably represented by NASA).  The vehicle will not carry a
destruct package - something that Gaubatz regards as a  victory over the
existing launch culture and a demonstration of the reasonableness of the
White Sands range safety people.
 
Landing gear of the vehicle is retractable, and made by MBB (Deutsche
Aerospace, in Germany).  The landing gear is designed for up to a 7 G
landing, and rough field capability is designed in.  The landing gear is
retracted during takeoff, and only deployed in the terminal phase of landing.
 
 Flight software is designed as much as possible to be the same software that
would be used in controlling the final Delta Clipper vehicle.  The software
is being written in ADA, and is ahead of schedule and under cost.  Gaubatz
says "If I could build the whole vehicle out of software, I would".  The
flight operations control screens are designed to look like a "glass cockpit"
in a modern airliner.  Items displayed on the screen can be "clicked on"
(presumably with a mouse) to display further information.
 
Gaubatz is "fully anticipating overall success".  Burt Rutan figures that the
simplest approach to flight control is to put a pilot on board the vehicle.
One of the flight controllers (operating a computer console on the ground)
will be Pete Conrad.  Gaubatz states that Conrad has been eyeing the
parachute compartment in the DC-X, and hinting that if the parachute were
removed, there would be room for a pilot!
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [email protected]
    

Article: 58506
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu!chrisj
From: Chris Johnson <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Delta Clipper X Status as of 26-Feb
Date: 9 Mar 1993 12:45:51 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Computation Center
Lines: 51
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d17
X-XXMessage-ID: <[email protected]>
X-XXDate: Tue, 9 Mar 93 12:32:22 GMT
 
 
I recently received the following short report on the status 
of the DC-X vehicle/project from a friend who has been fortunate 
enough to see some of this first hand. Just in case this info 
hasn't already found its way to net, here's what I've got:
 
-------------------
 
    This is a report of Delta Clipper 1/3 scale vehicle (DC-X) 
    status as of Friday, 26 Feb 93.
    
    DC-X was almost completely built. MDA (McDonnell Douglas 
    Aerospace) was putting the insulation on the graphite/epoxy 
    aeroshell, built by Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites Company.
    The engines were being modified for installation. The avionics 
    were complete and installed. 
    
    DC-X flight and ground operations are controlled by 3 Silicon 
    Graphics workstations. These computers are housed in a trailer, 
    which enables easy movement from California to New Mexico.
    
    MDA expects to ship the DC-X to White Sands in late March 93, 
    with an expected first launch date in May/June 93. After 
    moving to White Sands, MDA will do a series of static tests 
    first to ensure that all vehicle and ground systems are 
    functioning properly before launch.
    
    The most serious concern is lack of funding for DC-Y (the 
    orbital prototype) due to Space Defense Initiative Office's 
    (SDIO) inablity to pursue the orbital vehicle at this time and 
    space technology's overall uncertain status in the Clinton 
    administration.
     
    I'll let you know if I learn anything else. DC-X is beautiful. 
    Delta Clipper is our best hope for low cost, large (compared 
    to the Orbital Sciences vehicle) payload access to space.
 
-------------------
 
If this info is sufficiently unique, and there's enough interest 
on the net, I'll try to get similar reports in the future. So let
me know if you're interested.
 
----Chris
 
Chris Johnson
 
Internet:   [email protected]
UUCP:       {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj
CompuServe: >INTERNET:[email protected]
AppleLink:  [email protected]@internet#
    

    Chris.
    
    
    re -1 - I vote yes for posting any update you can get on the status of
    the vehicle and the program. We get NO information on the news or in
    the papers and marginal intermittent news in astronomy rags. Any info
    from you would be greatly appreciated. Good work.
    
    
    Roger

    	Please note that you are reading a posting from USENET, so that
    the person you are responding to (Chris) is not the same person who
    posted the note.  That's why we leave the headers in.
    

Article: 58745
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!q5022531.mdc.com!user
From: [email protected] (Andy Cohen)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X
Followup-To: sci.space
Date: 12 Mar 1993 22:51:22 GMT
Organization: MDA-W
Lines: 58
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: q5022531.mdc.com
 
I had the incredible honor to get a detailed tour of the Delta Clipper-X...
 and I'd like to try sharing some of it with you all....
 
I went over there on my daily lunch time walk-by and saw a group of MDA
folk getting a tour ..... so I ...walked over and joined them....
I got to hear the end of the description of how the hydraulic system on the
engine gimbles work....We were then invited to climb the stairs to get a
closer look at the upper sections...some of the buildings here are tall and
made for working on titans and deltas.....  The interior of the DC-X was
exposed with the exterior-Dick Rutan-produced shell standing on it's German
produced landing gear off to the side...  I got a closeup view of the
Oxygen tank which looked like it came from a titan booster or possibly a
delta-large cylindrical and takes up at least 2/3 of the interior...  The
sperical hydrogen tanks are in a framework which sits on top of the O2
tank. The same framework has a platform over the H2 tanks which house the
avionics...which are off the shelf from the F-15 program.  I also got to
see the hydraulics for the side flaps.... Everything is literally
OFF-THE-SHELF....rivets, connectors...cables are longer than they needed to
be just in case of a design change.....DC-X is a perfect example of
concurrent engineering in the extreme!
 
The outside shell is square on the bottom and narrows at the top to a
circle.  Each side has a large flap which is used like the stabilizer on a
jet to control the DC.....along with the flaps, and the engine gimbeling,
the tour guide told me that the engines are throttled at different rates to
also control DC direction...the use of all three are supposed to be enough
to.....turn it around for a landing.......
 
The landing gear are not strong enough to hold a fully loaded
DC-X...instead a launch frame holds the infrastructure and during flight at
some point the foor "legs" extract then help absorb shock at
landing...along with the engines......
 
We were standing at the opening of the building looking at the landing gear
when.....Pete Conrad strolled by and went into a trailer....  I immediately
realized that the trailer housed the launch control system..... After
telling the tour guide of the support for DC-X coming from the people here
at sci.space I asked if I could go into the control trailer....  It was
great!  a set of Silicon Graphics workstations all with highly interactive,
graphical representations of the DC-X flight systems..all running a liftoff
simulation and tied directly to the avionics on the real bird.....Pete's
console had a display of an ADI-like presentation to give some idea of the
reliationship of DC-X orientation with the Earth surface.  There were
graphical representations of the engines and the flaps too......it was a
lot like what I and my team have been developing for SSF.
 
The team in the trailer were happy to exchange technical details.... I told
them that I'd trade my slot on SSF for a seat, but they all.....laughed!
 
They were MOST interested in hearing about YOUR support.
 
I agreed to carry hard copies of posts from here to their facility as a
morale booster.....they say they work 40 hour days there....... and are
looking forward to months in the desert.......They do not know about how
this communitee feels about their efforts...so SPEAK UP!!
 
I will be uploading for FTP more stuff....stay tuned!!  Just 3 more weeks
to the rollout!!!
    

    Does anyone out there have a copy of this article? I'd really like to
    read it.
    
    				Cheers,
    				-Abdul-
    
    
Article: 58819
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!wupost!spool.mu.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!flb@flb.optiplan.fi
From: [email protected] ("F.Baube x554")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X,Y / SSTO in Spaceflight Magazine
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 14 Mar 93 12:06:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C3voDJ.63A.1
Sender: [email protected]
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
Lines: 19
Approved: bboard-news_gateway
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: [email protected]
 
The March issue of Spaceflight magazine, from the British 
Interplanetary Society, has an excellent article on DC-X 
and DC-Y.  Five pages, including artwork from McDonnell 
Douglas and quite a bit of discussion about making the 
economics of spacecraft operation comparable to the 
economics of aircraft operation.
 
A companion four-page article entitled "Spaceplanes -
Back to the Future" discusses the history of the concept,
from proposals by Eugen Sanger on up to the present,
including HOTOL and NASP.
 
-- 
* Fred Baube GU/MSFS      * We live in only one small room of the
* Optiplan O.Y.           * enormous house of our consciousness
* [email protected]       *       -- William James
* It's lo-og, it's lo-og, it's big, it's heavy, it's wood !
* It's lo-og, it's lo-og, it's better than bad, it's good !
* #include <disclaimer.h>
    

    I think .27 had the oxy tanks and the H2 tanks switched.  The oxy tank
    should n't be 2/3rds of the spacecraft while the h2 tanks are little
    spherical balls.
    
    Other than that, it was a great review.
    
    Tony

Article: 59064
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!caen!umeecs!umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!q5022531.mdc.com!user
From: [email protected] (Andy Cohen)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Single Stage Rocket Technology
Followup-To: sci.space
Date: 17 Mar 1993 17:10:37 GMT
Organization: MDA-W
Lines: 82
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: q5022531.mdc.com
 
The following comes from the Delta Clipper public relations
flier....enjoy....
 
Single Stage to Orbit
 
Single Stage Rocket Technology Program�Breaking the
SSTO Barrier
 
What Is Single Stage to Orbit?
 
Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) is the capability to take off from earth,
achieve earth orbit, and return to land with the same vehicle. SSTO
capability, which includes safe abort and return to base any time
during launch, is a breakthrough in launch vehicle technology and
operations. In the highly competitive international launch service
business, SSTO provides this nation the low-cost advantage.
 
MDSSC's SSTO craft, named the Delta Clipper, is designed for
vertical take-off and landing. It is capable of placing 20,000 Ib. of
payload in low earth orbit or 10,000 Ib. in polar orbit. The reusable
craft is propelled by liquid oxygen/liquydrogen rocket engines.
 
The Delta Clipper design achieves airplane-like operations for
rapid vehicle turnaround and low cost per flight. Delta Clipper
meets the broad set of civil, commercial, and military space
requirements. It will enable safe, low-cost transfer of people and
cargo to and from space, dramatically increasing the potential
uses of space travel.
 
Why SSTO Now?
 
The idea of building a single-stage-to-orbit rocket is not new. Thirty
years ago, SSTO concepts were assessed and found to be
infeasible. Since then, advances made in materials, structural
designs, aerodynamics, propulsion, high-speed processing, and
autonomous control have made possible a lightweight, rugged
vehicle�the Delta Clipper�which is capable of carrying out
responsive and sustained operations.
 
What is the Singie Stage Rocket Technology Program?
 
The Single Stage Rocket Technology program is an SD10 initiative
to demonstrate technology readiness. Under a 2-year, $58-million
Phase 11 contract, MDSSC and its teammates are using a rapid
prototype approach to design and build a one-third-size
experimental vehicle the DC-X, and ground support and
operations systems which, through a series of suborbital flights,
will:
 
� Verify vertical takeoff and landing
 
� Demonstrate subsonic maneuverability
 
� Validate "airplane-like" supportability/maintainability
concepts
 
� Demonstrate rapid prototyping development approach
 
Demonstration flights start in the spring of 1993 at White Sands
Missile Range in New Mexico. Results from flight and ground
turnaround tests will be used in a follow-on program. Follow-on
options include: (l) An SD10 program to develop a suborbital
reusable rocket for SD10 systems testing; (2) A national program to
develop a full-scale orbital prototype called the DC-Y.
 
The Delta Clipper Team
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS SPACE SYSTEMS COMPANY
Douglas Aircraft Co. � McDonnell Aircraft Co. � McDonnell Douglas
Electronic Systems Co.
McDonnell Douglas Missile Systems Co. � McDonnell Douglas Research
Laboratories
Pratt & Whitney � Scaled Composites
Aerojet � Eagle Engineering � Harris � Honeywell
Martin Marietta � Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm
Fluor Daniel � SpaceGuild
 
MDSSC is now MDA or McDonnell Douglas Astronautics.
SSTO is now SSRT or Single Stage Rocket Technology.
 
I got detailed vugraphs which I'll be scanning in and translating to GIF
files....
WHERE DO YOU GUYS WANT EM FTP'd TO???????
    

Article: 59092
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!decwrl!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: SSTO: A Spaceship for the rest of us
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 17 Mar 93 21:45:22 GMT
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Lines: 318
 
 
[First of two papers on SSTO. This is also the draft NSS position
  paper on SSTO]
 
 
                            SSTO
               A Spaceship for the Rest of US
 
Introduction
Space is an important and growing segment of the U.S.
economy.  The U.S.   space market is currently over $5
billion per year, and growing.  U.S. satellites, and to a
lesser degree U.S. launch services, are used throughout the
world and are one of the bright stars in the U.S. balance of
trade.
 
The future is even brighter.  The space environment promises
new developments in materials, drugs, energy, and resources,
which will open up whole new industries for the United
States.  This will translate into new jobs and higher
standards of living not only for Americans but for the rest
of the world's people.
 
Standing between us  and these new industries is the
obstacle presented by the high cost of putting people and
payloads into space.  This paper addresses the reasons why
access to space is so expensive and how those costs might be
reduced by looking at the problem in a different way.
 
Finally, this paper will describe a radical new spacecraft
currently under development.  Called Single Stage to Orbit
(SSTO), it promises to greatly reduce costs and increase
flexibility.
 
Access to Space: Expensive and Dangerous
Access to space today is very expensive, complex, and
dangerous  With U.S.  expendable launchers like Atlas,
Delta, and Titan, it generally costs about $3,000  to $8,000
to put a pound of payload into low Earth orbit (LEO).  In
addition, U.S.  expendables require extensive ground
infrastructure to do final assembly and payload integration
and complex launch facilities to actually launch the rocket.
Finally, despite all the extra care and effort, they don't
work very well and even the best launchers fail about 3% of
the time (would you go to work tomorrow if there was a 3%
chance of your car exploding?).
 
Even the U.S. Space Shuttle, which was supposed to give the
U.S. routine low cost access to space, has failed.  A
Shuttle flight costs about $500 million (roughly $10,000 per
pound to LEO).  Even going full out, NASA can only launch
each  Shuttle about twice a year (for a total of eight
flights).
 
The effects of these high costs go deeper than the price tag
for the launches themselves.  Space equipment is much more
expensive than comparable equipment meant for use on Earth,
even when tasks are similar and the Earthly environments are
harsh.  The difference is that space equipment must be as
lightweight as humanly possible and must be as close as
humanly possible to 100% reliability.  Both of these extra
requirements are ultimately problems of access to space: if
every extra pound costs thousands of dollars, and replacing
or repairing a failed satellite is impossibly expensive,
then efforts to reduce weight and improve reliability make
sense.  Unfortunately, they also greatly increase price.
 
With equipment so expensive, obviously building extra copies
is costly, and launching them is even worse.  This
encourages space projects to try to get by with as few
satellites as possible.  Alas, this can backfire: when
something does go wrong, there isn't any safety margin...as
witness the U.S.'s shortage of weather satellites at this
time.  Expensive access to space not only produces costly
projects, it produces fragile projects that assume no
failures, because safety margins are too expensive.
Lamentably, failures do happen.
 
Finally, although research in space holds great promise for
new scientific discoveries and new industries, it is
progressing at a snail's pace, and companies and researchers
often lose interest early.  Why?  Because effective research
requires better access to space.  Scientific discoveries
seldom come as the result of single experiments: even when a
single experiment is crucial, typically there is a long
series of experiments leading up to it and following through
on it.  And getting the "bugs" out of a new industrial
process almost always requires a lot of testing.  But how
can such work be done if you only get to fly one experiment
every five years?  Good researchers and innovative companies
often decide that it's better to avoid space research,
because it costs too much and takes too long.   The ones who
haven't abandoned space research are looking hard at buying
flights on Russian or Chinese spacecraft: despite technical
and political obstacles, they can fly their experiments more
often that way.
 
People excuse this because it has always been this way and
so probably always will be (after all, this is rocket
science).  But there are a lot of reasons to think that it
needn't be so complex and expensive.
 
Spacecraft are complex, expensive, and built to aerospace
tolerances but they are not the only products of that nature
we use.  A typical airliner costs about the same as a
typical launcher.  It has a similar number of parts and is
built to similar tolerances.  The amount of fuel a launcher
burns to reach orbit is about the same as an airliner burns
to go from North America to Ausralia.  Looked at this way,
it would seem that the cost of getting into orbit should be
much closer to the $1500 it takes to get to Australia than
to the $500 million dollars plus it takes to put an
astronaut up.
 
Why the differences in cost?  Largely they are due to
different solutions to the same problems.  Some of these
differences are:
 
1.  Throw away hardware.  A typical expendable launch
vehicle costs anywhere from $50 to $200 million to build
(about the cost of a typical airliner) yet it is used  one
time and then thrown away.  Even the 'reusable' Space
Shuttle throws away most of its weight in the form of an
expendable external tank and salvageable solid rocket
motors.  This is the single biggest factor in making access
to space   expensive.
 
Airlines use reusable hardware and fly their aircraft
several times every day.  This allows them to amortize the
cost of the aircraft over literally thousands of passenger
flights.  The entire Shuttle fleet flies only eight times a
year, while many airliners fly more than eight times per
day.
 
2.  Redundant Hardware and Checks.  Since expendable
launchers are used one time and then thrown away, they
cannot be test-flown; huge amounts of effort therefore go
into making sure they will work correctly.  Since the
payloads they launch are typically far more expensive than
the launcher (a typical communication satellite can cost
three times the cost of the launcher) millions can be and
are spent on every launch to obtain very small increases in
reliability.  This is well beyond the point of diminishing
returns and sometimes results in greater harm.  For example,
a couple of years ago a Shuttle Orbiter was almost damaged
when it was rotated from horizontal to vertical with a loose
work-platform support still in its engine compartment.  The
support should have been removed beforehand...and three
signatures said it had been.
 
Airliners, since they are reusable and can also be tested
before use, thus are able to be built to more relaxed
standards without sacrificing safety.  The exact same
aircraft flew to get to your airport and it is likely that
any failure would already have been noticed.  In addition,
aircraft are built with redundancy so they can survive
malfunctions; launchers usually are not.  Most in-flight
failures of airliners result, at most, in delays and
inconvenience for the passengers; most in-flight failures of
launchers result in complete loss of launcher and payload.
 
3.  Pushing the Envelope on Hardware.  Current launchers
tend to use hardware that is run all the time at the outside
limit of its capability.  This may be fine for expendable
launchers which are used one time and don't need to be
repaired for reuse.  But this has also tended to carry over
to the Shuttle which, for example, operates its main engines
at around 100% of its rated thrust (this is like driving
your car 55 MPH in first gear all the time).  Because the
hardware is used to its limit every time, it needs extensive
checkout after every flight and frequent repair.
 
Airliners tend to be much more conservative in their use of
hardware.  Engines are used at far less than their full
rated thrust and airframes are stressed for greater loads
then they ever see.  This results in less wear and tear
which means they work with greater reliability and fewer
repairs.
 
4.  Labor Requirements.  For all of the reasons given above,
existing launchers require vast amounts of human labor to
fly.  The efforts of about 6,000 people are needed to keep
the Shuttle flying.  This represents a huge expense and is
amortized only over eight or so Shuttle flights every year.
 
Airliners are far more streamlined and, for the reasons
given above, don't need nearly as many people.  A typical
airliner only has 150 people supporting it, including
baggage handlers, flight crews, ticketing people, and
administration.  Since the cost of those 150 people are
amortized over thousands of flights per year, the cost per
flight is very low.
 
Our current  launchers are expensive and complex vehicles.
Yet the fact that we routinely use vehicles with similar
cost and complexity for far less cost indicate that the
causes of high launch costs lie elsewhere.  If we looked at
the problem in a different way, we could try to build
launchers the same way Boeing builds airliners.  The next
section will describe just such a launcher and how it is
being built.
 
A Spaceship that Runs Like an Airliner: SSTO
For a long time, some launcher designers have realized that
designing launchers the way airliners are designed would
result in lower costs.  Several designs have been proposed
over the years and they are generally referred to as Single
Stage to Orbit (SSTO) launchers.
 
1.  Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO).  Unlike an existing
launcher which has multiple stages, a SSTO launcher has only
one stage.  This results in far lower operational costs and
are key to reusability.  Conventional launchers need
expensive assembly buildings to stack the stages together
before going to the launch pad.  An SSTO only has one stage,
so these facilities are not needed.  This means that the
only infrastructure needed to launch a SSTO is a concrete
pad and a fuel truck.
 
2.  Built for Ease of Use.  SSTO vehicles are built to be
operated like airliners.  They can fly multiple times with
no other maintenance needed other than refueling.  If a
problem is discovered, all components can be accessed with
ease (by design).  The defective Line Replaceable Unit (LRU)
is replaced and launch can occur with only a short delay.
If the problem is more complex or other maintenance is
needed, the SSTO is towed to a hanger where the easy
accessibility of parts insures rapid turnaround.
 
3.  Standard Payload Interface.  Payloads need access to
services like power, cooling, life support, etc., while
waiting for launch.  The interfaces which provide these
services are not standardized, adding cost and complexity to
existing launchers.  In effect, part of the launcher must be
redesigned for each and every launch.  SSTOs, however, would
be designed with standard payload interfaces.  This allows
payload integration to occur hours before launch instead of
weeks before launch.  (Although in all fairness, the makers
of expendable launchers are also slowly moving in this
direction).
 
4.  Built to be tested.  Unlike expendables, SSTO vehicles
do not have to be perfect the first time.  Like airliners,
they can survive most failures.  Like airliners, they can be
tested again and again to find and fix problems before real
payloads and passengers are entrusted to them.  Even when a
failure does occur with a real payload aboard, usually
neither the vehicle nor the payload will be lost.  The
reliability of SSTO vehicles should be close to that of
airliners -- a loss rate of essentially zero -- and far
better than the 3% loss rate of existing launchers.
 
 
SDIO Single Stage Rocket Technology Program
Recent advances in engine technology and materials have made
most critics believe that the technology is now available to
build a SSTO.  In 1989, SDIO recognized the potential of
this approach and commissioned a study to assess its risk.
The study concluded that a SSTO vehicle is possible today.
As a result of this study, SDIO initiated the Single Stage
Rocket Technology Program  (SSRT).  The goal of the three
phase SSRT program is to build a SSTO, thus providing
routine cheap access to space.
 
Phase I consisted of four study contracts to develop a
baseline design for a SSTO.  General Dynamics and McDonnell
Douglas proposed vehicles which both take off and land
vertically (like a helicopter).  Rockwell proposed a vehicle
which takes off vertically but lands horizontally (like the
Space Shuttle does today).  Finally, Boeing proposed a
vehicle which both takes off and lands horizontally (like a
conventional aircraft).
 
In August 1991, SDIO selected the McDonnell Douglas vehicle
(dubbed Delta Clipper) for Phase II development, and
contracted for the construction of a 1/3 scale prototype
vehicle called DC-X.  This prototype is currently under
development and should begin flying in April, 1993.
 
DC-X will provide little science data but a wealth of
engineering data.  It will validate the basic concepts of
SSTO vehicles and demonstrate the ground and maintenance
procedures critical to any successful orbital vehicle.
 
Phase III of the program will develop a full scale prototype
vehicle called DC-Y.  DC-Y will reach orbit with a
substantial payload, hoped to be close to 20,000 lbs,  and
demonstrate total reusability.  In addition, McDonnell
Douglas will begin working with the government to develop
procedures to certify Delta Clipper like an airliner so it
can be operated in a similar manner.
 
Phase III was scheduled to begin in September of 1993 but
SDIO will not be able to fund the Phase III vehicle.  There
is some interest in parts of the Air Force and it is hoped
that they will fund DC-Y development.  It will be a great
loss for America if they do not.
 
After Phase III, it will be time to develop an operational
Delta Clipper launcher based on the DC-Y.  At this point
government funding shouldn't be needed any longer and the
free market can be expected to fund final development.
 
Conclusion
If a functional Delta Clipper is ever produced it will have
a profound impact on all activities conducted in space.  It
will render all other launch vehicles in the world obsolete
and regain for the United States 100% of the western launch
market (half of which has been lost to competition from
Europe and China).  It will allow the United States to open
up a new era for mankind, and regain our once commanding
lead in space technology.
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [email protected]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------91 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+
    

Article: 59657
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!sousa.tay.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!q5022531.mdc.com!user
From: [email protected] (Andy Cohen)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC-X
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 24 Mar 93 21:33:23 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: MDA-W
Lines: 26
NNTP-Posting-Host: q5022531.mdc.com
 
It looks really weird because....
 
IT'S SQUARE MAN!  
 
Really, the thing is square....at the bottom, then tapers to circular at
the top.
 
Today's walk-by revealed that the upper section is now attached to the
body.  They still need to attach the top nose cone (from NASA!) and the
base shield.  A friend of mine is working the base shield and he gave me a
detailed look at his work....  The engines are recessed (in DC-X. I don't
think they will still be so in Y).  That is, the exhaust nozzels end
.....inside...the skin at the base.  The base shield has oversized holes to
allow nozzle movement(not for the nozzles, they're recessed....for the
exhaust!).  Specially designed with a new heat resistant aluminum, the
covers attach to the nozzles after the base shield is attached.  These
covers coverup the oversized holes on the outside.......such a nice
design.......and so hard to describe...sorry...
 
The Flight Ops Command Center (the trailer) is all painted with neat SSRT,
SDI and DC-X logos.....  If the company store starts to sell patches...I'll
let ya know if I can get them...
 
The rollout is NEXT saturday..... I plan on being there.  I also plan to
post my recollections of the historic event here on your favorite USENET
board.....unless they throw me out for being a....groupie...
    

Article: 60001
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!decwrl!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu!chrisj
From: Chris W. Johnson <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X: Pratt Ships Final Test Engine
Date: 29 Mar 1993 23:17:43 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Computation Center
Lines: 28
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d20
X-XXMessage-ID: <[email protected]>
X-XXDate: Mon, 29 Mar 93 23:06:07 GMT
 
Page 25 of the March 22nd issue of Aviation Week has a very short 
article which provides a little info on the status of the DC-X 
project which I thought others might be curious to see. In part it 
reads:
 
"Pratt & Whitney has delivered the last of four modified RL10 rocket
engines for use in McDonnell Douglas' prototype DC-X single-stage
rocket technology vehicle.
 
"The engines will be integrated in the DC-X on a schedule that
should enable flight demonstrations to begin this summer at White
Sands Missile Range, N.M. During testing, DC-X will be flown up to
altitudes of 30,000 ft., and demonstrate rotation and vertical 
landing maneuvers within a 100 ft. touchdown footprint. [....]
 
"The DC-X's RL10A-5s have been modified for variable throttling,
and are equipped with a new thrust chamber for sea-level operation.
Pratt & Whitney produces other versions of the cryogenic RL10 for
use in General Dynamics' Centaur upper stage, but those engines 
are designed only for upper atmosphere operation."
 
 
Chris W. Johnson
 
Internet:   [email protected]
UUCP:       {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj
CompuServe: >INTERNET:[email protected]
AppleLink:  [email protected]@internet#

Article: 60026
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!decwrl!decwrl!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu!chrisj
From: Chris W. Johnson <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test
Date: 30 Mar 1993 02:27:58 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Computation Center
Lines: 72
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d20
X-XXMessage-ID: <[email protected]>
X-XXDate: Mon, 29 Mar 93 01:38:27 GMT
 
No sooner do you get home than you find the latest issue of
Aviation Week has just arrived with another article on DC-X... so 
here's another set of excerpts. Some of this, of course, has been 
mentioned on the net before, but there's some new info, too.
 
From "DC-X Vehicle Nears Flight Test" by Bruce A. Smith, AW&ST, 
March 29, 1993, pp. 27-28:
 
* DC-X should be rolled out on April 3rd. It's currently in the
    final stages of assembly and checkout.
 
* Flight tests will begin in June at White Sands.
 
* "Program officials said the DC-X has a .5 mass fraction--the
    ratio of propellant weight to gross weight of the vehicle at
    liftoff. A mass fraction of .9 is required to get into orbit."
    
* "The DC-X is expected to be operated at a velocity of up to
    Mach 0.3, an altitude of 17,000-18,000 ft. and dynamic pressure
    of approximately 350 lb./sq. ft. for the White Sands tests this
    year."
    
* "The initial series [of launches] will include low-altitude test-
    ing to evaluate the blended vehicle control provided by thrust
    vector control of the gimballed engines, the reaction control 
    system and a set of flaps at the base of the aeroshell."
    
* There will be three sets of flights. The first two will be hover
    tests differing in the altitudes and flight times. The first
    series will be conducted about 250 ft. above ground and will 
    last 2 minutes, the second will be at 7,000-8,000 ft. and will
    last significantly longer (they don't say how much longer).
    "The second series could begin in late June or early July. The
    [third] series will involve the vertical landing rotation, 
    which begins at 16,000-17,000 ft."
    
* "[A]ll launch-related operations will be conducted by essentially
    a three-person crew. The flight vehicle has extensive health
    monitoring and built-in test systems to aid in the scaling back 
    of support operations." "There will be five persons in the 
    launch facility at White Sands [....]." And "[t]he crew will be
    rounded out by a deputy flight manager to monitor subsystems, a
    crewmember to load propellants and gases, the McDonnell Douglas
    program manager and a range safety officer."
 
* DC-X is 40 ft. high and 13.5 ft. wide at its base. Liftoff weight 
    will be 41,630 lb.
 
* Propellant tanks are aluminum and hold about 3,300 lb. and 16,200 
    lb. of liquid hydrogen and oxygen, respectively.
 
* Composite aeroshell by Scaled Composites.
 
* Main propulsion by Pratt & Whitney; four RL10A-5 engines, contin-
    uously throttleable from 25-100% thrust. Each can be gimballed
    +/- 8 degrees and produces 14,000 lb. of thrust.    
 
* Reaction control system by Aerojet. It "is a gaseous oxygen-
    gaseous hydrogen unit with four 400-lb. thrusters."
 
* Avionics by McDonnell Aircraft. This "includes a Honeywell 
    computer, an F-15 inertial navigation system, a Navstar [GPS] 
    receiver and rate sensors and accelerometers from the F/A-18 
    program."   
 
 
Chris W. Johnson
 
Internet:   [email protected]
UUCP:       {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj
CompuServe: >INTERNET:[email protected]
AppleLink:  [email protected]@internet#
    

Article: 60132
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!dbased.nuo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!nic.cerf.net!diaspar
From: [email protected] (Diaspar Virtual Reality Network)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X rollout stereoscopic .gifs
Date: 31 Mar 1993 12:03:20 GMT
Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group
Lines: 35
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net
Keywords: DC-X SSTO Delta Clipper images gif stereoscopic
 
I will be attending the rollout on 4/3/93 with stereoscopic 35mm
camera and camcorder. This has been approved and I will try to make
available .gif files of some of the better shots as soon as p
possible after that. Interested parties should email me requests
and I will also be posting them on the Diaspar Virtual Reality
Network (diaspar.com via telnet or 714-376-1234 9600 baud)
 
The same stereoscopic prism will be used on the camcorder so that
3D video tape will be available. The portrait-style image shape
due to this method somehow seems suited to the DC-X <grin>
 
I have had the opportunity to see it at 3 stages of assembly
and last week on a tour I was politely asked to step out from
under it as they were about to do engine gymbol testing and didn't
want me to be hit by one of the engines. (I had become so enthrawed
in studying it I had actually ended up underneath it).
 
My first tour was when the vehicle was first starting to be stacked
and the aeroshell had just arrived. The aeroshell was being held in
a special holder (horizontally) and was not yet painted - having a
gray/black color. Only the thrust assembly was stacked at that time.
 
On the second tour, the unit was about half completed and was over
20 feet high. Got a good look at the landing gear and some of the
components. A lot of clever scrounging and imaginative work went 
into parts procurement based on comments I have heard and what I've
seen.
 
On the last tour, the main aeroshell was in place and the upper
aeroshell structure (not the top compartment with parachute) was
being hauled from one end of the building to the other.    s
 
Was impressive - not just the Clipper itself but the people.
Good folk and very resourceful.
 
    

Article: 60483
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!network.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!nic.cerf.net!diaspar
From: [email protected] (Diaspar Virtual Reality Network)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DCX "Roll out"
Date: 4 Apr 1993 21:06:38 GMT
Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net
Keywords: DCX, Delta Clipper
 
   I attended both the press briefing and the rollout and will be
putting more information here as I get a chance to write it up.
The good news is I got lots of stereoscopic video "footage" and 
will be converting a number of the best shots to .gifs and it
will include shots of not just the vehicle but of some of the
people at the press conference. I'll have .gifs that are both
normal and stereo pairs (left/right)
 
As a quick summary of the rollout I will mention a few things.
First, the weather was perfect: clear, sunny, high 70's to low
80's. The press conference before the rollout was not unduly long,
McDonnell Douglas made a major effort to make people welcome and
to handle the crowd (est 1500) that was there. One can tell
the turnout was larger at the last minute than expected since
they ran out of hot dogs (but thankfully not soft drinks as it
was hot). Col. Worden brought down the house at one time during the
press conference when asked a question about how much money the
Air Force had available for projects like these. He replied "I
didn't make colonel by telling my contractors how much money I have
available to spend." 
 
The rollout ceremony was pretty straighforward - a number
of not-too-long speeches (including one each from a republican
and democrate Congressman) and then the vehicle was pulled out of the
The DC-X, as advertised, is about 41 feet tall, round at the
top, squarish at the bottom, has rather large landing gear. Was
really something to see paretns bringing their kids up and touching it
and looking in the access hatches which were open (but covered with
plexiglass). 
 
The concept of quick turnaround from idea to a finisahed unit
and the concept of aircraft-style flight operations is appealing to
me. It kind of hit home when people were allowed to touch the 
thing. I've touched more aircraft in my life that I can count, but
this is the first time I've touched a space ship.
 
D
D
D
D
D
D
DX
hanger by an interesting little tractor/carrier. The DC
    

Article: 60656
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!buenneke@monty.rand.org
From: [email protected] (Richard Buenneke)
Subject: DC-X Rollout Report
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: [email protected]
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 22:34:39 GMT
Approved: bboard-news_gateway
Lines: 124
 
 
McDonnell Douglas rolls out DC-X
 
        HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. -- On a picture-perfect Southern
California day, McDonnell Douglas rolled out its DC-X rocket ship last
Saturday.  The company hopes this single-stage rocket technology
demonstrator will be the first step towards a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO)
rocket ship.
 
        The white conical vehicle was scheduled to go to the White Sands
Missile Range in New Mexico this week.  Flight tests will start in
mid-June.
 
        Although there wasn't a cloud in the noonday sky, the forecast for
SSTO research remains cloudy.  The SDI Organization -- which paid $60
million for the DC-X -- can't itself afford to fund full development of a
follow-on vehicle.  To get the necessary hundreds of millions required for
a sub-orbital DC-XA, SDIO is passing a tin cup among its sister government
agencies.
 
        SDIO originally funded SSTO research as a way to cut the costs for
orbital deployments of space-based sensors and weapns.  However, recent
changes in SDI's political marching orders and budget cuts have made SSTO
less of a priority.  Today, the agency is more interested in using DC-X as
a step towards a low-cost, reusable sounding rocket.
 
        SDIO has already done 50 briefings to other government agencies,
said Col.  Simon "Pete" Worden, SDIO's deputy for technology.  But Worden
declined to say how much the agencies would have to pony up for the
program. "I didn't make colonel by telling my contractors how much money I
have available to spend," he quipped at a press conference at McDonnell
Douglas Astronautics headquarters.
 
        While SDIO has lowered its sights on the program's orbital
objective, agency officials hail the DC-X as an example of the "better,
faster, cheaper" approach to hardware development.  The agency believes
this philosophy can produce breakthroughs that "leapfrog" ahead of
evolutionary technology developments.
 
        Worden said the DC-X illustrates how a "build a little, test a
little" approach can produce results on time and within budget.  He said
the program -- which went from concept to hardware in around 18 months --
showed how today's engineers could move beyond the "miracles of our
parents' time."
 
        "The key is management," Worden said. "SDIO had a very light hand
on this project.  We had only one overworked major, Jess Sponable."
 
        Although the next phase may involve more agencies, Worden said
lean management and a sense of government-industry partnership will be
crucial. "It's essential we do not end up with a large management
structure where the price goes up exponentially."
 
        SDIO's approach also won praise from two California members of the
House Science, Space and Technology Committee. "This is the direction
we're going to have to go," said Rep.  George Brown, the committee's
Democratic chairman. "Programs that stretch aout 10 to 15 years aren't
sustainable....NASA hasn't learned it yet.  SDIO has."
 
        Rep.  Dana Rohrbacher, Brown's Republican colleague, went further.
Joking that "a shrimp is a fish designed by a NASA design team,"
Rohrbacher doubted that the program ever would have been completed if it
were left to the civil space agency.
 
        Rohrbacher, whose Orange County district includes McDonnell
Douglas, also criticized NASA-Air Force work on conventional, multi-staged
rockets as placing new casings around old missile technology. "Let's not
build fancy ammunition with capsules on top.  Let's build a spaceship!"
 
         Although Rohrbacher praised SDIO's sponsorship, he said the
private sector needs to take the lead in developing SSTO technology.
 
        McDonnell Douglas, which faces very uncertain prospects with its
C-17 transport and Space Station Freedom programs, were more cautious
about a large private secotro commitment. "On very large ventures,
companies put in seed money," said Charles Ordahl, McDonnell Douglas'
senior vice president for space systems. "You need strong government
investments."
 
        While the government and industry continue to differ on funding
for the DC-XA, they agree on continuing an incremental approach to
development.  Citing corporate history, they liken the process to Douglas
Aircraft's DC aircraft.  Just as two earlier aircraft paved the way for
the DC-3 transport, a gradual evolution in single-stage rocketry could
eventually lead to an orbital Delta Clipper (DC-1).
 
        Flight tests this summer at White Sands will "expand the envelope"
of performance, with successive tests increasing speed and altitude.  The
first tests will reach 600 feet and demonstrate hovering, verticle
take-off and landing.  The second series will send the unmanned DC-X up to
5,000 feet.  The third and final series will take the craft up to 20,000
feet.
 
        Maneuvers will become more complex on third phase.  The final
tests will include a "pitch-over" manever that rotates the vehicle back
into a bottom-down configuration for a soft, four-legged landing.
 
        The flight test series will be supervised by Charles "Pete"
Conrad, who performed similar maneuvers on the Apollo 12 moon landing.
Now a McDonnell Douglas vice president, Conrad paised the vehicles
aircraft-like approach to operations.  Features include automated
check-out and access panels for easy maintainance.
 
        If the program moves to the next stage, engine technology will
become a key consideration.  This engine would have more thrust than the
Pratt & Whitney RL10A-5 engines used on the DC-X.  Each motor uses liquid
hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants to generate up to 14,760 pounds of
thrust
 
        Based on the engine used in Centaur upper stages, the A-5 model
has a thrust champer designed for sea level operation and three-to-on
throttling capability.  It also is designed for repeat firings and rapid
turnaround.
 
        Worden said future single-stage rockets could employ
tri-propellant engine technology developed in the former Soviet Union.
The resulting engines could burn a dense hydrocarbon fuel at takeoff and
then switch to liquid hydrogen at higher altitudes.
 
        The mechanism for the teaming may already be in place.  Pratt has
a technology agreement with NPO Energomash, the design bureau responsible
for the tri-propellant and Energia cryogenic engines.
 
 
    

Article: 61407
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!digex.com!digex.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Jordan Katz)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: SSRT Roll-Out Speech
Date: 21 Apr 1993 22:09:32 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 101
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
 
                               SSRT ROLLOUT
 
                Speech Delivered by Col. Simon P. Worden,
                     The Deputy for Technology, SDIO
                                    
                  Mcdonnell Douglas - Huntington Beach
                              April 3,1993
 
     Most of you, as am I, are "children of the 1960's."  We grew
up in an age of miracles -- Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles,
nuclear energy, computers, flights to the moon.  But these were
miracles of our parent's doing.  For a decade and more the pundits
have told us - "you've lost it!"  The "me" generation is only
living on the accomplishments of the past.
 
     You and I have even begun to believe the pessimists.  We
listen in awe as the past generation tells of its triumphs.  Living
history they are.  We are privileged to hear those who did it tell
of it.  A few weeks ago some of this very team listened in awe as
General Bernie Schriever told of his team's work - and yes struggle
- to build this nation's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.
 
     What stories can we tell?  Blurry-eyed telescopes?  Thousand
dollar toilet seats?  Even our space launch vehicles hearken only
of that past great time.  They are and seem destined to remain Gen.
Schriever's ICBMs.  I find it hard to swell with pride that the
best new space-lifter idea is to refurbish old Minuteman and
Poseidon ballistic missiles.
 
     Well - The pessimists are wrong.  The legacy is continuing. 
This event is proof.  To our technological parents: We've listened
to your stories.  We've caught your enthusiasm and can-do spirit. 
And we've learned from your achievements - and your mistakes.  Let
me honor one of you who was part of that history and the impetus
behind this history - Max Hunter.  You are one of the greatest
engineers of the firts great age of space exploration.  Your
insight and discipline built the Thor ICBM - later incorporated
into today's most successful launch vehicle - The Delta.
 
     You told us in the 60's that a new form of launch vehicle - a
single stage reusable rocket - can and should be built.  You
advocated this idea tirelessly.  It was elegantly simple, as are
all great breakthroughs.  You showed us how to build it.  You
convinced us it could be done.  You are working by our side to weld
its components into place.  Most important - you reminded us of a
prime engineering principle - undoubtably one you learned from the
generation before you - the generation that built transcontinental
aviation in the 1920's and 30's - build a little and test a little
and Max, you passed all of this on  to people like Pat Ladner who
started this program for the SDI.
 
     Douglas Aircraft didn't start with a DC-10.  They didn't even
start with a DC-3.  Our grandfathers built a little, tested a
little - even sold a little and made a little money - before they
moved on to the next step.  They didn't take a decade or more
before putting the first "rubber on the road."  Max Hunter - you
didn't take ten years to build Thor, and by God we're not going to
take ten years to show that low cost, single stage, reusable
aerospace transportation is real.
 
     We ended the cold war in a few short years.  It took the  same
team here today but a few years to show through the Strategic
Defense Initiative that the cold war must end.  We - you and us -
launched a series of satellites - The Delta experiments - in about
a year apiece.  This, more than anything else signaled our
commitment to end the impasse between ourselves and the Soviet
Union.  Those who made the decisions on both sides have underscored
the importance of our work in bringing about a new international
relationship.
 
     But it is the same team which is now  putting in place the
framework for an aerospace expansion that is our legacy for the
next generation.  We will make space access routine and affordable.
 
     We built this magnificent flying machine in two years.  This
summer a true rocket ship will take off and land on earth for the
first time.  Then we can and surely will build in the next three
years a reusable sub-orbital rocket.  It will allow us to use space
rapidly, affordably, and efficiently as no other nation can.  And
yes - we'll make a little money off it too!
 
     Then - and only then - we'll spend another three years to
build a fully reusable single stage to orbit system.  The DC-3 of
space will be a reality!  We may even be able to use some of the
rocket propulsion breakthroughs of our former cold war adversaries. 
What a wonderful irony if this SDI product and Russian efforts to
counter SDI merge to power mankind's next step to the stars!
 
     To be sure, we must guard against the temptations to leap to
the final answer.  Robert Goddard's first rockets weren't Saturn
V's!  If we succumb  to the temptation to ask  for just a few extra
dollars and a few more years to jump immediately to a full orbital
system - we will fail.  Max Hunter and his colleagues showed the
way.  Three years and a cloud of dust - in our case rocket
exhausts.  There is no short-cut.  If we expect to reshape the
world again - we must do it one brick at a time.  Minds on tasks at
hand!
 
     This project is real.  The torch of American technological
greatness is being passed.  We are Americans.  This machine is
American.  Let's go fly it!
    

Article: 61541
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!jbh55289
From: [email protected] (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: DC-Y trajectory simulation
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 06:08:22 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected] (Net Noise owner)
Keywords: SSTO, Delta Clipper
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 91
 
 
I've been to three talks in the last month which might be of interest. I've 
transcribed some of my notes below.  Since my note taking ability is by no means
infallible, please assume that all factual errors are mine.  Permission is 
granted to copy this without restriction.
 
Note for newbies:  The Delta Clipper project is geared towards producing a
single staget to orbit, reusable launch vehicle.  The DC-X vehicle is a 1/3
scale vehicle designed to test some of the concepts invovled in SSTO.  It is 
currently undergoing tests.  The DC-Y vehicle would be a full scale 
experimental vehicle capable of reaching orbit.  It has not yet been funded.
 
On April 6th, Rocky Nelson of MacDonnell Douglas gave a talk entitled 
"Optimizing Techniques for Advanced Space Missions" here at the University of
Illinois. Mr Nelson's job involves using software to simulate trajectories and
determine the optimal trajectory within given requirements.  Although he is
not directly involved with the Delta Clipper project, he has spent time with 
them recently, using his software for their applications.  He thus used 
the DC-Y project for most of his examples.  While I don't think the details
of implicit trajectory simulation are of much interest to the readers (I hope
they aren't - I fell asleep during that part), I think that many of you will
be interested in some of the details gleaned from the examples.
 
The first example given was the maximization of payload for a polar orbit.  The
main restriction is that acceleration must remain below 3 Gs.  I assume that
this is driven by passenger constraints rather than hardware constraints, but I
did not verify that.  The Delta Clipper Y version has 8 engines - 4 boosters
and 4 sustainers.  The boosters, which have a lower isp, are shut down in 
mid-flight.  Thus, one critical question is when to shut them down.  Mr Nelson
showed the following plot of acceleration vs time:
                  ______
3 G         /|   /      |
           / |  /       |          As ASCII graphs go, this is actually fairly 
          /  | /        |	   good.  The big difference is that the lines
2 G      /   |/         |          made by the  /  should be curves which are
        /               |          concave up.  The data is only approximate, as
       /                |          the graph wasn't up for very long.
1 G   /                 |
                        |
                        |
0 G                     |
 
             ^          ^
           ~100 sec    ~400 sec
 
 
As mentioned before, a critical constraint is that G levels must be kept below
3.  Initially, all eight engines are started.  As the vehicle  burns fuel the
accelleration increases.  As it gets close to 3G, the booster engines are 
throtled back.  However, they quickly become inefficient at low power, so it
soon makes more sense to cut them off altogether.  This causes the dip in 
accelleration at about 100 seconds.  Eventually the remaining sustainer engines
bring the G level back up to about 3 and then hold it there until they cut
out entirely.
 
The engine cutoff does not acutally occur in orbit.  The trajectory is aimed
for an altitude slightly higher than the 100nm desired and the last vestiges of
air drag slow the vehicle slightly, thus lowering the final altitude to 
that desired.
 
Questions from the audience:  (paraphrased)
 
Q:  Would it make sense to shut down the booster engines in pairs, rather than
    all at once?
 
A:  Very perceptive.  Worth considering.  They have not yet done the simulation.    Shutting down all four was part of the problem as given.
 
Q:  So what was the final payload for this trajectory?
 
A:  Can't tell us.  "Read Aviation Leak."  He also apparently had a good 
    propulsion example, but was told not to use it.  
 
My question:  Does anyone know if this security is due to SDIO protecting
national security or MD protecting their own interests?
 
The second example was reentry simulation, from orbit to just before the pitch
up maneuver.  The biggest constraint in this one is aerodynamic heating, and 
the parameter they were trying to maximize was crossrange.  He showed graphs
of heating using two different models, to show that both were very similar,
and I think we were supposed to assume that this meant they were very accurate.
The end result was that for a polar orbit landing at KSC, the DC-Y would have
about 30 degrees of crossrange and would start it's reentry profile about 
60 degrees south latitude.
 
I would have asked about the landing maneuvers, but he didn't know about that
aspect of the flight profile.
 
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          [email protected]
		    "Find a way or make one."
	             -attributed to Hannibal

    
    Re -.1 (DC-Y) /Too bad the author isn't here, as he must have more./
    
    "4 booster engines with low ISP + 4 sustainer engines with high ISP"
    
    ?  Did they give some details on this, do these "booster" engines burn 
    Hydrocarbons (i.e. ISP aroun 350) rather then Liquid Hydrogen (ISP 450)
    
    
    ?  As far as re-entry did they mention if parachutes are used in the
    final stages  or is the de-acelaration done by just air friction and
    "sustainer ?" engines...
    
    ?  Anything on the Dry to Wet ratios, Engine Powers and so on ...
    
    Gil
    

    > ?  Did they give some details on this, do these "booster" engines
    >    burn Hydrocarbons (i.e. ISP aroun 350) rather then Liquid Hydrogen
    >    (ISP 450)
    
    DC-X, DC-Y, et.al. as conceived, are LH/LOX vehicles.
    
    
    > ?  As far as re-entry did they mention if parachutes are used in the
    >    final stages  or is the de-acelaration done by just air friction
    >    and "sustainer ?" engines...
    
    There are four re-entry scenerios but the most likely scenerios do not
    use parachutes. The thought is that they weigh too much, are yet
    another subsystem that can fail, and are yet another subsystem that needs
    to be refurbished between flights.
    
    > ?  Anything on the Dry to Wet ratios, Engine Powers and so on ...
    
    I believe that I have seen 1:8 ratios.
    
    				Cheers,
    				-Abdul-
    

    The different Isp values are probably reflect different expansion
    ratios on the booster and sustainer engines. Variable geometry nozzles
    exist, but they are heavy and deviate from the KISS concept of DC-X/Y.
    
    gary

    Comments from sci.space indicate that static engine tests are scheduled
    to begin this coming Saturday...More info as it appears...
    
    				Cheers,
    				-Abdul-
    

    I'll post this here for now. Moderators, please move this to a new note
    if you deem it deserving of a topic of its own.
    
    The following is an overview of the Boeing Two Stage To Orbit (TSTO)
    plans. It appears that Boeing doesn't believe that MacDac's SSTO Delta
    Clipper program is viable and is looking at ways to exploit their
    strengths as makers of large aircraft. I guess we'll see soon how far
    they take this concept.
    
    				Cheers,
    				-Abdul-
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
Article: 61849
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!ofa123!Wales.Larrison
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)
X-Sender: newtout 0.08 Feb 23 1993
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 29 Apr 93  21:41:44
Lines: 83
 
[email protected]  writes:
Re; Response from CoB of Boeing on SSTO ...
>"As far as single stage to orbit technology, we think that we have
>a better answer in a two stage approach, and we are talking to some
>of our customers about that.  As far as commercialization, that is
>a long ways off.  ...
> Anybody know anything further? Is this really news? Does this
>threaten further work on DC-? ?
  
   Boeing has been looking at several TSTO vehicles and has carried
out extensive conceptual studies of advanced launch systems for some
time.  A good reference on this might be: "Comparison of Propulsion
Options for Advanced Earth-To-Orbit (ETO) Applications (IAF-92-
0639)." by V.A. Weldon and L.E. Fink from Boeing.   The paper
describes a propane-fueled TSTO launch system claimed to achieve
aircraft-like operational efficiencies without the problems
associated with liquid hydrogen fuel.  Basically, it's a high-speed
airplane launching a Hermes-type spaceplane
   The design (the concept is also called "Beta") as laid out in the
paper can launch at least 10,000 pounds into polar orbit, or 20,000
pounds to space station orbit including a crew of eight persons and
life support.  System design reliability is .9995.
   Beta is a 360-foot-long first stage powered by two large ramjets
and 12 high- speed civil transport (HSCT) turbofans.  A 108-foot-
long reusable orbiter is trapeze-mounted in the belly of the first-
stage aircraft, which also could accommodate a longer and heavy
payload on an expendable second stage.
   To launch the orbital vehicle, the first stage takes off like a
normal HSCT and accelerates to Mach 3.  At that point the turbofans,
modified to burn catalyzed JP-7, would shut off and the ramjets,
would take over.  At Mach 5.5 the orbiter or the ELV would swing
out, ignite and proceed to orbit. Both vehicles would land like
aircraft at the conclusion of their respective missions.
   Estimated total weight of the combined configuration at takeoff
is about 1.5 M lbs, roughly equivalanet to a fully loaded An-225.
The orbiter stages weighs about 400,Klbs including 335 Klbs
of LOX and subcooled propane to power two 250 Klbs vacuum thrust
rocket engines. Propellants would be stored at 91 degrees Kelvin,
with the propane in a spherical tank mounted forward of the 15-by-
25-foot cargo bay and the two-seat orbiter crew station. LOX would
be stored aft.  Weldon and Fink claim the key to this design's
success is the structurally efficient airframe and the compact
tankage allowed by the high-density supercooled hydrocarbon fuel.
     The paper compares TSTO design to SSTO design.  They conclude
while a SSTO has a slightly lower recurring cost, a TSTO is easier,
cheaper, and less risky to develop, simpler to build, has greater
safety and mission versatility and doesn't carry the hard-to-handle
and bulky hydrogen fuel. The conlcude "In conjunction with its major
use of airplane type engines and fuel, as well as its inherent self-
ferry capability, it is probably the system most likely to provide
as close to airline-like operations as possible with a practical
configuration, until a single stage airbreather/rocket concept can
be shown to be operationally viable."
  
>Is this really news? Does this threaten further work on DC-?
   Weldon and others at Boeing have been working on TSTO designs for
some time.  I expect this, or a similar concept (perhaps the HTHL
SSTO they proposed for the SDIO SSTO first phase) is being re-
examined as a basis for a bid on the first phase of SpaceLifter.
   Does it threaten DC-???.  Possibly -- There is a set of on-going
studies trying straighten out the government's future space
transportation strategy.  MDC and Boeing (as well as other firms)
are providing data to a joint study team back in DC.  There are
various factions and options vying for attention -- including
shuttle upgrades, shuttle replacement (what was called the "4-2-3"
architecture), SpaceLifter, ELV upgrades, and various advanced
vehicles (ALES, Beta, DC-??, NASP, FSTS, SSTOs of several types,
etc.)  NASA/DOD/DOT are trying to put together a coherent strategy
for future US gov't space transportation systems, and trying to
juggle near-term launch needs (like for DoD and NASA) against
medium-term needs (including commercial considerations), and against
the investment and risk of going to "leap frog" new technologies
like SDIO/SSTO and NASP and Beta.
   It's a heck of a problem.  The worst part of the problem isn't
that there aren't promising ideas and concepts -- there are dozens
of them -- but how they balance cost and risk versus real needs in
the near term.  They should have a draft report in mid-June, with a
final report coming by the end of the fiscal year.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                           Space Technology Investor
  
 
--- Maximus 2.01wb
    
Article: 63110
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!dbased.nuo.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!bnrgate!bnr.co.uk!pipex!sunic!psinntp!psinntp!heimdall!jeff.findley@sdrc.com
From: [email protected] (jeff findley)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Boeing TSTO concept (sort-of long)
Keywords: Boeing, TSTO
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 19 May 93 21:53:58 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Organization: SDRC
Lines: 78
 
 
There is a good overview of the Boeing TSTO concept in the May 17, 1993 
issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology.  This article is titled, 
"Boeing Proposed Two-Stage-To-Orbit Plan".  On the page opposite, is an 
article titled "DC-X to Begin Static Test Firings".  Interesting enough,
the article mentions DC-X by saying, "Although Boeing would like to participate
in a Single-Stage-to-Orbit (SSTO) vehicle shuch as McDonnell Douglas's DC-X Delta
Clipper, internal feasibility studies indicate SSTO is not technically viable for
near-term implementation, including routine operations, according to John H.
Sandvig, manager preliminary design, Boeing Military Airplane Div." 
Basically, the host aircraft will take the orbiter (under the host's belly) up 
to about 100,000 ft altitude at a speed of Mach 3.3.  The orbiter separates
and finishes the flight to orbit under its own power.  The article goes on to
mention the following specs for the vehicle(s).
 
First Stage, or Host Aircraft (modified SST)
--------------------------------------------
o Doesn't specify what SST would be modified, but it doesn't look off the shelf
o Six 73,500-lb. static-thrust jet engines with afterburners burning 111,000 lb
  of JP-4 (this engines does not yet exsist)
o One Space Shuttle Main Engine burning 284,000 lb of cryogenic fuel
  (I would guess that this would need to be refurbished after every flight, like 
   the Space Shuttle's main engines)
 
First Orbiter Variation
-----------------------
o Unmanned
o about 500,000 lb of cryogenic fuel
o One Space Shuttle Main Engine 
o Four RL-10 liquid fuel Centaur engines (Not the RL10A-5 on DC-X)
o Wings similar to the shuttle's for unpowered, Space Shuttle-type reentry
o 12 x 12 x 20 ft payload bay
o 20,000 lb into 50 x 100 nautical mile transfer orbit (using standard SSME)
o 30,000 lb into the same transfer orbit with a more advanced SSME
 
Second Orbiter Variation
------------------------
o Manned
o NASP-derived Ram/Scramjet engines (not yet fully developed, as far as I know)
o Wings and reentry profile similar to Orbiter #1
o 20,000 lb into a 120-nautical mile, circular orbit
 
Third Orbiter Variation
-----------------------
o Unmanned
o Partially expendable, high-payload version
o No wings, only the engines and avionics pod will reenter and be recovered
o Unspecified propulsion (I would guess it would be the same as #1)
o 50,000 lb payload into a 120-nautical mile, circular orbit
 
 
My Humble Opinion
-----------------
Although Boeing claims that using an SST-like host aircraft would allow rapid
turnarounds, airline-like reliability and self-ferry capability, the use of 
SSME's in the first variation of its orbiter and in the host aircraft should
keep costs high and slow turnarounds.  If they have to refurbish the SSME's 
after each flight, they better keep a lot of spares on hand if they want to 
keep turnaround time low (this wouldn't be cheap).
 
Also, the main jet engines on the host aircraft have not been developed.  
Av. Week said that industry propulsion experts think this would be a 10-year
multi-billion dollar project.  This doesn't sound "near-term" to me.
 
Conclusion
----------
This doesn't look quite as promising as DC-Y (or whatever it is currently 
being called), but if DC doesn't work, this may be a good alternative if Boeing 
can deliver on it's estimate of flights costing less than $1000 per pound of 
payload to orbit.
 
Jeff
--
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Jeff Findley, SDRC              | This is a test of the .signature system. |
| Cincinnati, OH                  | Remember, this is only a test.           |
| e-mail: [email protected]   | All opinions above are my own, I think.  |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------------+

    re -.1 "Boeing's Concepts - TSTO"
    
    I always tought that given current capabilities, a two stage fully
    reusable orbiter would be easier and less risky to develop. Giving
    the needed low operating costs and high utilization rates.
    
    The only question is why has it not been done, for example one of
    the Suttle concepts proposed back then was a 2 stage 100% reusable
    shuttle. It was dismissed by congress due to its too high funding
    peaks... even though full development costs were similar and Op
    Costs were way lower.
    
    And congress is not likelly to change, just what kind of funding 
    peaks is the TSTO likelly to need, or the Delta Clipper for that
    matter. If they are too high, Total Costs or Op Cost will not stop
    congress from killing them. Congress only cares about this year's
    budget, and the rest can take a hike.
    
    If NASA was a private company, or if it sub-contracted the whole
    thing to a private company or a consortium. It would be another
    matter, given a fixed yearly budget (say total cost / years) from 
    congress a private company would be able to get over the peaks
    by banking excess funds in low cost years and borrowing in high
    cost years. It then would be free to choose the project only on
    the basis of total life costs and developement/Operations risks. 
    (BUT THIS IS ANOTHER STORY AND NOT LIKELLY TO EVER HAPPEN)
    
    	Gil

    Re: last couple

    Boeing, of course, was a competitor to Rockwell, General Dynamics, and
    McDonnell Douglas in the SDIO SSTO program, ultimately won by McD-D
    with the DC-X/Y/1 design.  One wonders if they'd be singing a different
    tune about the viability of SSTOs if they'd have won the contract.

    Boeing has done a number of interesting and innovative designs for
    SSTOs over the years, including some huge systems for the 1974 future
    space transportation systems study and the 1978 solar power satellite
    reference study.  The anti-SSTO dig in the TSTO press kit sound like
    typical FUD aimed at non-technical decision makers.

    re .43
    
    Various mentions are made of using SSMEs but that they would have to be
    refurbished each flight thus hindering "airline-type operations". I was
    under the impression that the SSMEs would need less maintenance if they
    were not being run at > 100% nominal design thrust. Is this correct?
    Perhaps these TSTO designs assume the use of an SSME at < 100% thrust.
    
    Now if Boeing would like to build a TSTO craft, they could have a fly-off
    with DC-Y. Let's have some competition... � (-:

Previous replies implied these should have begun by now, if so what is happening?

	JT:

    Word on the net has been that there were some delays in the schedule. I
    will post updates as soon as I see them.
    
    				-Abdul-
    

Article: 63461
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: white paper specifying the DC-X followon: SX-2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 18:37:15 GMT
Lines: 133
 
[This is the paper I promised to post a while ago. Sorry for the delay.
  It gives some specifics of the current thinking for a DC-X followon.]
   -Allen
 
 
                     White Paper
     SX-2 Advanced Technology Demonstrator (ATD) Program
                       Col. Worden, SDIO
 
The Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) program will begin flight
testing the DC-X vehicle this summer.  Currently, SDIO is not budgeting
funds for any other effort other than $5 million in FY94 to compllete
the DC-X flight testing.  SDIO is encouraging other DOD agencies
(ARPA and USAF), the Department of Energy (Sandia and Los Alamos
National Laboratories), NASA, or a combination of the above to support
a joint follow-on ATD program run from SDIO or another agency.  This
paper recommends a Fast Track ATD program that is well defined and for
which independent government cost and schedule estimates exist.
 
_SX-2 Program Definition:_ The follow-on program would build and fly
the SX-2 (Spaceplane Experimental) ATD within three years.  The SX-2
uses the same RL-10A5 engines as the DC-X with performance enhancements
provided by subcontracts with the Russian rocket engine company
Energomash.  The vehicle operates out of the same basic facilities and
uses the same ground-based crew and control center used to fly the DC-X.
Airframe construction will demonstrate the identical composites and
unit weights needed for follow-on suborbital and Single Stage to Orbit
(SSTO) vehicles.  Maximum altitude for the SX-2 is 600,000 feet providing
four to five minutes of microgravity time in space.  Like its predecessor,
the DC-X, the SX-2 will push even further toward demonstrating the
feasibility of rocket powered "aircraft-like" operations, support,
reliability and associated recurring flight costs in the only credible
way -- by doing it.  The SX-2 like the DC-X, uses oxygen and hydrogen
to support all propulsion and power needs, and offers an environmentally
benign exhaust product -- water.  With clean exhaust, manageable noise
levels and no staging debris, the SX-2 is an environmentally friendly
system that can help set the standard for all 21st century launch systems.
 
_Why SX-2:_ The rationale for funding the SX-2 program centers around
five military/commercial "dual use" thrusts: 1) enabling the construction
of follow-on suborbital and orbital vehicles providing vastly less
expensive commercial spacelift services and fundamentally new strategic
and tactical military capabilities, 2) assuring that the American
aerospace industry is the first to commercially exploit low cost, highly
reliable space access, 3) providing dual use technology spinoffs to the
commercial and military sectors, 4) bolstering the aerospace industrial
base by opening profitable new commercial opportunities, and 5) developing
American-Russian  cooperative ventures.
 
_Funding Requirements:_ The SX-2 program is envisioned as a competitive
procurement in which three prime airframe contractors have expressed an
interest: Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas and Rockwell International.  Total
program cost as estimated by both the government and the McDonnell Douglas
industry wide team is $450 million.  The fiscal year breakout is $75,
$185, $180 and $10 million through FY94 through FY97 respectively.  The
first year of design will focus on reducing the program cost as far as
possible towards a self-imposed $300 million Design-to-Cost goal.  Just
as completing the DC-X significantly reduced the cost and uncertainty of
proceeding with the SX-2, the SX-2 program will provide accurate, low risk
estimates of the cost of proceeding with follow-on suborbital and orbital
vehicles.
 
NEXT PAGE...
 
ADDENDUM
Rationale For SX-2 Program
 
A successful SX-2 program will directly enable a family of military,
civil and commercial derived vehicles.  From cheap suborbital rockets
identical to the SX-2 for university and commercial research, to inter-
continental ballistic transport vehicles able to deliver cargo globally
within minutes, to tommorrow's SSTO launch vehicles, a successful SX-2
program will conclusively show that such vehicles can be built and allow
credible estimates of their operating costs and reliabilities.  Moreover,
if the SX-2 flies as cheaply as the DC-X is designed to operate today,
by the turn of the century follow-on vehicles could begin reducing
operating costs by up to an order of magnitude over the $10 billion the
U.S. spends annually on space launch.  Even highly subsidized foreign
launch vehicles can't compete with such radicaly reduced operating costs.
Beyond space launch, such aerospace vehicles can provide an important
complement to tommorrow's military force structure.  Their ability to
respond globally from central CONUS with the speed of an ICBM and the
flexibility of a modern aircraft could form an important pillar of the
Air Force's emerging 21st century "Global Reach -- Global Power"
strategy.
 
As far back as the 1986 National Commission on Space, and every national
assessment since, the need for fundamentally lower launch costs has
consistently been cited as the seminal barrier to the growth of commercial
space enterprises.  The SX-2 takes a measured step which will quantify
the magnitude of potential cost savings and develop a host of commercially
useful technologies ready for new dual use military and commercial
application.
 
Technology transfer to the commercial sector can be expedited by a
focused program to transition key technologies to American and Russian
commercial enterprises.  For example, light weight composite materials
usable from cryogenic to room temperatures have potential applications
ranging from comercial aviation to the automotive industry; high
temperature superalloys and composites can enable more efficient engines
of all kinds; and hydrogen generation and handling equipment, fuel cells
and power units will take a significant step towards a 21st century
economy based on hydrogen, electric cars and pollution free hydrogen
fueled automobiles.  Building the SX-2 in conjunction with an aggressive
technology transfer program will allow America to beat the Japanese at
their own game -- be the first to spin-off state-of-the-art (but off-the-
shelf) technogies to commercial applications.
 
Beyond technology spin-off, the SX-2 provides a focus for high technology
American-Russian cooperation and will bolster the declining American
aerospace industry with contracted work in many of the 50 states, but
focused in Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Missouri and New Mexico.
With Russian provided propulsion enhancements it's likely the SX-2 will
eventually break the X-15 speed record of Mach 6.7.  Once its initial
flight test objectives are achieved, the SX-2 can be used for many
experiments and high speed technology development for the next century.
Low cost, routine access to the hypersonic flight regime can expedite
high speed technology development.  Experiments flown on the SX-2 can
benefit many key technologies including base burning, actively cooled
structures, heat pipes, high temperature materials, durable flight
controls, hot structures, advanced cryogenic tanks, slush hydrogen,
triple point oxygen, advanced avionics and rocket augmented flight.
The vision enabled by the SX-2 program can provide a focus for America's
youth encouraging higher education and fundamentally new commercial
industries on America's space frontier.  But the first step unquestionalbly
must be development and flight of a proof-of-concept demonstrator like
the SX-2..
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------23 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+
    

Article: 63460
Xref: nntpd.lkg.dec.com sci.space:63460 talk.politics.space:3151
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Update of SSTO language for Authorization
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 18:35:24 GMT
Lines: 63
 
 
Draft Report Language
-- For Inclusion in the
FY '94 DoD Authorization Bill
 
Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) Program
 
Of all the dual-use spacelift technologies currently targeted
for operation within a decade, reusable, Single Stage to Orbit
(SSTO) rockets offer the highest potential for radically
reduced costs and increased safety, reliability, and
operability. According to recent studies performed for the Air
Force and NASA, SSTO's have the potential of reducing the
operational cost of delivering payloads to low Earth orbit by
an order of magnitude, restoring U.S. competitiveness.
 
The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) is
carrying out a well-planned Advanced Technology Demonstration
(ATD) program to demonstrate the availability and cost
effectiveness of Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT).  The
SSRT program is structured to rapidly prototype and fly
experimental vehicles of increasing size and performance to
demonstrate the feasibility of single stage reusable rockets
one step at a time, within budget, and in a short time.
 
The SSRT program is important because it will provide the DoD
with a demonstrated SSTO technology option for consideration as
a next generation spacelift system.
 
The first ATD vehicle, the DC-X1, is on schedule and within
budget, and positive conclusive results are expected by the end
of fiscal year 1993.  The second ATD vehicle, the DC-X2,is
scheduled to begin development in fiscal year 1994.  Successful
flight testing of the DC-X1 and DC-X2 will provide the
confidence necessary to proceed into initial development of a
full-scale operational SSTO system.
 
The Committee is concerned that the SSRT program is only
budgeted at $5,000,000 in fiscal year 1994, and questions the
level of funding support available within SDIO for completion
of the DC-X2 ATD.  Based on the expected positive results from
the DC-X1 flight tests, and because of the significant
potential that single stage rockets promise for reduced costs
and increased reliability and operability, the SDIO is directed
to begin development of the DC-X2 in fiscal year 1994.  The
Committee also directs SDIO to evaluate the feasibility of
transitioning the SSRT program in fiscal year 1995 to
appropriate new management commensurate with its dual-use
nature, such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) or
the Technology Executive Officer (TEO) structure within the Air
Force, and to provide its recommendations to the Committee by
August,1993.
 
The Committee directs that $75,000,000 be authorized in fiscal
year 1994 for SDIO to proceed aggressively with the SSRT
program, including development and flight testing of the DC-X2
ATD.
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------23 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+
    

Article: 61015
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!dbased.nuo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: What the latest on DCX?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 22:48:07 GMT
Lines: 17
 
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>   What's the latest on the first launch of Delta Clipper X?  It has to be 
>coming up pretty soon.
 
I just got back from ISDC and there I spoke with Dr. Gaubatz, the Program
Manager. There where a series of successful test firings at 30% thrust.
 
Exact dates of test flights is still pretty open so my .sig should be
regarded as only a rough guess.
 
  Allen
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------16 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+
    

Article: 61297
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!oct17.dfe.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!q5022531.mdc.com!user
From: [email protected] (Andy Cohen)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X...
Followup-To: sci.space
Date: 3 Jun 1993 20:01:44 GMT
Organization: MDA-W
Lines: 10
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: q5022531.mdc.com
 
I heard they had two test firings with one at 3 secs and one 10 secs....
 
The heat from the redirected exhaust in the rig has burned off most of the
fancy decals....
 
The next text is the big 30 sec test this week and if passed means it'll be
time to move her over to the other side of White Sands for the flight
tests...
 
GO DC-X!
    

Article: 61335
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!oct17.dfe.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Today's DC-X tests
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 02:15:03 GMT
Lines: 12
 
I just got off the phone wiht Tim Kyger of Rep. Rohrabacker's office. He
spoke with some of the MacDac people today. They had two tests today eight
hours apart. The first test was at 30% thrust and the second test was at
100% thrust. They seem to be running engine tests every day. Those RL-10's
are running just like airliner engines!
 
   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------13 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

    Article: 61589
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!nigel.msen.com!fmsrl7!lynx.unm.edu!q5022531.mdc.com!user
From: [email protected] (Andy Cohen)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC-X neighbor
Followup-To: sci.space
Date: 7 Jun 1993 14:51:20 GMT
Organization: MDA-W
Lines: 31
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: q5022531.mdc.com
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Pat) wrote:
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 	what hardware are theyt running on the bird and on the fround.
> What  major systems packages (DBMS,,,,)  what comms protocol do
> they use between the bird and ground..  how is the remote piloting
> controlled.  i assume all digitally,  could you talk about that?
> 
 
The CPU is the same box as the F-15.  I was told the code was written by
IBM...at less then cost.  Honeywell and MDA, both out of Kennedy, did the
"off-the-shelf" C&C SW and the command trailer.
I clueless on what protocols are used during flight for telemetry, but I
know that during the ground tests it's a FDDI with standard commercial
protocols...
Very little is operated manually during flight....  I watched one launch
scenario from the command trailer while the bird reacted in the lab...  The
primary operations are to monitor status and look for abort criteria...I
also noticed a mission profile selection... But most C&C stuff was for
ground testing.  They used Data Views (a User Interface Mgmt System) to
develop the screens and run them on SG Workstations.  There's a mainframe
which supports the data servers (I think they're VAXes, but I'm not
sure...).  The screens look like a mixture of process control displays and
RPV controls....  Lots of graphics and animation....  It really made me
sick...  We've been working towards that on SSF for 5 long slow years while
they pulled it off in less then 18 months.....
 
A lot of the hardware....i.e., hinges, rivets, cables and stuff.... comes
from Home Depot.

Article: 61590
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!nigel.msen.com!fmsrl7!lynx.unm.edu!q5022531.mdc.com!user
From: [email protected] (Andy Cohen)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC-X turnaround
Followup-To: sci.space
Date: 7 Jun 1993 14:53:05 GMT
Organization: MDA-W
Lines: 28
Distribution: sci
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: q5022531.mdc.com
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Tom) wrote:
> 
> Andy Cohen sez;
> >>I heard that they require an 8 hour turn around before firing again.....
> 
> Allen responds;
> >Yep!
> 
> >>EIGHT hours.
> 
> >Not bad huh?
> 
> >>and I may be off by two hours too...it may have been 6...  I just could not
> >>believe what I heard.
> 
> >No, it was eight hours. Not only that, yesterday wasn't the first time
> >they did it...
> 
> Wasn't it designed for (fundung based on) a 24-hour turnaround?
> 
> Boy, I tell ya, the thing hasn't even flown, and they're already missing
> their design goals by a factor of three :-)
> 
 
 
Wellllll....
 
DC-X is one third scale of the eventual real thing......right?  Thanks!

re .54
    
>A lot of the hardware....i.e., hinges, rivets, cables and stuff.... comes
>from Home Depot.

    I take it that "Home Depot" is some sort of hardware store chain.

Re: "Home Depot"     Yup.  And a discount one at that...

Article: 64696
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Ground Test Progress
Date: 8 Jun 1993 21:56:12 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 101
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
 
                    DC-X Status Report, June 4th, 1993
 
       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.
 
 
Background
 
As y'all probably know, DC-X is a low-speed flight regime testbed for a
proposed reusable rocket-powered Single Stage To Orbit transport, McDonnell-
Douglas Aerospace's (MDA) "Delta Clipper".  DC-X is intended to prove out
rocket-powered vertical takeoff, nose-first lifting-body to tail-first flight
transition, and vertical landing.  It is also intended to prove out both
rapid turnaround of a reusable rocket by a minimal ground support crew, and
rapid low-cost development of an advanced aerospace X-vehicle type
engineering testbed by a small highly-motivated engineering team.  
 
SDIO, the sponsoring organization, has brought DC-X to the verge of flight
test in less than two years, for roughly $60 million, something a lot of
established space outfits would have told you was impossible two years ago.  
The MDA team that built DC-X numbered a bit over a hundred people total.
 
DC-X stands roughly 40 feet tall on its landing legs, is 13 feet across the
base, masses about 20,000 lbs empty and 40,000 lbs fully fuelled, and is
powered by four 13,000 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney RL-10-a5 liquid oxygen/liquid
hydrogen rocket motors.  The RL-10-a5 is a special version the RL-10 designed
for wide throttling range and sea-level operation.  
 
The single DC-X vehicle was officially rolled out of its construction hangar
at MDA's Huntington Beach CA plant at the start of April, then trucked out to
White Sands, New Mexico for ground and then flight tests.  Ground testing is
underway, and flight testing should start in July.  
 
 
Ground Test Status: Engines
 
As of Thursday, June 3rd, DC-X has undergone five ground test engine firings,
with considerable progress being made toward readiness for flight.  Chronology
is as follows.
 
Thursday, May 20 -- First hot firing.  
Engines shut down automatically after three seconds, before throttle ramp-up.
Diagnosis was overly tight software limits; the system overall worked as
designed.  Vented hydrogen around the vehicle did ignite at one point and
scorched off the SDIO and Delta Clipper logo decals.  The vehicle was
otherwise OK, having been designed for this.  Anyone know a source for
flameproof BMDO decals?  The SDIO ones were going to have to go anyway.
 
Wednesday, May 26 -- Second and third firings.
Auto-shutdown before throttle-up again both times.  Various minor problems
identified and fixed, but the main trouble was again software that shut the
engines down prior to throttle-up if all parameters weren't within tight
tolerances.  Main fix identified was to loosen tolerances in a sensible
manner.  The big news here was that the DC-X was fired, drained of fuel,
worked on, fuelled, and fired again in an eight-hour span!  This bodes well
for meeting the nominal goal for a fast flight turnaround, three days.
 
Friday May 28 -- Fourth firing.
First successful full planned duration engine firing run.  Engines started at
30% throttle, ramped up to 65% after three seconds, then shut down after a bit
over eight seconds, all as planned.  Some cavitation in two of the LOX
turbopumps, probably due to He gas being sucked in with the LOX.  LOX loading
procedures modified to prevent He bubbles near the LOX intakes.
 
Thursday June 3 -- Fifth firing.  
Good firing, again to full planned duration, ten seconds, and throttle
setting, 65%.  LOX pump cavitation problem seen in previous test gone. 
A fire indication at a hydrogen vent turned out to be false, an artifact of
readings due to extreme cold on the sensor.  Such a fire would not have been
a major problem in any case.  An attempt to recycle the vehicle and do a 50
second engine run in the afternoon was scrubbed due to weather.  
 
The next firing run should be early next week, Tuesday 6/8 or Wednesday 6/9.  
The interim will be taken up by the usual hardware testing and tweaking and
some software modifications.  This run may also include first firings of the
gaseous O2/H2 reaction control system thrusters.  
 
 
Other Progress
 
DC-X now has an engine-out landing capability added to the flight software. 
An engine conking out at takeoff will still likely destroy the vehicle, as
there is insufficient thrust from three engines to keep DC-X in stable flight
with full fuel (this is why an operational VTOL SSTO would have six to eight
engines minimum) but if DC-X loses an engine before landing, new flight
software mods should allow a controlled landing on three engines.  The
vehicle would likely take some damage from landing at an angle off the
vertical, but repairable damage to DC-X should at worst delay the test
program.  Bending the vehicle at some point is practically a given in an
experimental test flight program.  As long as they don't break it, only one
DC-X having been funded...  <editorial note -- spare vehicles are cheap
insurance in programs like this, typically costing only a small fraction of
the overall program cost.>
 
First official DC-X flight (there will likely be short "stability test" hops
done beforehand) still looks like happening in July.  No way to pin it down
closer than that, between New Mexico summer weather (thunderstorms) and the
usual developmental uncertainties.  Things look good, though.
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  In other words, intact
 -- crossposting is strongly encouraged.  All other rights reserved.  

Article: 64951
From: [email protected] (David Becker)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Space news from June 21 BusinessWeek
Date: 12 Jun 1993 15:08:39 -0400
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
 
[ This is _BUSINESS_ Week.  They aim at people more interested in contracts,
costs, amortization, man-hours, and profit potential than Gee-Whiz]
 
Excerpts from BusinessWeek, June 21, 1993, p. 118 by Otis Port
    
``Is Buck Rogers' Ship Coming In?
 Vertical-takeoff-and-landing spacecraft just might fly''
 
In mid-June at White Sands ex-astronaut Charles "Pete" Conrad Jr. will
remotely guide a newbreed spacecraft on its maiden blast-off.  The Delta
Clipper X1 -- DC-X, for short -- will briefly hover 100 feet in the air
then settle back on the launchpad.  Conrad calls it a "bunny hop" but says 
it will be "the biggest kick I've had" since his Moon walk 24 years ago.
 
The X in DC-X stands for experimental.  Nothing quite like it has ever
flown.  Yet it was cobbled together by McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (MDS)
in 18 months, for just $60 million, from parts borrowed from the F-15
and other planes and rockets.  So it may not lift off.  Or it might land
with a thud, or worse, at an angle and topple on its side, a
40-foot-long embarrassment.  In that case there will be no lack of
I-told-you-so's.  "People say, `Don't give me that Flash Gordon stuff --
you can't land on your ass.' "  And that's mild compared with derision
at NASA, which flies the space shuttle.
 
Suborbital tests will last until yearend.  Next would come a more
advanced one-third-scale model, the DC-X2. "It would get to 100 miles
high," says Major Jess M. Spondable, the program manager at BMDO.
Finally, a full-size, 127-foot Clipper would be built, a job that could
require five years and $2 billion.
 
For three decades, manned space flight has been an occasional and
expensive pursuit.  But now, thanks mainly to advances in technology,
aerospace companies and some in Washington think they see a chance to
makespace travel an airline-type business.  Their goal is to stimulate
private enterprise in space, including even tourism, and cut the cost of
lofting spy satellites as well as space-based communications hubs.
 
Slashing the costs of access to space will mean doing the job
differently than with NASA's four shuttles and its army of 6000 support
personnel. Replacing the shuttle's heat-shield tiles, reprogramming its
computers, and otherwise prepping the craft for flight takes up to a
million work-hours over many weeks. Result: A shuttle launch costs $500
million -- critics say closer to $700 million if R&D costs were
amortized. Given the shuttle's capacity of 54,000 pounds, each pound
placed in orbit costs roughly $10,000.
 
By contrast, predicts William A. Gaubatz, DC-X project director at MDA,
a DC could cost roughly $10 million to launch.  Even if its payload tops
out at less than the hoped-for 25,000 pounds, the per-pound costs could
plummet below $1,000.  That's partly because the Clipper's
launch-control team will be three people plus a pilot, either on board
or at remote controls.  And the ship will fly again in a week, after no
more than 350 work-hours of maintenance, thanks to self-diagnostic
systems such as those used in airliners but yet to be tested in space.
Adds Gaubatz: "I'm betting that we could fly every 24 hours -- even
twice a day in a pinch." This goal was the chief reason MDA got the
contract, says Sponable.
 
During static tests in late May the crew fired up the engines [..] After
routine maintenance checks, the crew reignited the engines later that
day. "It was a first for any launcher," Gaubatz boasts.
 
Gary C. Hudson, a consulting engineer and space entrepreneur from
Redwood City, Calif., was among the few to push for a wingless vehicle.
A platform for Hudson's ideas appeared in 1980, when science-fiction
author Jerry E. Pournelle formed the Citizens Council on Space Policy, a
space-boosters club. At the inaugural meeting, Hudson pitched his
concept to deaf ears.  But by the mid-'80s, as the shuttle failed to
live up to NASA's promise of routine flights to space, he was gaining
wary supports.  Eventually, Hudson even won over Maxwell W. Hunter,
former chief engineer of Lockheed Corp.'s Thor rocket.
 
At a 1989 meeting with Vice-President Dan Quayle, Hunter and Pournelle
argued that a single-stage rocket was doable, quickly and cheaply, if it
were handed to any agency but NASA. They saw NASA as so risk-averse in
the wake of the 1986 Challenger accident that a vertical-landing vehicle
would be studied to death.  MDA's Gaubatz agrees.  Last January, he told
space buffs at [Making Orbit '93] that the DC-X under NASA might have
ballooned into a five- to eight-year, $1 billion project.  NASA declines
to comment.
 
The Air Force commissioned a study by Aerospace Corp [..] To the surpise
of nearly everyone, the Newport Beach (Calif.) think tank bought the
idea -- reversing its own earlier position.
 
SDIO decided on a contest and called for bids in 1990.  Boeing, General
Dynamics, Rockwell International, and McDonnell Douglas all concluded
that a vehicle powered by a single-stage rocket had become feasible. GD
and MDA worked on VTOL designs; Rockwell and Boeing proposed winged
vehicles.  The contract went to MDA in August, 1991, perhaps because
Douglas had classified information from Air Force tests conducted
in the 1970s on technology that would let ballistic missiles maneuver as
they descended on a target. From those tests, insists Gaubatz, "we've
got the data that proves vertical landing can be done."  Spondable adds
that his BMDO boss has told him: "If it doesn't work, I will get to ride
it."
 
What the secret tests uncovered was this: If a rocket's shape tapers a
certain way, from cylindrical at the nose to square at the tail, it can
extend a flap to change direction in the atmosphere without the flap
quickly burning off from friction at speeds in the 7000 mph range. This
geometry causes the shock waves created at such high speeds to flare
out, explaining the DC-X's pyramid shape. Thus engineered, a spaceship
could come in nose-first, flip upright, and land tail-down.  The DC will
still have to be protected with heat-shielding ceramic tiles like those
on the shuttle. But because the DC's nose is cylindrical, there will be
just a few common shapes.  The shuttle's asymmetrical design means many
of its tiles are uniquely shaped -- and thus extremely expensive.
 
Gary Hudson: "I'm excited, naturally.  I'm also excited by Boeing's new
TSTO"  In fact, he's ready to applaud whatever gets the job done. "The
important thing is finding a way to get into space cheaply -- and soon.
How we do it is secondary."
 
--
Sidebar: "Rating the Launchers"
 
			Current leaders		Future contenders
			Shuttle	  Araine 4	DC		TSTO
Cost per launch	
(millions of dollars)	$500	$70 to $115	$10		$16
 
Min time between	4 weeks	 4 weeks	1 to 7   	16 days
launches					days
 
Payload  (1,000 kg) 	23.5	4.9 to 9.6	9.1	 	14
						to 11.4	
Cost per kg put into	$21,277	  $10,145 to	$900 to	 	$1,150
low earth oribt			  $13,821	$1,100
--
-- 
		       If it ain't broke, don't exit()
David Becker [email protected]	

Article: 64988
From: [email protected] (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: space news from June 21 BusinessWeek
Date: 13 Jun 1993 11:47:26 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
 
It looks like the DC-X  has borrowed heavily from the MARV
(Manueverable Re-entry Vehicle) program started in the late 1970s. 
 
I have one interesting question, if DC-X will do all it's test
manuevers  at under 35,000 ft, will they have chase planes near by?  
and could one almost use Chase Helicopters? 
 
pat

Article: 65080
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!decwrl!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Various DC-X News
Date: 15 Jun 1993 00:16:36 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 165
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
 
                        DC-X News, June 14th, 1993
 
       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.
 
 
                          In Memoriam: Phil Bono
 
Philip Bono, a retired Douglas Aircraft Company engineer, died recently. 
What does this have to do with DC-X?  Like Willy Ley, who died a month before
the first Moon landing, Bono was a visionary and space pioneer who didn't
live to see his ideas take flight.  Phil Bono can justifiably be described as
the father of the modern SSTO.  He was the first to combine the ideas of
reusable space launch vehicles with vertical takeoff and landing into a
series of concepts that just might have been buildable with the technology of
the time.  His ideas were largely ignored by the aerospace establishment of
the sixties and seventies, but a book he wrote (Frontiers Of Space, with Ken
Gatland of the British Interplanetary Society) was responsible for inspiring
a generation of launch vehicle engineers who kept his dream alive into the
nineties.  Sometime next month, Phil Bono's dream will finally fly.  
 
 
 
                         DC-X Test Program Status
 
Background
 
DC-X is a low-speed flight regime testbed for a proposed reusable rocket-
powered Single Stage To Orbit transport, McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace's
"Delta Clipper".  DC-X is intended to prove out rocket-powered vertical
takeoff, nose-first lifting-body to tail-first flight transition, and
tail-first landing.  It is also intended to prove out both rapid turnaround
of a reusable rocket by a minimal ground support crew, and rapid low-cost
development of an advanced aerospace X-vehicle type engineering testbed by a
small highly-motivated engineering team.  
 
DC-X stands 40 feet tall, is 13 feet across the base, masses 22,300 lbs empty
and 41,630 lbs fully fuelled, and is powered by four 13,500 lb thrust Pratt &
Whitney RL-10-a5 liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rocket motors, each able to
gimbal +- 8 degrees.  The RL-10-a5 is a special version of the RL-10-a
designed for wide throttling range (30% to 100%) and sea-level operation.  
 
The single DC-X vehicle was officially rolled out of its construction hangar
at MDA's Huntington Beach CA plant at the start of April, then trucked out to
White Sands, New Mexico for ground and then flight tests.  Ground testing is
underway, and flight testing should start in July.  
 
 
DC-X Ground Test Progress
 
As of Friday, June 11th, DC-X has undergone two additional ground test engine
firings during the week since our last report, for a total of seven firings.
 
On Tuesday, June 8th, DC-X's engines were fired for 28 seconds.  You may
recall that last week's report included the information that a second firing
attempt on Thursday June 3rd (scrubbed due to weather) had been aimed at a
duration of fifty seconds.  It seems reasonable to assume that Tuesday's
firing was also aimed at fifty seconds but was cut short due to some sort of
glitch or anomaly.  No further information available on this at the moment.
 
If they did see a problem Tuesday, it was fixed three days later.  On Friday,
June 11th, DC-X's engines were fired for 50+ seconds, presumably running up to
the planned 80% throttle setting (Aviation Week 6/7/93 p. 38), enough for a
fully-fuelled liftoff.  
 
According to an MDA spokesperson, one more static engine firing is planned for
this coming week, with an additional firing possible if there are any gaps in
the test data that need filling.  After that, the DC-X team will be packing up
and moving from the White Sands Test Facility across a fair chunk of desert to
the White Sands Missile Range.
 
First official DC-X flight (there will likely be short "stability test" hops
done beforehand) still looks like happening in July, 3-4 weeks after the
move to WSMR begins.
 
 
 
                     DC-X Followon: Political Status
 
Background
 
The current DC-X program is funded through flight test and data analysis this
fall, and ends after that.  There is an ongoing effort to get the US Congress
to fund a three-year followon program, variously known as DC-Xb and SX-2
(Space Experimental 2).  This would likely be a suborbital vehicle powered by
8 RL-10-a5 engines, capable of reaching mach 6 and 100 miles altitude, built
with orbital-weight tanks and structure and orbital grade heat-shielding.  
 
The SX-2 program goal will be to demonstrate all remaining technology needed
to build a reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.  Once SX-2 has been
tested, all that should be necessary to produce a functioning reusable SSTO
is to scale up the SX-2 structures and install new larger rocket engines.  
 
Proposed FY '94 funding for SX-2 startup is $75 million.  The money would
come out of the $3.8 billion BMDO budget already pretty much agreed on for
the coming year.  Total SX-2 program cost over the next three years is
currently estimated at $450 million.  
 
SX-2 would start out under BMDO (formerly SDIO), so support from members of
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC and SASC) is vital.  
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
Lining up support in the House has gone well; all the key committee leaders
are at least aware of DC-X Followon, and most seem to be favorably disposed. 
Representatives Ron Dellums (D, CA, HASC Chair) and Pat Schroeder (D, CO,
HASC Research & Technology Subcommittee Chair) could still use some
encouragement.  Representative John Murtha (D, PA, House Appropriations
Committee, Defense Subcommittee Chair) seems favorably disposed already.
 
Dellums   phone 202 225-2661, fax 202 225-9817, 2136 RHOB, Washington DC 20515
Schroeder phone 202 225-4431, fax 202 225-5842, 2208 RHOB, Washington DC 20515
 
The main effort should shift to the Senate now, specifically to the analagous
Senate committee leaders over the next few weeks.  Senators to contact are:
 
 -- Senator James Exon (D, NE), Chairman of the SASC Subcommittee on Nuclear
 Deterrence, Arms Control, & Defense Intelligence ("Nuke" Subcommittee)
 - phone 202 224-4224, fax 202 224-5213, US Senate SH528, Washington DC 20510.
 
 -- Senator Jeff Bingaman (D, NM), Chairman of the SASC Subcommittee on
 Defense Technology, Acquisition, & Industrial Base ("DT" Subcommittee).
 - phone 202 224-5521, fax 202 224-1810, US Senate SH524, Washington DC 20510.
 
 -- Senator Daniel Inouye (D, HI), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations
 Committee's Defense Subcommittee ("Def").
 - phone 202 224-3934, fax 202 224-6747, US Senate SH722, Washington DC 20510.
 
Contacting these Senators' Republican counterparts would also be useful. 
These are:
 
 -- Senator Trent Lott (R, MS), ranking Republican member of "Nuke".
 - phone 202 224-6253, fax 202 224-2262, US Senate SR487, Washington DC 20510.
 
 -- Senator Joseph Lieberman (R, CT), ranking Republican member of "DT".
 - phone 202 224-4041, fax 202 224-9750, US Senate SH502, Washington DC 20510.
 
 -- Senator Ted Stevens (R, AK), ranking Republican member of "Def"
 - phone 202 224-3004, fax 202 224-2354, US Senate SH522, Washington DC 20510.
 
Keep phone calls brief, polite, and to the point - tell whoever answers that
you're calling to let them know you support $75 million in funding for a
followon to BMDO's Single Stage Rocket Technology ("SSRT") program, and if
you feel like it, throw in your favorite reason why this would be a good
thing.  If the person who answers wants to know more, answer their questions
as best you can, otherwise thank them and ring off.  
 
Letters too should should be brief, polite, and to the point, though you can
go into a bit more detail as to why a DC-X followon is the neatest thing since
sliced bread and good for the country too.  Keep it under a page and state
your basic point at the start.
 
Don't overdo it, but in general try to know who you're contacting and
emphasize benefits likely to appeal to them.
 
 
                                   Henry Vanderbilt
                                   Executive Director, Space Access Society
                                   [email protected]
                                   602 431-9283 voice/fax
 
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged.  

Article: 63036
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!oct17.dfe.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Update
Date: 23 Jun 1993 20:11:57 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 216
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
 
                        DC-X News, June 23rd, 1993
 
       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.
 
 
                         DC-X Test Program Status
 
DC-X Background
 
DC-X is a low-speed flight regime testbed for a proposed reusable rocket-
powered Single Stage To Orbit transport, McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace's
"Delta Clipper".  DC-X is intended to prove out rocket-powered vertical
takeoff, nose-first lifting-body to tail-first flight transition, and
tail-first landing.  It is also intended to prove out both rapid turnaround
of a reusable rocket by a minimal ground support crew, and rapid low-cost
development of an advanced aerospace X-vehicle type engineering testbed by a
small highly-motivated engineering team.  
 
DC-X stands 40 feet tall, is 13 feet across the base, and is roughly cone-
shaped, with a circular cross-section forward blending into a square base. 
The vehicle has four maneuvering flaps, one set into each side near the base,
and sits on four landing legs.  DC-X masses 22,300 lbs empty and 41,630 lbs
fully fuelled, and is powered by four 13,500 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney RL-10-
a5 liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rocket motors, each able to gimbal +- 8
degrees.  The RL-10-a5 is a special version of the RL-10-a designed for wide
throttling range (30% to 100%) and sea-level operation.  
 
The single DC-X vehicle was officially rolled out of its construction hangar
at MDA's Huntington Beach CA plant at the start of April, then trucked out to
White Sands, New Mexico for ground and then flight tests.  
 
 
DC-X Ground Tests Completed
 
As of Friday, June 18th, DC-X was through with its ground-test program, after
a total of nine test-stand engine firings since May 20th.  Starting Monday
June 21st, the DC-X crew began moving the operation up the road to the White
Sands Missile Range, where they're expected to begin flight testing toward
the end of July.  
 
The week since our last report saw two final test-stand runs, both "quilt"
tests, patchwork combinations of various simulated flight regimes, designed to
fill in the remaining gaps in vehicle ground test data.
 
On Tuesday, June 15th, the engines were fired for 40 seconds before ground
test software shut them down for an out-of limits condition caused by an
extreme combination of control inputs.  Peak throttle setting was 95%. 
According to a knowledgable source, the shutdown would not have occurred if
the vehicle had actually been flying, and indeed none of the test stand
aborts seen to date would have stopped an actual flight -- all have been
"ground-induced anomalies".  
 
Presumably this means they were anomalies either caused by static test-stand
conditions -- lack of flight airflow around the vehicle, lack of actual
acceleration, different vibration environment, and so forth -- or anomalies
caused by ground-commanded control inputs or ground-test safety limits that
would not be present in flight.  
 
The final ground test firing took place on Thursday, June 17th, and went 
according to plan, lasting 64 seconds and reaching 100% throttle settings.
 
With the end of ground testing, the DC-X program has accomplished a
significant portion of its overall goals.  The nine firings included tests
that simulated all phases of takeoff, hover, translational flight and landing
for the first flight test series.  Key portions of the vehicle control
software for nose-first to tail-first rotation maneuvers were also tested.  
 
Significantly, all these tests were run by a three-person crew in the DC-X
Flight Ops Control Center trailer.  A major goal of the DC-X program is
proving that it doesn't take a standing army to build or fly a rocket.  Both
look pretty close to proven.  
 
Demonstrating fast turnaround between flights is also a major DC-X objective.
May 26th's eight-hour fire/defuel/service/refuel/fire cycle time goes a long
way toward that goal too.
 
"We were pleased with the vehicle's performance as well as the ease with which
we can turn it around between tests.  We're realizing the benefits that come
from designing the system to be totally reusable."
 -- Pete Conrad, DC-X flight manager.  
 
"The entire DC-X system, including avionics, software, hydraulics, propellant
feed systems, engines, and sub-systems met or exceeded our expectations. 
Through this rigorous series of tests we learned how to efficiently service
the vehicle and quickly load and unload propellant.  We acquired extensive
data showing that the vehicle's operations, support and maintenance features
will help us to achieve our goal of aircraft-like operations."
 -- Paul Klevatt, DC-X program manager.  
 
First official DC-X flight (there will be short "bunny hop" stability tests
done beforehand) currently looks like happening in late July.
 
 
 
                           Recommended Reading
 
There's been a flurry of DC-X pieces in the regular press lately.  A list
follows:
 
 - June 17th San Francisco Chronicle, "Science Fiction Gives Rocket a Boost"
 - June 21st Barrons, "A Single Stage To Space"
 - June 21st Business Week, "Is Buck Rogers' Ship Coming In?"
 
 
 
                     DC-X Followon: Political Status
 
Background
 
The current DC-X program is funded through flight test and data analysis this
fall, and ends after that.  There is an ongoing effort to get the US Congress
to fund a three-year followon program, variously known as DC-X2 and SX-2
(Space Experimental 2).  This could end up as a suborbital vehicle powered by
8 RL-10-a5 engines, capable of reaching mach 6 and 100 miles altitude, built
with orbital-weight tanks and structure and orbital grade heat-shielding.  
 
The SX-2 program goal will be to demonstrate all remaining technology needed
to build a reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.  Once SX-2 has been
tested, all that should be necessary to produce a functioning reusable SSTO
is to scale up the SX-2 structures and install new larger rocket engines.  
 
Proposed FY '94 funding for SX-2 startup is $75 million.  The money would
come out of the $3.8 billion BMDO budget already pretty much agreed on for
the coming year.  Total SX-2 program cost over the next three years would be
very much dependent on the contractor chosen and the details of the design,
but would likely be on the order of several hundred million.
 
SX-2 would start out under BMDO (formerly SDIO), so support from members of
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC and SASC) is vital.  
The actual name they know SX-2 by is "followon funding for BMDO's SSRT
(Single Stage Rocket Technology) program." The specific action we're calling
for is for Congress to "fence off" $75 million in BMDO funding for this
project next year -- we are not asking for any new funding authority.  
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
Lining up support in the House has gone well; all the key committee leaders
are at least aware of DC-X Followon, and most seem to be favorably disposed. 
Representatives Ron Dellums (D, CA, House Armed Services Committee Chair) and
Pat Schroeder (D, CO, HASC Research & Technology Subcommittee Chair) could
still use some encouragement.  
 
Schroeder's subcommittee "marks up" the FY' 94 Defense authorization this
week of June 21st.  It's late, but better than never for calls and faxes in
support of fencing off $75 million of BMDO funds for an SSRT followon.  
 
Schroeder phone 202 225-4431, fax 202 225-5842, 2208 RHOB, Washington DC 20515
 
Dellums's full HASC "marks up" the Defense authorization bill next week,
starting June 28th.  Calls, faxes, and letters to Dellums are still helpful.
 
Dellums   phone 202 225-2661, fax 202 225-9817, 2136 RHOB, Washington DC 20515
 
Keep phone calls brief, polite, and to the point - tell whoever answers that
you're calling to let them know you support fencing off $75 million in BMDO
funding for a followon to BMDO's Single Stage Rocket Technology ("SSRT")
program.  If you feel like it, throw in your favorite reason why this
would be a good thing.  If the person who answers wants to know more, answer
their questions as best you can, otherwise thank them and ring off.  
 
Letters too should should be brief, polite, and to the point, though you can
go into a bit more detail as to why a DC-X followon is the neatest thing since
sliced bread and good for the country too.  Keep it under a page and state
your basic point at the start.
 
Don't overdo it, but in general try to know who you're contacting and
emphasize benefits likely to appeal to them.
 
 
The Senate
 
The main effort should begin to shift to the Senate over the next few weeks,
specifically to the analagous Senate Armed Service Committee leaders and
members.  Senators to contact are:  
 
 -- Senator James Exon (D, NE), Chairman of the SASC Subcommittee on Nuclear
 Deterrence, Arms Control, & Defense Intelligence ("Nuke" Subcommittee)
 - phone 202 224-4224, fax 202 224-5213, US Senate SH528, Washington DC 20510.
 
 -- Senator Jeff Bingaman (D, NM), Chairman of the SASC Subcommittee on
 Defense Technology, Acquisition, & Industrial Base ("DT" Subcommittee).
 - phone 202 224-5521, fax 202 224-1810, US Senate SH524, Washington DC 20510.
 
 -- Senator Daniel Inouye (D, HI), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations
 Committee's Defense Subcommittee ("Def").
 - phone 202 224-3934, fax 202 224-6747, US Senate SH722, Washington DC 20510.
 
Contacting these Senators' Republican counterparts would also be useful. 
These are:
 
 -- Senator Trent Lott (R, MS), ranking Republican member of "Nuke".
 - phone 202 224-6253, fax 202 224-2262, US Senate SR487, Washington DC 20510.
 
 -- Senator Bob Smith (R, NH), ranking Republican member of "DT".
 - phone 202 224-2841, fax 202 224-1353, US Senate SD332, Washington DC 20510.
(apologies to Senator Liebermann, CT - we incorrectly listed him as RRM of
this subcommittee last week.  Senator Liebermann is in fact a Democrat.  He
is on SASC, however, so contacting him won't have been wasted.)
 
 -- Senator Ted Stevens (R, AK), ranking Republican member of "Def"
 - phone 202 224-3004, fax 202 224-2354, US Senate SH522, Washington DC 20510.
 
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Executive Director,            in the Solar System."
Space Access Society                   - Robert A. Heinlein
 
[email protected]           "You can't get there from here."
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     - Anonymous
 
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged.  

Article: 64092
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: SAS DC-X Update, 7 July 1993
Date: 8 Jul 1993 15:40:14 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 195
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
 
                        DC-X News, July 7th, 1993
 
       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.
 
 
                         DC-X Test Program Status
 
DC-X Background
 
DC-X is a low-speed flight regime testbed for a proposed reusable rocket-
powered Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) transport, McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace's
"Delta Clipper".  DC-X is intended to prove out rocket-powered vertical
takeoff, nose-first lifting-body to tail-first flight transition, and tail-
first landing.  It is also intended to prove out rapid turnaround of a
reusable rocket by a minimal ground support crew.  
 
DC-X has already pretty much proved out rapid low-cost development of an
advanced aerospace X-vehicle type engineering testbed by a small highly-
motivated engineering team on a tight budget.  Of course, that's been done
before -- just not recently.  
 
DC-X stands 40 feet tall, is 13 feet across the base, and is roughly cone-
shaped, with a circular cross-section forward blending into a square base. 
The vehicle has four maneuvering flaps, one set into each side near the base,
and sits on four landing legs.  DC-X masses 22,300 lbs empty and 41,630 lbs
fully fuelled, and is powered by four 13,500 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney RL-10-
a5 liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rocket motors, each able to gimbal +- 8
degrees.  The RL-10-a5 is a special version of the RL-10-a designed for wide
throttling range (30% to 100%) and sea-level operation.  
 
The single DC-X vehicle was officially rolled out of its construction hangar
at MDA's Huntington Beach CA plant at the start of April, then trucked out to
White Sands, New Mexico for ground and then flight tests.  
 
 
DC-X Ground Tests Completed
 
As of Friday, June 18th, DC-X was through with its ground-test program, after
a total of nine test-stand engine firings since May 20th.  Starting Monday
June 21st, the DC-X crew began moving the operation up the road to the White
Sands Missile Range (WSMR) site where they're expected to begin flight
testing in late July or early August.  
 
With the end of ground testing, the DC-X program has accomplished a
significant portion of its overall goals.  The nine firings included tests
that simulated all phases of takeoff, hover, translational flight and landing
for the first flight test series.  Key portions of the vehicle control
software for nose-first to tail-first rotation maneuvers were also tested.  
 
 
DC-X Move To Flight Test Site Underway
 
The DC-X ops crew is going to spend most of July under the hot desert sun,
breaking down the ground support gear, trucking it over fifty-odd miles of
unpaved road, and setting up again at the White Sands Missile Range flight
test site.  They're in the middle of this move now.  
 
It's taking close to a month to break down, move, and set up again partly
because easy portability simply wasn't a high priority in designing the
ground support rig.  The main concern was to put it together fast, cheap and
simple out of off-the-shelf (in some cases, out-of-the-junkyard) components. 
Then too, monsoon season is coming to New Mexico -- any day now the area will
start seeing thunderstorms coming up from the Gulf of Mexico more days than
not, flooding dry washes and chewing up roads, with winds blowing the white
gypsum sand that give the area its name into everything.  
 
DC-X itself won't make the move until everything else is set up, sometime
toward the end of July.  It will be trucked over horizontally with no major
disassembly.  Until then, the craft is stored in a hangar at the White Sands
ground test site.  
 
Once launch site setup is done and DC-X moved, they'll be running a quick
series of ground tests to make sure everything made it over intact.  The first
"bunny hop" stability test should take place shortly thereafter, featuring a
takeoff, sideways transition of several hundred feet, and landing.  A lot of
people will be keeping their fingers crossed during that.
 
First official DC-X flight currently looks like happening in early to mid
August.  The exact date depends on too many factors to pin down closer than
that -- weather, how many glitches show up after the move and how long it
takes to fix them, and of course the results of post-move DC-X checkout,
ground testing, and stability tests.
 
 
                     DC-X Followon: Political Status
 
Background
 
The current DC-X program is funded through flight test and data analysis this
fall, and ends after that.  There is an ongoing effort to get the US Congress
to fund a three-year followon program, variously known as DC-X2 and SX-2
(Space Experimental 2).  This could end up as a suborbital vehicle powered by
8 RL-10-a5 engines, capable of reaching Mach 6 (about 1/4 orbital velocity)
and 100 miles altitude, built with orbital-weight tanks and structure, and
able to test orbital grade heat-shielding.  
 
There also may be some interest in followon testing of the original DC-X by
other agencies, assuming the vehicle survives the initial test series intact.
The basic DC-X specs point to considerably more speed and altitude capability
than BMDO plans to use this summer.  More on this when I know more.  
 
The SX-2 program goal will be to demonstrate all remaining technology needed
to build a reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.  Once SX-2 has been
tested, all that should be necessary to produce a functioning reusable SSTO
is to scale up the SX-2 structures and install new larger rocket engines.  
 
Proposed FY '94 funding for SX-2 startup is $75 million.  The money would
come out of the $3.8 billion BMDO budget already pretty much agreed on for
the coming year.  Total SX-2 program cost over the next three years would be
very much dependent on the contractor chosen and the details of the design,
but would be on the order of several hundred million.  This is the same order
of magnitude as typical recent X-aircraft programs such as the X-29 and X-31.
 
SX-2 would start out under BMDO (formerly SDIO), so support from members of
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC and SASC) is vital.  The
actual name they know SX-2 by is "followon funding for BMDO's SSRT (Single
Stage Rocket Technology) program."  The specific action we're calling for is
for Congress to "fence off" $75 million in BMDO funding for this project next
year -- we are not asking for any new funding authority, but rather for
reallocation of existing funding toward a DC-X followon.  
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
We need one last (fingers crossed) big push in the House of Representatives.
 
Lining up support in the House has overall gone well; all the key committee
leaders are at least aware of DC-X Followon, and most seem to be favorably
disposed.  But Representative Pat Schroeder (D, CO, Chair of the House Armed
Services Committee (HASC) Research & Technology Subcommittee) will be in
charge of a critical funding procedure next week, and she could still use
some encouragement.  
 
Schroeder's subcommittee was supposed to "mark up" the FY' 94 Defense
authorization weeks ago, but things have been delayed severely by the ongoing
"Bottoms Up" review at the Pentagon.  The latest word is that her subcommittee
will perform the key markup around Wednesday of next week, July 14th.  The
next few days are a critical time for calls, letters, and faxes in support of
fencing off $75 million of BMDO funds for an SSRT followon.  Snailmail letters
should go out before the end of this week, faxes and phone calls before next
Wednesday.
 
Schroeder's phone is 202 225-4431, fax 202 225-5842, mail address is 
Representative Patricia Schroeder, 2208 RHOB, Washington DC 20515
 
Keep phone calls brief, polite, and to the point - tell whoever answers that
you're calling to let them know you support fencing off $75 million of BMDO
(formerly SDIO) funding for a followon to the Single Stage Rocket Technology
("SSRT") program.  If you feel like it, throw in your favorite reason why
this would be a good thing.  If the person who answers wants to know more,
answer their questions as best you can, otherwise thank them and ring off.  
 
Letters too should should be brief, polite, and to the point, though you can
go into a bit more detail as to why a DC-X followon is the neatest thing since
sliced bread and good for the country too.  Keep it under a page and state
your basic point at the start.
 
Don't overdo it, but in general try to know who you're contacting and
emphasize benefits likely to appeal to them.  In this case, it might not hurt
to mention one or two of the following: 
 
 - defense conversion benefits due to the dual-use nature of SSTO technology.
   (civilian space launch applications)
 - economic benefits of improved US international aerospace competitiveness.
   (We used to have 100% of the international launch market.  That's dropped
   to 40%, losing us billions each year.  Cheaper launch will let us compete.)
 - environmental benefits of reusable hydrogen-powered rockets. (no scrap
   metal dumped downrange, nothing but water vapor for exhaust)
 - the economic benefits to Colorado of launch vehicles operable from that
   state.
 - and if you're so inclined, the benefit of diverting BMDO funds that might
   otherwise go for weapons R&D.  
 
Contingency alert: If Schroeder's subcommittee markup does not give us the
language we need for a DC-X followon, we will have less than 24 hours to
convince Representative Dellums, Chair of the full House Armed Services
Committee, to insert the language during full Committee markup of the bill.
Check the nets next week for when the markup actually occurs, and make sure to
check in that evening -- if Schroeder doesn't go for it, we'll need to have
everyone who can, call or fax Dellums the next morning.  If she does go for
it, we're not home free, but we'll have taken another large step forward on
the path toward cheap access to space for all.  Stay tuned.  
 
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Executive Director,            in the Solar System."
Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
[email protected]           "You can't get there from here."
602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged.  

Article: 64199
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!janix.pcs.dec.com!uvo.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!ogicse!netnews.nwnet.net!henson!news.reed.edu!usenet
From: [email protected] (P. Douglas Reeder)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Gaubatz talk on DC-X
Keywords: SSTO,DCX,SSRT,BMDO,SDIO
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 11 Jul 93 09:21:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: scratchy.21om23$pot
Distribution: world
Organization: Div, Grad & Curl
Lines: 83
NNTP-Posting-Host: reed.edu
 
Highlights of Dr. William Gaubatz's talk on the DC-X at OMSI
presented by the Oregon L-5 Society on 10 July 1993
 
by P. Douglas Reeder
 
     Dr. Gaubatz, the Program Manager of the DC-X, spent the
first half of the talk explaining the benefits of space &
the need for cheap transportation.  Since the DC-X flies
itself, only two people are need to watch over the
spacecraft's systems and one to monitor the ground systems.
It is projected that the Delta Clipper will require only
seven mechanics and technicians to round out the team.
About twenty five to thirty DC-X people are needed at White
Sands for the test flights.
     Control is by a combination of the main engines, which
gimbal up to 8 degrees, four aerodynamic flaps, and a
reaction control system, the thrusters of which have about
500 pounds thrust.  One of the important concepts to be
verified in the flight tests is blended control using the
engines and flaps together.  The pitchover from point
forward lifting-body flight to rocket hover just before
landing is started with the flaps, which are retracted as
the maneuver progresses, and finished with the main engines.
Airspeed is down to a few hundred knots by the time this
maneuver starts.  The DC-X is designed to be able to take
off in 30 knot winds, with gusts up to 40 knots. The second
test series will include flight tests with ground winds.
     Concepts already verified include aircraft-style
operation using cryogenic propellants, and rapid prototyping
- moving from plans to flight tests in eighteen months.
     The software was written by a package called Matrix-X.
Designers feed in equations and the package outputs Ada
code, which is compiled without being further modified by
humans, eliminating most of the need for testing, according
to Dr. Gaubatz, and allowing a new version of flight
software to be created in two days.
     The thrust to weight ratio at takeoff is 1.2, with a
sizable power reserve.
     The first series of test flights is projected to begin
sometime between the 23rd and 28th of July at White Sands
Missile Range.  The exact date should be known a week or so
in advance.  The public is invited, but you must make
reservations in advance, because of White Sands security
restrictions.  The tests will be carried on NASA Select, if
the scheduling works out.  Static firing tests have been
completed, but now the equipment must be moved over a
mountain to the flight range and checked out, there are
other groups using White Sands, and thunderstorms are
severe, if infrequent.
     A short videotape entitled "DCX - The Future is Now" is
available from McDonnell Douglas. Contact Tim Shumate at
McDonnell Douglass Space Systems Division, Mail Stop 11-3,
5501 Bolsa Av., Huntington Beach, CA 92647.  No videotape of
Dr. Gaubatz's talk was made.
     Current plans call for another prototype between the
DC-X and the orbital prototype DC-Y.  The configuration is
uncertain, but it would the same materials that would be
used on the DC-Y, and may be twice the size of the DC-X.
After its flight tests, it would be available for suborbital
space payloads, with a free-fall time of five to fifteen
minutes.
 
*** This ends the information from Dr. Gaubatz
 
 
 
      The science and technology subcommitte of the House armed
services committee will take a vote Tuesday that includes the DC-X
followup program. Oregonians in District 1 can contact Elizabeth
Furse, who is on the subcommittee, to tell her of their interest in
the project.  As best we have been able to determine, she is against
it at present because of misinformation on the environmental impact.
We are attempting to get correct information to her before the vote.
Voters in the districts of other subcommittee members may wish to get
in touch with their representatives before the vote.
 
P.S. I'll be unable to reply to e-mail for the next week.
 
--
Doug Reeder                              Internet: [email protected]
Div, Grad & Curl                         USENET:   ...!tektronix!reed!reeder
programming & derivative work 
I am actively seeking scientific programming contracts.
    

    
    
    This was extracted from the previous note. I have not tried to contact
    them nor do I know if there is a charge for the tape. If anyone make
    contact with McDonnell Douglas and comes up with any more info, would
    you please post it here.
    
    -----
    
    A short videotape entitled "DCX - The Future is Now" is
    available from McDonnell Douglas.
    
    Contact Tim Shumate at:
    
    	McDonnell Douglass Space Systems Division
    	Mail Stop 11-3
    	5501 Bolsa Av.
    	Huntington Beach, CA 92647.
    

Article: 64243
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!helles.unt.dec.com!uvo.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!utnut!utzoo!henry
From: [email protected] (Henry Spencer)
Subject: first DC-X flight dates set
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 19:05:51 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 6
 
One of my spies reports that the dates for the first two DC-X flights
have been tentatively set.  The first -- the initial "bunny hop" -- will
be on 29 July, the second on 9 August.  You heard it here first. :-)
-- 
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [email protected]  utzoo!henry

Article: 64273
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!helles.unt.dec.com!uvo.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X attendance misinfo
Date: 13 Jul 1993 06:42:14 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 62
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
 
-Subject: Gaubatz talk on DC-X
-From: [email protected] (P. Douglas Reeder)
-Date: 11 Jul 93 09:21:07 GMT
 
-Highlights of Dr. William Gaubatz's talk on the DC-X at OMSI
-presented by the Oregon L-5 Society on 10 July 1993
 
-by P. Douglas Reeder
 
[material omitted for brevity]
 
-     The first series of test flights is projected to begin
-sometime between the 23rd and 28th of July at White Sands
-Missile Range.  The exact date should be known a week or so
-in advance.  The public is invited, but you must make
-reservations in advance, because of White Sands security
-restrictions.  The tests will be carried on NASA Select, if
-the scheduling works out.  Static firing tests have been
-completed, but now the equipment must be moved over a
-mountain to the flight range and checked out, there are
-other groups using White Sands, and thunderstorms are
-severe, if infrequent.
 
[material omitted for brevity]
 
-*** This ends the information from Dr. Gaubatz
 
 
The majority of this posting is to the best of my knowledge factual, and for
that matter quite informative.  Unfortunately, the information about public
attendance being allowed at the first flight test series is incorrect,
according to various sources at McDonnell Douglas and elsewhere, including Dr
Gaubatz, the DC-X Program Director.  The first ("bunny-hop") series of
stability tests due in late July will be closed to everyone not part of the
test crew.  No VIP's, no media, and no public -- not nobody, not nohow.  WSMR
is a military reservation and they will not be letting any outsiders in,
nor will trying to make advance reservations do anything but waste your
time and theirs.
 
There will be press coverage and VIP invites to the start of the second test
flight series, in early to mid August, but there will still be no admission
of the general public.  Live NASA Select video coverage will depend on the
flight timing, as there may or may not be conflicts with other NASA
broadcasts.  Commercial TV coverage both local and national is also expected,
but the details are of course up to the stations and networks involved. 
 
Dr Gaubatz says that he may have given the wrong impression in discussing who
controls access to White Sands Missile Range, by the way, and he apologizes
for any confusion caused.
 
To amplify on Henry Spencer's later posting, both July 29th and August 9th
are target dates, not firm schedules.  Either or both could change
considerably, depending on circumstances.  The actual dates won't be set
until a couple days beforehand; keep an eye on here for details when they're
available if you have to make plans.  
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Executive Director,            in the Solar System."
Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
[email protected]           "You can't get there from here."
602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
    

Article: 64352
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!janix.pcs.dec.com!uvo.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!decwrl!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Update
Date: 14 Jul 1993 19:08:14 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 162
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
 
                        DC-X News, July 14th, 1993
 
       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.
 
 
                         DC-X Test Program Status
 
DC-X Background
 
DC-X is a low-speed flight regime testbed for a proposed reusable rocket-
powered Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) transport, McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace's
"Delta Clipper".  DC-X is intended to prove out rocket-powered vertical
takeoff, nose-first lifting-body to tail-first flight transition, and tail-
first landing.  It is also intended to prove out rapid turnaround of a
reusable rocket by a minimal ground support crew.  
 
DC-X has already pretty much proved out rapid low-cost development of an
advanced aerospace X-vehicle type engineering testbed by a small highly-
motivated engineering team on a tight budget.  Of course, that's been done
before -- just not recently.  
 
DC-X stands 40 feet tall, is 13 feet across the base, and is roughly cone-
shaped, with a circular cross-section forward blending into a square base. 
The vehicle has four maneuvering flaps, one set into each side near the base,
and sits on four landing legs.  DC-X masses 22,300 lbs empty and 41,630 lbs
fully fuelled, and is powered by four 13,500 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney RL-10-
A5 liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rocket motors, each able to gimbal +- 8
degrees.  The RL-10-A5 is a special version of the RL-10-A designed for wide
throttling range (30% to 100%) and sea-level operation.  
 
The single DC-X vehicle was officially rolled out of its construction hangar
at MDA's Huntington Beach CA plant at the start of April, then trucked out to
White Sands, New Mexico for ground and then flight tests.  
 
 
DC-X Move To Flight Test Site Near Complete
 
The news out of the DC-X test program this week is that the move to the White
Sands Missile Range (WSMR) flight test area is winding down, apparently a bit
ahead of schedule.  As of today, word is that DC-X itself will be taken out
of storage and moved to the flight test site this coming Friday, July 16th. 
It will be trucked over horizontally with no major disassembly.  The craft is
currently stored in a hangar at the White Sands ground test site, waiting for
the ground support gear move and reassembly to be finished.
 
Once launch site setup is done and DC-X moved, they'll be running a quick
series of ground tests to make sure everything made it over intact.  The first
"bunny hop" flight stability test series should begin shortly thereafter.
These hops will consist of takeoff, sideways transition of several hundred
feet, and landing, done under varying crosswind conditions.  A lot of people
will be keeping their fingers crossed during the first one.  
 
Note that the "bunny hop" series will be restricted to the thirty or so DC-X
test crew members plus WSMR support personnel.  No media, no VIP's, no public
allowed -- not nobody, not nohow.  Any stories you may have heard about
the public getting in for these are, alas, wrong.  
 
First official DC-X flight will actually be the initial flight of the second
test series, reaching higher speeds and altitude.  This will be the one with
speeches, hoopla, VIP's, and media coverage -- but still no admission of the
general public.  Chances are good for TV coverage, between NASA Select, local
TV stations, and the national networks.  Chances are also good that you'll be
a whole lot more comfortable watching it on TV at home, as the test site is
fifty miles of dirt road into a military reservation, run under military
security, under the August New Mexico desert sun.  You'll likely have a better
view on TV too, since the "VIP" viewing site will be five miles from the pad.
 
Tentative dates for the start of the first and second flight test series are
July 29th and August 9th respectively.  The exact dates depend on a lot of
factors and likely won't be known until a couple days beforehand.
 
The end-for-end transition maneuver won't be tried until the third, final
flight test series.  
 
 
 
                     DC-X Followon: Political Status
 
Background
 
The current DC-X program is funded through flight test and data analysis this
fall, and ends after that.  There is an ongoing effort to get the US Congress
to fund a three-year followon program, variously known as DC-X2 and SX-2
(Space Experimental 2).  This could end up as a suborbital vehicle powered by
8 RL-10-A5 engines, capable of reaching Mach 6 (about 1/4 orbital velocity)
and 100 miles altitude, built with orbital-weight tanks and structure, and
able to test orbital grade heat-shielding.  
 
There also may be some interest in followon testing of the original DC-X by
other agencies, assuming the vehicle survives the initial test series intact.
The basic DC-X specs point to considerably more speed and altitude capability
than BMDO plans to use this summer.  More on this when I know more.  
 
The SX-2 program goal will be to demonstrate all remaining technology needed
to build a reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.  Once SX-2 has been
tested, all that should be necessary to produce a functioning reusable SSTO
is to scale up the SX-2 structures and install new larger rocket engines.  
 
Proposed FY '94 funding for SX-2 startup is $75 million.  The money would
come out of the $3.8 billion BMDO budget already pretty much agreed on for
the coming year.  Total SX-2 program cost over the next three years would be
very much dependent on the contractor chosen and the details of the design,
but would be on the order of several hundred million.  This is the same order
of magnitude as typical recent X-aircraft programs such as the X-29 and X-31.
 
SX-2 would start out under BMDO (formerly SDIO), so support from members of
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC and SASC) is vital.  The
actual name they know SX-2 by is "followon funding for BMDO's SSRT (Single
Stage Rocket Technology) program."  The specific action we're calling for is
for Congress to "fence off" $75 million in BMDO funding for this project next
year -- we are not asking for any new funding authority, but rather for
reallocation of existing funding toward a DC-X followon.  
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
SAS recommends that all you pro-SSTO activists stay tuned for further
developments, but for now take a breather.  You've done good; things seem to
be in hand for the moment.  Our thanks to everyone who's taken part in the
campaign so far.  For those who really must have something to do right now,
continuing calls, faxes, and letters to the Senate Armed Services Committee
members (Allen Sherzer has posted lists numerous times) will be helpful in
raising awareness there in advance of the Senate deliberations.  
 
The current situation is that Representative Schroeder's HASC Research &
Technology Subcommittee markup of next year's Defense Authorization bill,
most recently scheduled for today, has been delayed indefinitely.  It could
take place early next week; it could be held up until September.
 
The good news is that for the moment, DC-X followon funding seems to be non-
controversial.  Indications are it will be included in the subcommittee markup
when that eventually does take place.
 
As best we can tell, the delay is due to the ongoing "Bottom's-Up" policy
review at DOD, as well as unresolved policy differences within the majority
party, notably including the gays in the military issue.  No telling when all
the necessary compromises will be hammered out and the actual markup will
occur.  Once it does occur, look for things to happen fast -- the rest of the
process in the House and Senate both should be complete within a week or two. 
Stay in touch and be ready to gear up again on short notice.
 
Contingency alert: If, when it does occur, Schroeder's subcommittee markup
does not give us the language we need for a DC-X followon, we will likely
have less than 24 hours to convince Representative Dellums, Chair of the full
House Armed Services Committee, to insert the language during full Committee
markup of the bill.  Keep an eye on the nets for news of when the markup
finally does occur, and make sure to check in that evening -- if Schroeder
doesn't go for it, we'll need to have everyone who can call or fax Dellums
the next morning.  Stay tuned.  
 
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Executive Director,            in the Solar System."
Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
[email protected]           "You can't get there from here."
602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 
-- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
-- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
-- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 64754
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:64754 talk.politics.space:3366
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!olivea!uunet!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Bad news from the Senate on Delta Clipper. Help needed
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 20:02:37 GMT
Lines: 57
 
 
The Senate markup of the DoD Authroization bill seems to be over. At the
moment, it looks very bad. Early indications are (and it may change) that
the Senate will authorize a total of $30 million for NASP, Spacelifter,
and SSRT. This is nowhere near the $75M SSRT needs to begin design of
the SX-2. 
 
We MUST change this in the House Authorization bill which is marking
up next week. Please write, call, and fax Rep. Schroeder and ask her
to fully fund the BMDO SSRT program and build the SX-2.
 
The phone numbers of the House committee in question are given below.
If you have a representative in your state, please call and fax him or
her. In any case, please call and fax Rep. Schroeder (the subcommittee
chair) as well.
 
  Allen
 
 
    House Armed Services Committee - Research and Technology Subcommittee
 
Name                       Address            Phone      FAX
                                              (AC 202)   (AC 202)
 
Patricia Schroeder (D-CO)  2208 RH  20515     225-4431    225-5842
Bob Stump (R-AZ)            211 CH  20515     225-4576    225-6328
Dave McCurdy (D-OK)        2344 RH  20515     225-6165    225-9746
Jane Harman (D-CA)                            225-8220
Roscoe bartlett (R-MD)                        225-2721    225-2193
Don Johnson (D-GA)                            225-4101
Glen Browder (D-AL)        1630 LH  20515     225-3261    225-9020
Earl Hutto (D-FL)          2435 RH  20515     225-4136    225-5785
George Hochbrueckner (D-NY) 124 CH  20515     225-3826    225-0776
Martin Lancaster (D-NC)                       225-3415    225-0666
James H. Bilbray (D-NV)                       225-5965    225-8808
Chet Edwards (D-TX)                           225-6105    225-0350
Duncan L. Hunter (R-CA)     133 CH  20515     225-5672    225-0235
John R. Kasich (R-OH)      1131 LH  20515     225-5355
James V. Hansen (R-UT)     2466 RH  20515     225-0453    225-5857
Frank Tejeda (D-TX)                           225-1640    225-1641
Martin Meehan (D-MA)                          225-3411
Elizabeth Furse (D-OR)                        225-0855    225-9497
Steve Buyer (R-IN)                            225-5037    225-2267
Peter Torkildsen (R-MA)                       225-8020    225-8037
James Talent (R-MO)                           225-2561    225-2563
 
Ronald V. Dellums (D-CA)   2136 RH  20515     225-2661    225-9817
Robert K. Dornan (R-CA)    2402 CH  20515     225-2965    225-2075
Marilyn Lloyd (D-TN)       2406 RH  20515     225-3271    225-6974
John Tanner (D-TN)                            225-4714    225-1765
Pete Geren (D-TX)                             225-5071    225-2786
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------14 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Article: 64820
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Update
Date: 22 Jul 1993 16:27:41 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 217
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
 
                        DC-X News, July 22nd, 1993
 
       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.
 
 
                         DC-X Test Program Status
 
DC-X Background (no change in this background section since 7/14 report)
 
DC-X is a low-speed flight regime testbed for a proposed reusable rocket-
powered Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) transport, McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace's
"Delta Clipper".  DC-X is intended to prove out rocket-powered vertical
takeoff, nose-first lifting-body to tail-first flight transition, and tail-
first landing.  It is also intended to prove out rapid turnaround of a
reusable rocket by a minimal ground support crew.  
 
DC-X has already pretty much proved out rapid low-cost development of an
advanced aerospace X-vehicle type engineering testbed by a small highly-
motivated engineering team on a tight budget.  Of course, that's been done
before -- just not recently.  
 
DC-X stands 40 feet tall, is 13 feet across the base, and is roughly cone-
shaped, with a circular cross-section forward blending into a square base. 
The vehicle has four maneuvering flaps, one set into each side near the base,
and sits on four landing legs.  DC-X masses 22,300 lbs empty and 41,630 lbs
fully fuelled, and is powered by four 13,500 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney RL-10-
A5 liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rocket motors, each able to gimbal +- 8
degrees.  The RL-10-A5 is a special version of the RL-10-A designed for wide
throttling range (30% to 100%) and sea-level operation.  
 
The single DC-X vehicle was officially rolled out of its construction hangar
at MDA's Huntington Beach CA plant at the start of April, then trucked out to
White Sands, New Mexico for ground and then flight tests.  
 
 
DC-X Undergoing Final Pre-Flight Checkout At Flight Test Site
 
The DC-X vehicle was taken out of storage and trucked over to the White Sands
Missile Range (WSMR) flight test site last Friday, July 16th.  Once at the
site, DC-X was set upright on the launch pad.  (An interesting aside -- this
pad was originally the concrete base laid down for lifting a Shuttle orbiter
onto its 747 carrier aircraft, back when it was thought that WSMR might be
used as a regular alternate landing site.  The amount of blown dust they had
to clean out of the orbiter the one time they landed there has convinced NASA
they really don't want to use White Sands again if they can help it.)
 
Now that flight test site setup is done and DC-X moved, the DC-X crew is
running a series of ground tests to make sure everything made it over intact
and is hooked back together properly.  The ground tests should culminate in a
"burp test" sometime next week, a four-second firing of DC-X's engines on the
launch pad to check that all the plumbing is OK.
 
The first "bunny hop" flight stability test series should begin shortly
thereafter.  These hops will consist of takeoff, sideways transition of
several hundred feet, and landing, done under varying wind conditions. 
 
A lot of people will be keeping their fingers crossed during that initial
bunny hop, as it will be the first real-world test of DC-X's stability at low
speed and altitude.  Between crosswinds, "ground effect" (aerodynamic
interactions between the rocket plumes, the ground, and the vehicle body),
the known fact that computer sims of turbulent airflow are at best black
magic, and a general awareness of how much Murphy loves first flights, the
Mylanta <tm> consumption at WSMR is likely to be prodigious over the next
week or two.  Good luck, guys.  
 
Note that the "bunny hop" series will be restricted to the thirty or so DC-X
test crew members plus WSMR support personnel.  No media, no VIP's, no public
allowed -- not nobody, not nohow.  Any stories you may have heard about
the public getting in for these are, alas, wrong.  
 
First official DC-X flight will actually be the initial flight of the second
test series, reaching higher speeds and altitude.  This will be the one with
speeches, hoopla, VIP's, and media coverage -- but still no admission of the
general public.  Chances are good for TV coverage, between NASA Select, local
TV stations, and the national networks.  Chances are also good that you'll be
a whole lot more comfortable watching it on TV at home, as the test site is
fifty miles of back road into a military reservation, run under military
security, under the summer New Mexico desert sun.  You'll likely have a better
view on TV too, since the "VIP" viewing site will be five miles from the pad.
 
The end-for-end transition maneuver won't be tried until the third, final
flight test series.  
 
Tentative dates for the start of the first and second flight test series are
still July 29th and August 9th, respectively.  The exact dates depend on a
lot of factors and likely won't be known until a couple days beforehand.  Some
delays are likely, however, as the pad area has to be cleared anytime there
are lightning strikes within five miles (a fairly standard safety precaution
when working on large rockets) and New Mexico is in the midst of monsoon
season, with thunderstorms common.  
 
 
                     DC-X Followon: Political Status
 
Background
 
The current DC-X program is funded through flight test and data analysis this
fall, and ends after that.  There is an ongoing effort to get the US Congress
to fund a three-year followon program, currently called SX-2 (Space
Experimental 2).  This tentatively looks like being a suborbital vehicle
powered by 8 RL-10-A5 engines, capable of reaching Mach 6 (about 1/4 orbital
velocity) and 100 miles altitude, built with orbital-weight tanks and
structure, and able to test orbital grade heat-shielding.  
 
The SX-2 program goal will be to demonstrate all remaining technology needed
to build a reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.  Once SX-2 has been
tested, all that should be necessary to produce a functioning reusable SSTO
is to scale up the SX-2 structures and install new larger rocket engines.  
 
Proposed FY '94 funding for SX-2 startup is $75 million.  The money would
come out of the $3.8 billion BMDO budget already pretty much agreed on for
the coming year.  Total SX-2 program cost over the next three years would be
very much dependent on the contractor chosen and the details of the design,
but would be on the order of several hundred million.  This is the same order
of magnitude as typical recent X-aircraft programs such as the X-29 and X-31.
 
SX-2 would start out under BMDO (formerly SDIO), so support from members of
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC and SASC) is vital.  The
actual name they know SX-2 by is "followon funding for BMDO's SSRT (Single
Stage Rocket Technology) program."  The specific action we're calling for is
for Congress to authorize $75 million in existing BMDO funding for this
project next year -- we are not asking for any new funding authority, but
rather for reallocation of existing funding toward a DC-X followon.  
 
 
Update, 22 July
 
The SASC marked up their version of the Defence budget yesterday. 
Preliminary word is that SSTO was mentioned once, alongside NASP and
Spacelifter, in a $30m USAF line-item.  This is short of what we'd hoped for,
but by no means disastrous.  SSTO was at least mentioned, and on an equal
(albeit underfunded) footing with NASP and Spacelifter.  What this means is
that we now need to go all-out on the House side, with an eye toward
establishing our position there before the final House-Senate conference.
 
With the Senate giving us very little of what we need, Representative
Patricia Schroeder's HASC Research & Technology Subcommittee markup (and the
full HASC markup to follow) become more important than ever.
 
Schroeder's subcommittee is now supposed to mark up this coming Monday, the
26th.  I've checked my notes, and the first "for sure" date I have for this
key markup was back on May 19th, so a certain skepticism is excusable -- but
at this point HASC R&T has run out of reasons for delay, as the gays-in-the-
military issue has been resolved (however messily) and the Senate has already
gone ahead and marked up their version of the Defense budget.  Chances are
that Schroeder and company really will mark, if not Monday, then at least
early next week.  
 
One additional factor here: We've mentioned in the past that one appeal to
make to Schroeder might be that SSRT Followon would take funding that would
otherwise go to weapons development and put it to peaceful uses.  Well, we
need Schroeder's support real bad, and we understand she would prefer to see
specific cuts in BMDO proposed to offset any new spending requested.
 
SAS is reluctantly taking the step of picking a specific existing program
within BMDO and recommending it be cut by $75 million in FY '94 in order to
fund SSRT Followon within the overall $3.8 billion BMDO budget.  We do not
like doing this; our stated mission is to focus solely on the issue of space
access.  Recommending military budget cuts in areas unrelated to space access
is really none of our business.
 
Nevertheless, we're doing so.  After careful consideration, we are
recommending that the National Missile Defense portion of the Ground Based
Radar development project (BMDO's NMD-GBR), requested at $100m for FY '94, be
cut to $25m, and the $75m freed up be allocated to FY '94 funding of SSRT
Followon.  This is not necessarily a good program to cut, but it seems the
least bad among the available options, as the somewhat complementary Theatre
Missile Defense, Ground Based Radar development would remain funded at $238m.
 
SAS members with questions or comments should contact headquarters.  
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
Contact Representative Schroeder plus any member of her HASC R&T Subcommittee
whose district is near you by Monday morning.  Ask them to fund SSRT Followon
at $75m for the coming year (FY '94).  Tell them that if they have to take
the money out of another BMDO program, reducing the National Missile Defense
portion of the Ground Based Radar project (NMD-GBR) from $100m to $25m would
be the way to do so.  
 
Followup by contacting Representative Dellums (Chair, HASC) plus any member of
the full HASC whose district is near you by midweek, with the same message.
 
Keep phone calls brief, polite, and to the point - tell whoever answers that
you're calling to let them know you support $75 million of BMDO (formerly
SDIO) funding for the SX-2 followon to the Single Stage Rocket Technology
("SSRT") program, and that if they have to take the money out of another BMDO
program, cutting the National Missile Defense portion of the Ground Based
Radar project (NMD-GBR) by $75m would be one way to go.  If you feel like it,
throw in your favorite reason why SX-2 would be a good thing.  If the person
who answers wants to know more, answer their questions as best you can,
otherwise thank them and ring off.  
 
Letters too should should be brief, polite, and to the point, though you can
go into a bit more detail as to why a DC-X followon is good for the country. 
Keep it under a page and state your basic point at the start.  
 
Don't overdo it, but in general try to know who you're contacting and
emphasize benefits likely to appeal to them, given their positions on the
political spectrum.  Future US aerospace technological competitiveness plus
stemming the ongoing US loss of international space launch marketshare should
appeal to just about anyone.  Reusable launchers in general promise an order-
of-magnitude reduction in launch costs, and SX-2 would demonstrate
technologies applicable to any reusable launcher, not just Delta Clipper.  
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Executive Director,                in the Solar System."
Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
[email protected]                    "You can't get there from here."
602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 
-- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
-- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
-- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

re .69
    
>The amount of blown dust they had to clean out of the orbiter the one time
>they landed there has convinced NASA they really don't want to use White Sands
>again if they can help it.)
    
    Anybody know when the shuttle landed at WSMR? Was it a pre STS-1
    approach and landing test?

I don't remember exactly, but it was a real space mission post STS-1.  It was
fairly early on, though.  STS-9 or so??

Burns

Article: 65050
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:65050 talk.politics.space:3390
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Good news on Delta Clipper
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 19:36:26 GMT
Lines: 27
 
The House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee which authroizes
SSRT finished their markup about an hour ago (2:00). Preliminary
indications (and they ARE preliminary) indicate that they authorized
$80M for SX-2. This is $5M within BMDO and the rest in ARPA. If it all
turns out to be true, it is everything we where asking for and gives us
a good position for the conference. Remember: this is a preliminary
report and has not been confirmed. It could be wrong.
 
BUT, we aren't out of the woods yet. There is still the full committee
markup which should happen this week and the conference to iron out
differences with the Senate version.
 
For the next 24 to 48 hours there will be nothing to do. However, don't
relax since we may need calls and faxes on short notice; stay tuned.
 
Finally, please get ready to call and fax thank you letters to Rep.
Schroeder. If she did what we asked, she deserves thanks and lots
of thank you letters will tell her we noticed what she did. This is
a good motivator for the future. Don't send anything yet: we still
need to find out exactly what she did.
 
   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Article: 65059
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:65059 talk.politics.space:3396
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 22:21:51 GMT
Lines: 18
 
 
I just received confirmation on the HASC R&T Subcommittee vote. They
authorized $80M and directed the program be moved to ARPA. As I said,
this is everything we asked for. Those of you who wrote or called, pat
yourselves on the back. You did a good job!
 
The next step legislatively is still being worked on. However, now is the
time to send letters and phone calls to Schroeder and any other HASC
member you wrote to thanking them. This is an important step since very few
people ever do it. we will need her support in the future and thanking
her now makes it much easier. Besides, she deserves it.
 
  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

A later message from Sherzer confirms that not only did SSRT get $80M, but it
was moved from BMDO to ARPA.

If you called or sent mail/faxes, now is the time to thank Pat Schroeder et al.

Burns

    re .71
    
    Ayep, you're right.
    
    It was a pukka STS-n mission (but I don't know n). I checked in AvLeak.

Article: 65299
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Update 07/28/93
Date: 29 Jul 1993 08:35:37 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 203
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
 
                        DC-X News, July 28th, 1993
 
       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.
 
 
                         DC-X Test Program Status
 
DC-X Background (no change in this background section since 7/14 report)
 
DC-X is a low-speed flight regime testbed for a proposed reusable rocket-
powered Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) transport, McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace's
"Delta Clipper".  DC-X is intended to prove out rocket-powered vertical
takeoff, nose-first lifting-body to tail-first flight transition, and tail-
first landing.  It is also intended to prove out rapid turnaround of a
reusable rocket by a minimal ground support crew.  
 
DC-X has already pretty much proved out rapid low-cost development of an
advanced aerospace X-vehicle type engineering testbed by a small highly-
motivated engineering team on a tight budget.  Of course, that's been done
before -- just not recently.  
 
DC-X stands 40 feet tall, is 13 feet across the base, and is roughly cone-
shaped, with a circular cross-section forward blending into a square base. 
The vehicle has four maneuvering flaps, one set into each side near the base,
and sits on four landing legs.  DC-X masses 22,300 lbs empty and 41,630 lbs
fully fuelled, and is powered by four 13,500 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney RL-10-
A5 liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rocket motors, each able to gimbal +- 8
degrees.  The RL-10-A5 is a special version of the RL-10-A designed for wide
throttling range (30% to 100%) and sea-level operation.  
 
The single DC-X vehicle was officially rolled out of its construction hangar
at MDA's Huntington Beach CA plant at the start of April, then trucked out to
White Sands, New Mexico for ground and then flight tests.  
 
 
DC-X Test Program Chronology 
 
 - Saturday, April 3rd -- The formal DC-X vehicle rollout took place at
 McDonnell-Douglas's Huntington Beach plant, with speeches by various
 luminaries plus free hot dogs for all.  
 
 - Mid April -- DC-X was trucked out to White Sands, New Mexico for ground
 trials on a borrowed NASA rocket test stand.  
 
 - Thursday, May 20th through Thursday, June 17th -- DC-X underwent a series
 of nine engine firings/vehicle systems exercises, including two firings in
 one day with complete defueling/vehicle servicing/refueling in between.  
 
 - Friday, June 18th -- The DC-X crew began breaking down the ground support
 equipment and moving it to the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) flight test
 site, a distance of about fifty miles.  DC-X was stored in a hangar.  
 
 - Friday, July 16th -- Ground support equipment move was completed.  DC-X
 was taken out of storage, trucked out to the flight test site, and hoisted
 upright on its launch pad.  
 
 - Monday, July 19th -- The DC-X crew began running a series of ground tests
 to make sure everything had made it over intact and was hooked back together
 properly.  
 
 
Latest Flight Date Estimates
 
This brings us up to the present.  Final pre-flight testing is still
underway, taking a bit longer than the DC-X crew had hoped.  New Mexico is in
the middle of "monsoon" season, with frequent thunderstorms and blowing dust
to gum things up.  Chances are the minor glitches normal to this sort of
experimental program also contribute to the slow going.  The test crew does
seem to have a commendable determination not to give in to "schedulitis" and
fly before they're ready.  Things are running about a week to ten days behind
the tentative target dates posted at the start of July.  
 
The ground tests currently look like culminating in a "burp test" late next
week.  This will be a four-second "hot firing" of DC-X's engines on the
launch pad to check that all the plumbing is OK.  
 
If the hot firing doesn't find any problems, the "bunny hop" flight stability
test series should start shortly afterwards, possibly during the week of
August 9th.  These hops will consist of takeoff, sideways transition of
several hundred feet, and landing, done under varying wind conditions.  A lot
of people will be keeping their fingers crossed during the initial "bunny
hop", as it will be the first real-world test of DC-X's stability at low
speed and altitude, a critical and hard-to-simulate part of the envelope. 
Fingers crossed, everybody.  
 
The official first DC-X flight will actually be the initial flight of the
second test series, when they'll be going for higher speeds and altitude.  At
this point the "first" flight looks like taking place in mid-to-late August. 
This will be the one with speeches, hoopla, VIP's, and media coverage, but
alas still no admission of the general public.  Chances are good for TV
coverage though, between NASA Select, local TV stations, and the national
networks.  Chances are too that you'll have a better view on TV, since the
"VIP" viewing site will be five miles from the pad.  
 
The end-for-end transition maneuver won't be tried until the third, final
flight test series.
 
 
 
                     DC-X Followon: Political Status
 
Background (no changes in this background section since 7/22 report)
 
The current DC-X program is funded through flight test and data analysis this
fall, and ends after that.  There is an ongoing effort to get the US Congress
to fund a three-year followon program, currently called SX-2 (Space
Experimental 2).  This tentatively looks like being a suborbital vehicle
powered by 8 RL-10-A5 engines, capable of reaching Mach 6 (about 1/4 orbital
velocity) and 100 miles altitude, built with orbital-weight tanks and
structure, and able to test orbital grade heat-shielding.  
 
The SX-2 program goal will be to demonstrate all remaining technology needed
to build a reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.  Once SX-2 has been
tested, all that should be necessary to produce a functioning reusable SSTO
is to scale up the SX-2 structures and install new larger rocket engines.  
 
Proposed FY '94 funding for SX-2 startup is $75 million.  The money would
come out of the $3.8 billion BMDO budget already pretty much agreed on for
the coming year.  Total SX-2 program cost over the next three years would be
very much dependent on the contractor chosen and the details of the design,
but would be on the order of several hundred million.  This is the same order
of magnitude as typical recent X-aircraft programs such as the X-29 and X-31.
 
SX-2 would start out under BMDO (formerly SDIO), so support from members of
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC and SASC) is vital.  The
actual name they know SX-2 by is "followon funding for BMDO's SSRT (Single
Stage Rocket Technology) program."  The specific action we're calling for is
for Congress to authorize $75 million in existing BMDO funding for this
project next year -- we are not asking for any new funding authority, but
rather for reallocation of existing funding toward a DC-X followon.  
 
 
Update, Wednesday 28 July
 
Representative Schroeder's House Armed Services Committee Research and
Technology Subcommittee (HASC R&T for short) marked up their version of the
DOD FY '94 Authorization Bill on Monday the 26th.  They included the $75m
we've been asking for a DC-X followon program startup next year, as well as
$5m for winding up the current DC-X program.  We've won a major battle in the
fight for affordable access to space, and everybody who's worked on this
deserves congratulations.  Three cheers for us!  
 
The full HASC marked up yesterday, and we have no reason to believe there were
any changes in DC-X followon funding.  The actual text of the DOD bill they
approved won't be out for a few more days though.  
 
The $75m was, we are told, accompanied by language directing that DC-X
Followon be transferred from BMDO to ARPA, the Advanced Research Projects
Agency, but also directing that the current BMDO DC-X management team be kept
on the project.  One way of looking at this is that BMDO will run SX-2 as a
contractor for ARPA -- this is a normal way of doing business for ARPA, which
has a very small staff coordinating a lot of projects.  
 
This may or may not be good news.  ARPA in theory is a more appropriate place
for developing an X-rocket, but the current arrangement at BMDO is one we
KNOW works.  Practically speaking though, BMDO is likely to be under heavy
political pressure over the next couple of years.  Chances are that they
wouldn't have been allowed to continue developing a reusable X-rocket in-
house anyway.  The move to ARPA was probably inevitable.  We'll just have to
watch how the program goes over the next few years, and be ready to raise a
fuss if it shows signs of the sort of bureaucratic bog-down BMDO has been so
good at avoiding.  
 
Meanwhile, we need to stay awake for the next couple of weeks.  The next step
is for the full House of Representatives to consider and vote on the DOD
funding bill.  This may or may not happen before the one-month Congressional
recess starting August 9th.  It's not likely, but there is always a chance
our project could be cut when this goes to the full House.  Moving from BMDO
to ARPA is probably a plus here; BMDO is a likely target of further attempts
to reduce defense spending on the House floor.  
 
Once the full House approves the Defense bill, the next milestone is the
House-Senate Conference Committee, when the two bodies will resolve
differences in their versions of next year's DOD budget.  You may recall that
we got very little of what we need in the Senate version - a single $30m line
item in the USAF budget for SSTO, NASP, and Spacelifter combined.  We'll need
to make a maximum effort to let both sides of the Conference Committee know
what we want when the time comes.  That almost certainly won't be until after
the recess, however.  
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
You might drop a note to Representative Dellums, Representative Schroeder and
any other HASC members you have been in touch with, thanking them for their
support.  If you have any contacts in the Senate Armed Services Committee, go
on working them low-key -- there's no telling who will be on the Conference
Committee, and we'll need all the help we can get on the Senate side when
that eventually gets underway.  
 
Other than that, stay tuned for updates, and enjoy the summer.
 
 
 Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 Executive Director,                in the Solar System."
 Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
 [email protected]                    "You can't get there from here."
 602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 66008
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!pirates.cs.swt.edu!cs.utexas.edu!not-for-mail
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Update 8/6/93
Date: 7 Aug 1993 14:39:02 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 291
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
 
                      DC-X Update, August 6th, 1993
 
       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.
 
 
                         DC-X Test Program Status
 
DC-X Background
 
DC-X is a low-speed flight regime testbed for a proposed reusable rocket-
powered Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) transport, McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace's
"Delta Clipper".  DC-X is intended to prove out rocket-powered vertical
takeoff, nose-first lifting-body to tail-first flight transition, and tail-
first landing.  It is also intended to prove out rapid turnaround of a
reusable rocket by a minimal ground support crew.  DC-X is being tested and
flown by approximately thirty people.
 
DC-X has already pretty much proved out rapid low-cost development of an
advanced aerospace X-vehicle type engineering testbed by a small highly-
motivated engineering team on a tight budget.  DC-X was built by less than
two hundred people, in less than two years, for about $60 million.  Of
course, this sort of thing has been done before -- just not recently.  
 
DC-X stands 40 feet tall, is 13 feet across the base, and is roughly cone-
shaped, with a circular cross-section forward blending into a square base. 
The vehicle has four maneuvering flaps, one set into each side near the base,
and sits on four landing legs.  DC-X masses 22,300 lbs empty and 41,630 lbs
fully fuelled, and is powered by four 13,500 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney RL-10-
A5 liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rocket motors, each able to gimbal +- 8
degrees.  The RL-10-A5 is a special version of the RL-10-A designed for wide
throttling range (30% to 100%) and sea-level operation.  
 
The single DC-X vehicle was officially rolled out of its construction hangar
at MDA's Huntington Beach CA plant at the start of April, then trucked out to
White Sands, New Mexico for ground and then flight tests.  
 
Between Thursday, May 20th and Thursday, June 17th, DC-X underwent a series
of nine engine firings/vehicle systems exercises, including two firings in
one day with complete defueling/vehicle servicing/refueling in between.  
 
On Friday, June 18th, the DC-X crew began breaking down the ground support
equipment and moving it to the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) flight test
site, a distance of about fifty miles.  Meanwhile DC-X was stored in a hangar.  
 
On Friday, July 16th, the ground support equipment move was completed.  DC-X
was taken out of storage, trucked out to the flight test site, and hoisted
upright onto its launch pad.  
 
On Monday, July 19th, the DC-X crew began running a series of ground tests to
make sure everything had made it over intact and was hooked back together
properly.  
 
 
Latest DC-X Flight Date Estimates
 
DC-X is currently at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) flight test site,
undergoing final ground checkout before flight test gets underway.  
 
The pre-flight checkout looks like culminating in a "burp test" this weekend.
This will be a four-second "hot firing" of DC-X's engines, with DC-X locked
down on the launch pad, to check that all the plumbing is OK.  The plan is to
do this tomorrow, Saturday.  If things run late they'll come back and do it
Sunday.  Up till now they've generally been taking Sundays off.  
 
If this hot firing test doesn't find any problems, the "bunny hop" flight
stability test series should start one week later.  The first of these
stability test flights is tentatively set for -- wait for it -- Friday the
13th, with Saturday and Sunday of that weekend as the backup dates.  
 
These flights will consist of takeoff, sideways transition of several hundred
feet, and landing, done under varying wind conditions.  A lot of people will
be keeping their fingers crossed during the initial "bunny hop", as it will
be the first real-world test of DC-X's stability at low speed and altitude, a
critical and hard-to-simulate part of the VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing)
flight envelope.  
 
The official "first" DC-X flight will actually be the initial flight of the
second test series, when they'll be going for higher speeds and altitude.  
This will be the one with speeches, hoopla, VIP's, and media coverage, but
alas still no admission of the general public.  Chances are good for TV
coverage though, between NASA Select, local TV stations, and the national
networks.  Chances are too that you'll have a better view on TV, since the
"VIP" viewing site will be five miles from the pad.  
 
At this point the "first" flight looks like taking place two weekends from
now.  McDonnell Douglas says "no later than Monday August 23rd", assuming all
goes well in the meantime.  Given that the invitations mention a tour of the
test site the day before, with the actual flight at 8 am local time (10 am
Eastern), Sunday the 22nd seems most likely, with the 23rd as backup date. 
This assumes that they want to let the invitees fit the trip into a weekend. 
This may not be the DC-X crew's highest priority, however, and rightly so.  
 
The end-for-end transition maneuver won't be tried until the third, final
flight test series.
 
 
 
                     DC-X Followon: Political Status
 
Background
 
The current DC-X program is funded through flight test and data analysis this
fall, and ends after that.  There is an ongoing effort to get the US Congress
to fund a three-year followon program, currently called SX-2 (Space
Experimental 2).  This tentatively looks like being a reusable suborbital
vehicle powered by 8 RL-10-A5 engines, capable of reaching Mach 6 (about 1/4
orbital velocity) and 100 miles altitude, built with orbital-weight tanks and
structure, and able to test orbital grade heat-shielding.  
 
The SX-2 program goal will be to demonstrate all remaining technology needed
to build a reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.  Once SX-2 has been
tested, all that should be necessary to produce a functioning reusable SSTO
is to scale up the SX-2 structures and install new larger rocket engines.  
 
Proposed FY '94 funding for SX-2 startup is $75 million.  Total SX-2 program
cost over the next three years would be very much dependent on the contractor
chosen and the details of the design, but would be on the order of several
hundred million.  This is the same order of magnitude as typical recent X-
aircraft programs such as the X-29 and X-31.
 
The $75 million SX-2 startup money now looks like being added to the Advanced
Research Project Agency (ARPA) budget, with at least some of the funding in
following years to come from other interested arms of the government.  SX-2
would still be run by the current BMDO (formerly SDIO) DC-X management team,
even though funded via ARPA, at least under the current House version of the
FY '94 Defense Authorization Bill.  
 
The House of Representatives now seems favorably disposed toward SX-2.  The
biggest hurdle ahead this year will probably be convincing the Senate to go
along when the House-Senate conference committee meets to work out the
differences between the two versions of next year's Defense budget.  
 
 
Update, Friday, August 6th
 
 ** This is the section of the House Defense Authorization Bill approved last
 ** week that covers DC-X (SSRT) Followon.  
 
Section 217, Single Stage Rocket Technology
 
(a) Program Funding -- the Secretary of Defense shall establish a Single
Stage Rocket Technology program and shall provide funds for that program
within funds available for the Advanced Research Projects Agency.  That
program shall be managed within the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense
for Acquisition.  
 
(b) Funding -- Of the amount appropriated pursuant to section 201 for
Defense-wide activities, $79,880,000 shall be available for, and may be
obligated only for, Single Stage Rocket Technology.  
 
 ** This is the section of the report accompanying the House Defense
 ** Authorization Bill that covers DC-X Followon.  The report language is
 ** intended to clarify the intent of the bill.
 
 From The House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services
 Report on the FY '94 Defense Department  Authorization Bill, H.R. 2401
 H. Rpt. 103-200, 103rd Congress, 3rd Session; July 30th, 1993, pp. 172-173
 
Single Stage Rocket Technology
 
The budget request included $4.88 million for single stage rocket technology
(SSRT), also known as single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO), within the Ballistic
Missile Defense Office (BMDO) follow-on technologies program to complete the
final testing in phase one of the program.
 
The United States spends over $30 billion each year on space programs.  Yet,
unlike many other commercial activities that have benefitted and achieved
greater efficiencies from military research and development, U.S. commercial
launch costs are at least twice -- and in some instances as much as ten times
-- the costs of foreign competitors.  Similarly, it takes the United States at
least four times as long to provide launch services to any given user.
 
The Congress must remain skeptical and avoid fully embracing the sometimes
overly optimistic claims regarding SSRT/SSTO technology.  Yet, if the United
States is to regain its international competitiveness in this critically
important military and economic area, it must pursue promising enabling space
launch technologies that have the potential of dramatic reductions in launch
costs.  
 
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following:
 
(1) Transitioning SSRT/SSTO from BMDO to a "Space Launch Technology" program
element within the Advanced Research Projects Agency.  
 
(2) Continuing with the current management team.
 
(3) Adding an additional $75 million to begin phase two of the program.
 
(4) Conducting an open competition among aerospace companies for phase two of
the program.  
 
(5) Examining options for DOD, other government agencies/departments, and
industry cost sharing opportunities.  
 
None of the additional funds recommended to be authorized may be obligated
until the congressional defense committees have been provided with a phase
two program plan outlining objectives and technical milestones and certifying
that funding support has been established for fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
 
 ** End of report excerpt
 
On the whole, this looks good.  The open competition clause is no great
surprise -- McDonnell-Douglas obviously would have liked a no-bid contract
that would guarantee them another major step toward an operational Delta
Clipper, but a no-bid on a program of this size would be extraordinary.  As
it is, MDA will probably have the inside track on SX-2 _if_ DC-X flight test
goes well.  Chances are though that Lockheed, and possibly Boeing and
Rockwell too, will also bid.  General Dynamics, alas, seems too busy
dismantling itself to take an interest.  
 
One possible problem with this report language is in the last paragraph, the
phrase about "certifying funding support for fiscal years 1995 and 1996". 
Our best guess as to what this means is that ARPA will have to find major
funding sponsors in other government agencies and/or private industry for the
hundred million-plus '95 and '96 SX-2 budgets, before ARPA can go ahead with
any major SX-2 startup spending.  Multi-agency/multi-company funding is
likely to complicate SX-2 politically, with some danger of it bogging down
the way NASP has.  We will need to watch for signs of this over the next few
years, assuming we do get SX-2 startup funded.  
 
Meanwhile, Congress has left on its August recess.  They won't be back in
session until the second week of September, barring national emergencies. 
Both the House and Senate left town with Defense Authorization bills out of
committee but not yet approved "on the floor" (by the entire membership). 
The House version contains the above language, the Senate version contains
much less favorable language mentioning SSTO along with NASP and Spacelifter
in a single $30 million USAF line item.  
 
Neither the House nor the Senate is likely to amend the SSRT sections of their
Defense Authorization bills during floor debate.  We could wish for favorable
amendment on the Senate floor, and it's worth asking for, but it doesn't seem
likely to happen.
 
Once the full House and Senate approve their Defense Authorizations, the next
milestone is the House-Senate Conference Committee, when the two bodies will
resolve differences in the two versions of next year's DOD budget.  This will
be critical to us; we need to get the House version SSRT wording adopted.  The
House-Senate Defense Authorization conference should be in mid-September.
 
After that, the Appropriations process starts, in which the Congress "writes
the check", so to speak, for the projects approved in the Authorizations bill.
More on this next week.
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
If you have any contacts in the Senate Armed Services Committee, go on
working them low-key -- there's no telling who will be on the Conference
Committee, and we'll need all the help we can get on the Senate side when
that eventually gets underway.  
 
Other than that, stay tuned for updates, and enjoy the summer.
 
 
     Senate Armed Services Committee Members List
 
 Name                            office#           phone        fax (AC 202)
 ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them)
 
 Sam Nunn (D-GA, chairman)       SD-303            224-3521     224-0072
 Bob Smith (R-NH, RRM)           SD-332            224-2841     224-1353
 James Exon (D-NE)               SH-330            224-4224     224-5213
 John McCain (R-AZ)              SR-111            224-2235     224-8938
 Richard C. Shelby (D-AL)        SH-313            224-5744     224-3416
 Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT)      SH-502            224-4041     224-9750
 Bob Graham (D-FL)               SD-241            224-3041     224-6843
 Dirk Kempthorne (D-ID)          SDB40-3           224-6142     224-5893
 William S. Cohen (R-ME)         SH-322            224-2523     224-2693
 Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)        SR-315            224-4543     224-2417
 Carl Levin (D-MI)               SR-459            224-6221     224-1388
 Dan Coats (R-IN)                SR-504            224-5623     224-1966
 Trent Lott (R-MS)               SR-487            224-6253     224-2262
 Lauch Faircloth (R-NC)          SH-716            224-3154     224-7406
 Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)            SH-524            224-5521     224-1810
 John Glenn (D-OH)               SH-503            224-3353     224-7983
 Strom Thurmond (R-SC)           SR-217            224-5972     224-1300
 John Warner (R-VA)              SR-225            224-2023     224-6295
 Charles S. Robb (D-VA)          SR-493            224-4024     224-8689
 Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)           SH-311            224-3954     224-8070
 
 
 Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 Executive Director,                in the Solar System."
 Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
 [email protected]                    "You can't get there from here."
 602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 66175
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:66175 talk.politics.space:3432
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl!decwrl!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!gumby!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Misc DC-X Updates and request for action
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 00:47:12 GMT
Lines: 86
 
 
I have some new information on the DC-X flight, but first this word from
our sponsor:  Do you live in Flordia? Do you want to help make the SSRT
followon a reality? Well, here is your chance!
 
There is an urgent need to get phone calls and letters to Senator Bob
Graham (D-FL). He is on the Armed Services Committee and he seems to be
somebody who can help get the SX-2 funded. Please write and ask him to
write Senator Nunn and ask for acceptance of the House position
on SSRT in the Senate/House conference on the DoD Authorization Bill.
 
His address is:
Senator Bob Graham 
SD-241 
Washington DC 20510
 
Phone: (202) 224-3041
Fax:   (202) 224-6843
 
Some points to make in the letter/phone call:
 
1. Florida is the number two state for contracts on this program (especailly
Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney).
2. The followon will also mean jobs in the state.
3. Spaceport Florida will benefit from low cost access to space and will
be an excellent place DC launches.
 
Please write and call soon if you live in Florida. This guy is in a real
position to influence things if he wants.
 
 
Other DC news:
 
1. The 'burp test' went OK but had a problem. One engine cut off a second
or so early. This was due to the setting of safety parameters and not a
mechanical problem. The same thing happened often during the early static
tests so this isn't a cause for worry. They are going to reset some of the
parameters and re-run the test in a few days. Needless to say they are
being very cautious since they don't have spares. Also, some of the 
parts in the DC-X are very old (one thing which made it a cheap program)
so they need to be careful.
 
2. The 'first flight' is currently scheduled for Aug. 28 (which conflicts
with my daughter's birthday so it looks like I ain't going :-( ). This
slip happened before the burp test so I suspect it has more to do with
range scheduling.
 
3. There is an article in today's NY Times (Aug 10) on DC which is very
positive. It produced a lot of interest in several groups. People at
the Department of Comerce will now be attending the flight because
of the article and ABC News was also prompted by the story to call
MacDac about doing a story. I also know that NBC news is considering
a story.
 
If you want to see the test flight, the best way is to convince these
media to broadcast the flight. Give them a call and ask them if they
plan to cover it. The more they hear, the more likely they will be to
cover it. Some addresses and phone numbers:
 
 
Broadcast Media
 
ABC World News Tonight 		        CBS Evening News
7 West 66th Street			524 W. 57th Street  
New York, NY 10023			New York, NY 10019          
212/887-4040				212/975-3693 
 
CNN 					MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour"
One CNN Center 			        P.O. Box 2626
Box 105366				Washington, DC 20013
Atlanta, GA 30348 			703/998-2870
404/827-1500
 
NBC News
4001 Nebraska Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202/885-4200
202/362-2009 (fax)
 
 
   allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mortiki: "What do we do after we do it?"      |
|   [email protected]    | Man with no name: "Ya live with it."                   |
+----------------------11 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Article: 66521
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!concert!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Update 8/14/93
Date: 16 Aug 93 21:55:09 GMT
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
 
 
                      DC-X Update, August 14th, 1993
 
       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.
 
 
We're going to be changing format a little here.  The DC-X technical and
political background sections will be posted separately, shortly after this
update, for benefit of those who have already seen the background info often
enough to have it memorized.  For those of you seeing this for the first time
who need a bit more context, watch for the companion posting titled "DC-X
Background 8/14/93".  
 
[Apologies for the delay in posting; this was written Saturday 8/14, but we
later discovered that it vanished on its way to the rest of the net. -HV-]
 
 
                 DC-X Test Program Status & Flight Dates
 
DC-X had some problems with the ground test firing last week, the four-second,
bolted-to-the-pad final all-systems test before first flight.  One engine
showed an out-of-limit condition and was shut down by the ground test computer
about a second early.  The exact nature of the problem still isn't quite
clear, but there has been mention of a noisy hydraulic pump, with some hints
that the "noise" was electrical and may have affected sensor readings.  All
will no doubt become known later on, when the DC-X test ops crew has some
time to spare for the outside world.  They've been working twelve-hour-plus
days for most of the summer, and a couple weeks ago stopped taking even 
Sundays off.  Bringing brand-new vehicles up to flight test is not for the
faint of heart.  
 
The good news is the second attempt at the final ground test firing came off
successfully earlier today.  The engines were fired for 4.84 seconds, the
test taking DC-X through the entire pre-flight sequence right up to the point
of liftoff before shutting the ship down again.  
 
The next major milestone is the first flight of the stability test series
(the "bunny hop" flights).  These stability test flights will consist of
takeoff, sideways transition of several hundred feet, and landing, done under
varying wind conditions, with no visitors on the range.  The first flight is
currently scheduled for this coming Wednesday, August 18th.  As of early
Saturday afternoon, the schedule looks good.  Keep your fingers crossed; this
initial "bunny hop" will be the first real-world test of DC-X's stability at
low speed and altitude, a critical and hard-to-simulate part of the VTOL
(Vertical Takeoff and Landing) flight envelope.  
 
The official "first" DC-X flight will come later.  It will actually be the
initial flight of the second test series, when they'll be going for higher
speeds and altitude.  This will be the one with speeches, hoopla, VIP's, and
media coverage, but alas still no admission of the general public.  Chances
are good for TV coverage though, between NASA Select, local TV stations, and
the national networks.  Chances are too that you'll have a better view on TV,
since the "VIP" viewing site will be five miles from the pad.  
 
At this point this "first" flight looks like taking place sometime over the
weekend starting Friday, August 27th.  McDonnell Douglas is still officially
saying they expect it to happen on Monday August 23rd, but this seems
extremely unlikely; the stability tests would have to be cut short to have any
chance of starting the second test series that soon.
 
The end-for-end transition maneuver won't be tried until the third, final
flight test series.
 
 
                  DC-X Followon ("SX-2") Funding Update
                  
The next two crucial events (in getting funding for SX-2 startup next year)
will happen, as it turns out, near-simultaneously in mid-September.  Once the
full House and Senate vote on their respective Defense Authorization bills,
two new processes will get underway:  
 
 - The House-Senate Defense Conference Committee membership will be selected
 from the members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.  This
 Defense Conference Committee will then meet to work out a compromise version
 of the Defense Authorization bill.  
 
 - The House and Senate Appropriations Committees' respective Defense
 Subcommittees will begin deciding how much to actually appropriate for
 Defense.  One way of looking at this is that they will go through the
 respective Authorizations bills, deciding which items to actually write
 checks for.  
 
For the Conference Committee, we need to reinforce our current support in the
House Armed Services Committee by contacting Representatives Dellums,
Schroeder and any HASC members local to us, telling them we appreciate their
support for "SSRT Followon", and urging them to continue this support in the
House-Senate Defense Conference.  We also need to continue urging Senators
Nunn, Exon, and any Senate Armed Services Committee members from our states to
support SSRT Followon funding.
 
On the Appropriations side, we need to start working on the Defense
Subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees (HAC and SAC
"Defense").  Representative John Murtha (D, PA) chairs the HAC Defense
Subcommittee, and Senator Daniel Inouye (D, HI) chairs the SAC Defense
Subcommittee.
 
We will be posting full HASC, SASC, HAC Defense and SAC Defense member lists,
plus a more detailed discussion of tactics, early in the coming week.
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Executive Director,            in the Solar System."
Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
[email protected]           "You can't get there from here."
602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 66522
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Background 8/14/93
Date: 16 Aug 93 22:00:33 GMT
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 175
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
 
 
                    DC-X Background, August 14th, 1993
 
       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.
 
This is a companion piece to our more-or-less weekly "DC-X Update".  We're
splitting this off for the convenience of those who've already seen the
background material.  The background material will occasionally be updated;
most recent change dates for both the Hardware and Politics sections are
included.
 
[Apologies for the delay in posting; this was written Saturday 8/14, but we
later discovered that it vanished on its way to the rest of the net. -HV-]
 
 
         DC-X Hardware Background (last changed August 6th 1993)
 
DC-X is a low-speed flight regime testbed for a proposed reusable rocket-
powered Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) transport, McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace's
"Delta Clipper".  DC-X is intended to prove out rocket-powered vertical
takeoff, nose-first lifting-body to tail-first flight transition, and tail-
first landing.  It is also intended to prove out rapid turnaround of a
reusable rocket by a minimal ground support crew.  DC-X is being tested and
flown by approximately thirty people.
 
DC-X has already pretty much proved out rapid low-cost development of an
advanced aerospace X-vehicle type engineering testbed by a small highly-
motivated engineering team on a tight budget.  DC-X was built by less than
two hundred people, in less than two years, for about $60 million.  Of
course, this sort of thing has been done before -- just not recently.  
 
DC-X stands 40 feet tall, is 13 feet across the base, and is roughly cone-
shaped, with a circular cross-section forward blending into a square base. 
The vehicle has four maneuvering flaps, one set into each side near the base,
and sits on four landing legs.  DC-X masses 22,300 lbs empty and 41,630 lbs
fully fuelled, and is powered by four 13,500 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney RL-10-
A5 liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rocket motors, each able to gimbal +- 8
degrees.  The RL-10-A5 is a special version of the RL-10-A designed for wide
throttling range (30% to 100%) and sea-level operation.  
 
The single DC-X vehicle was officially rolled out of its construction hangar
at MDA's Huntington Beach CA plant at the start of April, then trucked out to
White Sands, New Mexico for ground and then flight tests.  
 
Between Thursday, May 20th and Thursday, June 17th, DC-X underwent a series
of nine engine firings/vehicle systems exercises, including two firings in
one day with complete defueling/vehicle servicing/refueling in between.  
 
On Friday, June 18th, the DC-X crew began breaking down the ground support
equipment and moving it to the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) flight test
site, a distance of about fifty miles.  Meanwhile DC-X was stored in a hangar.  
 
On Friday, July 16th, the ground support equipment move was completed.  DC-X
was taken out of storage, trucked out to the flight test site, and hoisted
upright onto its launch pad.  
 
On Monday, July 19th, the DC-X crew began running a series of ground tests to
make sure everything had made it over intact and was hooked back together
properly.  
 
                                  *****
 
 
    DC-X Followon: Political Background (last changed August 6th 1993)
 
The current DC-X program is funded through flight test and data analysis this
fall, and ends after that.  There is an ongoing effort to get the US Congress
to fund a three-year followon program, currently called SX-2 (Space
Experimental 2).  This tentatively looks like being a reusable suborbital
vehicle powered by 8 RL-10-A5 engines, capable of reaching Mach 6 (about 1/4
orbital velocity) and 100 miles altitude, built with orbital-weight tanks and
structure, and able to test orbital grade heat-shielding.  
 
The SX-2 program goal will be to demonstrate all remaining technology needed
to build a reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.  Once SX-2 has been
tested, all that should be necessary to produce a functioning reusable SSTO
is to scale up the SX-2 structures and install new larger rocket engines.  
 
Proposed FY '94 funding for SX-2 startup is $75 million.  Total SX-2 program
cost over the next three years would be very much dependent on the contractor
chosen and the details of the design, but would be on the order of several
hundred million.  This is the same order of magnitude as typical recent X-
aircraft programs such as the X-29 and X-31.
 
The $75 million SX-2 startup money now looks like being added to the Advanced
Research Project Agency (ARPA) budget, with at least some of the funding in
following years to come from other interested arms of the government.  SX-2
would still be run by the current BMDO (formerly SDIO) DC-X management team,
even though funded via ARPA, at least under the current House version of the
FY '94 Defense Authorization Bill.  
 
The House of Representatives now seems favorably disposed toward SX-2.  The
biggest hurdle ahead this year will probably be convincing the Senate to go
along when the House-Senate conference committee meets to work out the
differences between the two versions of next year's Defense budget.  
 
 ** This is the section of the House Defense Authorization Bill approved last
 ** week that covers DC-X (SSRT) Followon.  
 
Section 217, Single Stage Rocket Technology
 
(a) Program Funding -- the Secretary of Defense shall establish a Single
Stage Rocket Technology program and shall provide funds for that program
within funds available for the Advanced Research Projects Agency.  That
program shall be managed within the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense
for Acquisition.  
 
(b) Funding -- Of the amount appropriated pursuant to section 201 for
Defense-wide activities, $79,880,000 shall be available for, and may be
obligated only for, Single Stage Rocket Technology.  
 
 ** This is the section of the report accompanying the House Defense
 ** Authorization Bill that covers DC-X Followon.  The report language is
 ** intended to clarify the intent of the bill.
 
 From The House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services
 Report on the FY '94 Defense Department  Authorization Bill, H.R. 2401
 H. Rpt. 103-200, 103rd Congress, 3rd Session; July 30th, 1993, pp. 172-173
 
Single Stage Rocket Technology
 
The budget request included $4.88 million for single stage rocket technology
(SSRT), also known as single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO), within the Ballistic
Missile Defense Office (BMDO) follow-on technologies program to complete the
final testing in phase one of the program.
 
The United States spends over $30 billion each year on space programs.  Yet,
unlike many other commercial activities that have benefitted and achieved
greater efficiencies from military research and development, U.S. commercial
launch costs are at least twice -- and in some instances as much as ten times
-- the costs of foreign competitors.  Similarly, it takes the United States at
least four times as long to provide launch services to any given user.
 
The Congress must remain skeptical and avoid fully embracing the sometimes
overly optimistic claims regarding SSRT/SSTO technology.  Yet, if the United
States is to regain its international competitiveness in this critically
important military and economic area, it must pursue promising enabling space
launch technologies that have the potential of dramatic reductions in launch
costs.  
 
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following:
 
(1) Transitioning SSRT/SSTO from BMDO to a "Space Launch Technology" program
element within the Advanced Research Projects Agency.  
 
(2) Continuing with the current management team.
 
(3) Adding an additional $75 million to begin phase two of the program.
 
(4) Conducting an open competition among aerospace companies for phase two of
the program.  
 
(5) Examining options for DOD, other government agencies/departments, and
industry cost sharing opportunities.  
 
None of the additional funds recommended to be authorized may be obligated
until the congressional defense committees have been provided with a phase
two program plan outlining objectives and technical milestones and certifying
that funding support has been established for fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
 
 ** End of report excerpt
 
                                  *****
 
 
 Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 Executive Director,                in the Solar System."
 Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
 [email protected]                    "You can't get there from here."
 602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 66617
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Update 8/17/93
Date: 18 Aug 93 00:43:13 GMT
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
 
 
                      DC-X Update, August 17th, 1993
 
       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.
 
 
As of 6 pm New Mexico time, DC-X is still on for its first test hop tomorrow
morning, Wednesday August 18th, somewhere between 8 and 9 am local (Mountain
Daylight) time.
 
Note that this is NOT the _official_ first flight.  This is NOT the flight
with invited onlookers, speeches, hoopla, and TV coverage.  That flight will
come the weekend after next, if all goes well in the meantime.  
 
Tomorrow's test is, however, the first time DC-X will fly.
 
According to MDA, tomorrow's test will have no outside observers present and
will not be on NASA Select or any other TV channel.  Tomorrow's flight is the
"bunny hop", the stability test, what MDA is now calling "the hover test". 
If all goes well tomorrow, DC-X will take off, climb to something less than
one hundred feet, transition sideways a short distance, then land.
 
One small hop...
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Executive Director,            in the Solar System."
Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
[email protected]           "You can't get there from here."
602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

                DC-X Update, August 18th, 1993 9:00 am PDT

       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.


McDonnell-Douglas reports that rain and lightning at the DC-X test site have
caused a delay of this morning's scheduled hover test.  There is a meeting
going on to decide whether to try again later today or reschedule for
tomorrow.  As reported previously, such thunderstorms are a fairly regular
occurrence in late summer in that part of the southwestern US.

We should have more information in an hour or so.

                DC-X Update, August 18th, 1993, 10 am PDT

       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.


McDonnell-Douglas reports that rain and lightning at the DC-X test site have
caused a delay of this morning's scheduled hover test.  The test has now been
rescheduled for 1:30 pm Mountain Time -- 3:30 pm Eastern, 12:30 pm Pacific.

CNN's satellite weather loop shows a strong monsoonal flow pattern, a clockwise
flow up from the Gulf of Mexico, with a band of heavy clouds right across
central New Mexico.  Such a pattern is typically accompanied by scattered
thunderstorms.  Further weather delays remain a possibility.  As reported
previously, pad operations are shut down anytime there is lightning within
five miles, for safety reasons.


Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Executive Director,            in the Solar System."
Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
[email protected]           "You can't get there from here."
602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous

    CNN Headline News reports that DC-X successfully lifted off, climbed to
    approximately 150 feet, moved laterally over an unspecified distance,
    and then landing. They showed a MacDAC PR animation during their 22:30
    report and a clip of DC-X upright in a hanger during the 23:00 report.
    
    More news as it becomes available.
    
    				Cheers,
    				-Abdul-
    

Article: 66690
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Update - First Flight 100% Successful
Date: 18 Aug 93 23:31:25 GMT
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
 
 
The first stability test flight went exactly as planned earlier this
afternoon, with takeoff, flight path, and landing location all right on the
button.  "It was beautiful" said one MDA employee who viewed the flight on
closed-circuit TV at MDA's Huntington Beach plant.  
 
More details as they come in.  It may take a while, because everyone involved
at MDA seems to be either tidying up after the flight or on their way out to
celebrate.  
 
Our congratulations to everyone involved in bringing about this historic 
flight of the world's first reusable spaceship testbed.
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Executive Director,            in the Solar System."
Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
[email protected]           "You can't get there from here."
602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous

    Boy, I was surprised this morning!!  On the NBC "Today" show they had a 
    clip of the DC-X "bunny hop"!!  I missed the takeoff as I was in the
    other room, but saw the landing..  
    
    I suspect the other networks were carrying it as well, but I didn't get
    a chance to see it any later..  
    
    So much for the "news blackout"!!  
    
    jeff
    

Anyone have a tape of this that they would be willing to "pass around"?

Thanks,

Burns

As well as CNN International, I stumbled across the bunny-hop on one of the
German news programs too.

Very impressive...

Peter.

The Boston Globe carried three still (obviously) pictures Saturday on page 3.
What an odd looking beast!  Hard to believe it is real!

Burns

    Yes, my reaction was the same..  It looks like it came right out of
    a 1950s movie..  Even after reading all of the descriptions here...
    
    

    The "bunny hop" was shown on the news in the UK as well.
    

      I saw it too. My reaction was just the same as -couple; looked just
    like a 1950's sci-fi B movie. Best of luck to 'em; I just wish our
    government/aerospace industry had the b***s to try it.
    
    Ken 

Article: 68153
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Background 8/28/93
Date: 29 Aug 93 02:50:57 GMT
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 226
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
 
 
                             DC-X Background
 
       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.
 
This is a companion piece to our more-or-less weekly "DC-X Update".  We're
splitting this off for the convenience of those who've already seen the
background material.  The background material will occasionally be updated;
most recent change dates for both the Hardware and Politics sections are
included.
 
 
         DC-X Hardware Background (last changed August 28th 1993)
 
DC-X is a low-speed flight regime testbed for a proposed reusable rocket-
powered Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) transport, McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace's
"Delta Clipper".  DC-X is intended to prove out rocket-powered vertical
takeoff, nose-first lifting-body to tail-first flight transition, and tail-
first landing.  It is also intended to prove out rapid turnaround of a
reusable rocket by a minimal ground support crew.  DC-X is being tested and
flown by approximately thirty people.
 
DC-X has already pretty much proved out rapid low-cost development of an
advanced aerospace X-vehicle type engineering testbed by a small highly-
motivated engineering team on a tight budget.  DC-X was built by less than
two hundred people, in less than two years, for about $60 million.  Of
course, this sort of thing has been done before -- just not recently.  
 
DC-X stands 40 feet tall, is 13 feet across the base, and is roughly cone-
shaped, with a circular cross-section forward blending into a square base. 
The vehicle has four maneuvering flaps, one set into each side near the base,
and sits on four landing legs.  DC-X masses 22,300 lbs empty and 41,630 lbs
fully fuelled, and is powered by four 13,500 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney RL-10-
A5 liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rocket motors, each able to gimbal +- 8
degrees.  The RL-10-A5 is a special version of the RL-10-A designed for wide
throttling range (30% to 100%) and sea-level operation.  
 
The single DC-X vehicle was officially rolled out of its construction hangar
at MDA's Huntington Beach CA plant at the start of April, then trucked out to
White Sands, New Mexico for ground and then flight tests.  
 
Between Thursday, May 20th and Thursday, June 17th, DC-X underwent a series
of nine engine firings/vehicle systems exercises, including two firings in
one day with complete defueling/vehicle servicing/refueling in between.  
 
On Friday, June 18th, the DC-X crew began breaking down the ground support
equipment and moving it to the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) flight test
site, a distance of about fifty miles.  Meanwhile DC-X was stored in a hangar.  
 
On Friday, July 16th, the ground support equipment move was completed.  DC-X
was taken out of storage, trucked out to the flight test site, and hoisted
upright onto its launch pad.  
 
On Monday, July 19th, the DC-X crew began running a series of ground tests to
make sure everything had made it over intact and was hooked back together
properly.  
 
On Wednesday, August 18th, at 4:43 pm MDT, DC-X made its first flight, a
"bunny hop" stability test that involved climbing 150 feet vertically,
hovering, translating slowly sideways 350 feet, then landing vertically.  The
rocket was under precise control throughout, appearing to move almost as if
on rails, and landed within six inches of the target.  
 
 
               Contacting Your Congressman: Hints and Tips
 
We regularly ask you to phone, fax, or write Representatives A and B or
Senator C, and ask them to support X, Y, and Z.  Here's some tips on how to
do so painlessly and effectively.  
 
Keep phone calls brief, polite, and to the point - tell whoever answers (very
likely an underpaid, overworked staffer who's never heard of what you're
supporting) that you're calling to let them know you support $80 million in
funding next year for BMDO's SSRT ("Single Stage Rocket Technology") program,
and if you feel like it, throw in your favorite reason why this would be a
good thing.  If the person who answers wants to know more, answer their
questions as best you can, otherwise thank them and ring off.
 
Letters, whether via USPS or fax, should also be brief, polite, and to the
point, though you can go into a bit more detail as to why a DC-X followon is
the neatest thing since sliced bread and good for the country too.  Keep it
under a page and state your basic point at the start, so if they're in a
hurry they can figure out what you're trying to tell them with a quick scan.  
 
Don't overdo it, but in general try to know who you're contacting and
emphasize benefits likely to appeal to them, given their positions on the
political spectrum.  Don't give them a laundry list; pick one or two reasons
to support SSRT and explain them succinctly in your own words.  
 
Future US aerospace technological competitiveness plus stemming the ongoing
US loss of international space launch marketshare should appeal to just about
anyone.  Reusable launchers in general promise an order-of-magnitude or more
reduction in launch costs, and SX-2 would demonstrate technologies applicable
to any reusable launcher, not just Delta Clipper.
 
Some benefits worth mentioning:
 
 - defense conversion benefits due to the dual-use nature of SSTO technology.
   (civilian space launch applications)
 - economic benefits of improved US international aerospace competitiveness.
   (We used to have 100% of the international launch market.  That's dropped
   to 40%, losing us billions each year.  Cheaper launch will let us compete.)
 - environmental benefits of reusable hydrogen-powered rockets. (no scrap
   metal dumped downrange, nothing but water vapor for exhaust)
 - the economic benefits to (Colorado, New Mexico, California, Florida,
   Arizona, etc) of launch vehicles operable from or built in that state.
 - if you're so inclined, the benefit of diverting DOD funds that might
   otherwise go for weapons R&D.  
 - if you're so inclined, the security benefits of cheap rapid assured access
   to space for monitoring of rapidly changing situations.
 
 
   DC-X Followon: Political Background (last changed August 28th 1993)
 
The current DC-X program is funded through flight test and data analysis this
fall, and ends after that.  There is an ongoing effort to get the US Congress
to fund a three-year followon program, currently called SX-2 (Space
Experimental 2).  This tentatively looks like being a reusable suborbital
vehicle powered by 8 RL-10-A5 engines, capable of reaching Mach 6 (about 1/4
orbital velocity) and 100 miles altitude, built with orbital-weight tanks and
structure, and able to test orbital grade heat-shielding.  
 
The SX-2 program goal will be to demonstrate all remaining technology needed
to build a reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.  Once SX-2 has been
tested, all that should be necessary to produce a functioning reusable SSTO
is to scale up the SX-2 structures and install more powerful rocket engines.
 
[Developing such engines in parallel to SX-2 is likely to be SAS's next big
push.  Existing engines could work for an orbital proof-of-concept vehicle,
but new engines optimized for SSTO operations would be preferable -HV]
 
Proposed FY '94 funding for SX-2 startup is $75 million.  Total SX-2 program
cost over the next three years would be very much dependent on the contractor
chosen and the details of the design, but would be on the order of several
hundred million.  This is the same order of magnitude as typical recent X-
aircraft programs such as the X-29 and X-31.
 
The $75 million SX-2 startup money now looks like being added to the Advanced
Research Project Agency (ARPA) budget, with at least some of the funding in
following years to come from other interested arms of the government.  SX-2
would still be run by the current BMDO (formerly SDIO) DC-X management team,
even though funded via ARPA, at least under the current House version of the
FY '94 Defense Authorization Bill.  
 
The House of Representatives now seems favorably disposed toward SX-2.  The
biggest hurdle ahead this year will probably be convincing the Senate to go
along when the House-Senate conference committee meets to work out the
differences between the two versions of next year's Defense budget.  
 
 ** This is the section of the House Defense Authorization Bill approved at
 ** the start of August that covers DC-X (SSRT) Followon.  
 
Section 217, Single Stage Rocket Technology
 
(a) Program Funding -- the Secretary of Defense shall establish a Single
Stage Rocket Technology program and shall provide funds for that program
within funds available for the Advanced Research Projects Agency.  That
program shall be managed within the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense
for Acquisition.  
 
(b) Funding -- Of the amount appropriated pursuant to section 201 for
Defense-wide activities, $79,880,000 shall be available for, and may be
obligated only for, Single Stage Rocket Technology.  
 
 ** This is the section of the report accompanying the House Defense
 ** Authorization Bill that covers DC-X Followon.  The report language is
 ** intended to clarify the intent of the bill.
 
 From The House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services
 Report on the FY '94 Defense Department  Authorization Bill, H.R. 2401
 H. Rpt. 103-200, 103rd Congress, 3rd Session; July 30th, 1993, pp. 172-173
 
Single Stage Rocket Technology
 
The budget request included $4.88 million for single stage rocket technology
(SSRT), also known as single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO), within the Ballistic
Missile Defense Office (BMDO) follow-on technologies program to complete the
final testing in phase one of the program.
 
The United States spends over $30 billion each year on space programs.  Yet,
unlike many other commercial activities that have benefitted and achieved
greater efficiencies from military research and development, U.S. commercial
launch costs are at least twice -- and in some instances as much as ten times
-- the costs of foreign competitors.  Similarly, it takes the United States at
least four times as long to provide launch services to any given user.
 
The Congress must remain skeptical and avoid fully embracing the sometimes
overly optimistic claims regarding SSRT/SSTO technology.  Yet, if the United
States is to regain its international competitiveness in this critically
important military and economic area, it must pursue promising enabling space
launch technologies that have the potential of dramatic reductions in launch
costs.  
 
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following:
 
(1) Transitioning SSRT/SSTO from BMDO to a "Space Launch Technology" program
element within the Advanced Research Projects Agency.  
 
(2) Continuing with the current management team.
 
(3) Adding an additional $75 million to begin phase two of the program.
 
(4) Conducting an open competition among aerospace companies for phase two of
the program.  
 
(5) Examining options for DOD, other government agencies/departments, and
industry cost sharing opportunities.  
 
None of the additional funds recommended to be authorized may be obligated
until the congressional defense committees have been provided with a phase
two program plan outlining objectives and technical milestones and certifying
that funding support has been established for fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
 
 ** End of report excerpt
 
 
 Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 Executive Director,                in the Solar System."
 Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
 [email protected]                    "You can't get there from here."
 602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
    

Article: 68155
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Update 8/28/93
Date: 29 Aug 93 02:59:10 GMT
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 351
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
 
 
                      DC-X Update, August 28th, 1993
 
       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.
 
 
We're going to be changing format a little here.  The DC-X technical and
political background sections will be posted separately, shortly after this
update, for benefit of those who have already seen the background info often
enough to have it memorized.  For those of you seeing this for the first time
who need a bit more context, watch for the companion posting titled "DC-X
Background 8/28/93".  
 
 
                 DC-X Test Program Status & Flight Dates
 
 
DC-X Makes Successful First Flight
 
On Wednesday, August 18th, 1993, at 4:43:53 pm local time, DC-X's engines
lit, and the cloud of white vapor silhouetting the ship's mottled gray shape
turned into a brief billow of orange flame around the vehicle.  A second
later, the flame cloud had turned to gray smoke as the vented engine precool
hydrogen finished burning off and the rocket exhaust started the concrete
under the launch stand smoking.  Two seconds more for the engines to settle
down to a steady burn, and the DC-X reusable rocket testbed lifted off on its
first flight.  
 
DC-X, flying with a partial fuel load, jumped off the pad quickly before
easing back on the acceleration and drifting to a stop 150 feet up.  As the
ship climbed away from the ground, the rocket exhaust cleared up, and by the
time she was hovering the exhaust flames were, typically for a hydrogen
rocket, almost invisible, showing only an occasional streak of orange as
engine throttling produced transient changes in the fuel mix.  
 
Thirteen seconds after liftoff, DC-X tilted over a few degrees and
began "translating", sliding sideways at a brisk walking pace while holding
altitude, occasional puffs of vapor from a cryo tank vent on her side
punctuating her stately progress toward the landing site, 350 feet off.  
 
Once over the touchdown point, DC-X drifted to a halt and hovered briefly,
then began her careful tail-first descent.  At a hundred feet, the landing
legs popped out.  At about thirty feet, the rocket plumes began kicking up
dust from the landing pad, and the clear exhaust flames quickly turned to
incandescent pillars of fire, as concrete smoke glowed in burning hydrogen.  
 
By ten feet, DC-X was almost hidden by the smoke and dust boiling up, inching
down into a swirling white-hot cushion of flame.  When the landing legs
finally touched ground and triggered engine cutoff, one last billow of vapor
rolled out from underneath, then silence fell.  DC-X stood there, at first
only the nose showing through the smoke, the rest of the ship gradually
coming into view as the breeze cleared it away.  
 
The first words out of the control trailer after "touchdown, touchdown...
engine shutdown" were a heartfelt "All-Riiiight!".
 
 
DC-X Post-Flight Condition
 
The worst thing that happened to DC-X during this first flight was that one
side of the fiberglass nose cone was scorched.  It will have to be replaced,
no big deal as there are several spares.  This probably happened right after
engine start, when the cloud of vented hydrogen around the vehicle ignited.
 
This looked scary, but is a routine part of operating DC-X, albeit one
that turned out to be a bit more spectacular than planned.  Liquid hydrogen
is run through the engines to precool them before startup, then vented to the
air, producing the vapor clouds visible before engine start in the flight test
video footage.  When the engines start, unless there's a strong breeze the
hydrogen concentration neaby is high enough to ignite, producing a half-second
fireball around the bottom of the vehicle.
 
This is how DC-X lost its McDonnell-Douglas and SDIO decals and had its white
factory paint job turned to mottled gray during the test stand engine
firings back in May and June.  Everything below the nose cone is designed to
stand the heat, and of course in any spaceworthy descendant of DC-X the nose
cone would not be made from fiberglass, since it would have to stand up to
far worse heat during reentry.  
 
Outside of that, DC-X's base suffered some minor dings from bits of concrete
sent flying around by the rocket blast during landing.  Nothing unexpected;
the base was designed to stand a fair amount of this.  
 
Aside from the nose cone, the main thing preventing the DC-X crew from
fueling the ship and flying again right away was the fact that they were dead
on their feet.  They hadn't had a day off for the last month, and the final
forty-eight hours before first flight were doubly hectic as all the little
last second details were nailed down.
 
Not that the ground crew will be idle over the next couple of weeks.  This
first flight was like most such, in that it revealed the need for all sorts
of minor procedural changes and hardware tweaks to improve operations next
time out.  In particular, they're going to continue working on keeping
gaseous hydrogen from finding its way inside the vehicle.  Hydrogen with its
low molecular weight is slippery stuff, and as mentioned previously, there's
a lot of vented hydrogen outside the ship before launch.  Outside is where it
should stay -- traces of hydrogen inside are not an immediate problem, but if
levels should ever build beyond a few percent concentration, it could be a
fire or explosion hazard.  Best to track down and eliminate even minor 
sources.  
 
 
DC-X Second Flight "The DC-X Invitational" Targeted For September 11th
 
MDA and BMDO are back to billing the flight they're inviting the press and
various VIP's to as the real first flight -- the one we saw a week ago
Wednesday was the equivalent of "a high-speed taxi test of a conventional
aircraft".  Never mind that when a conventional aircraft shows a hundred and
fifty feet of daylight under its landing gear, they don't call it a taxi test
anymore.  Oh well, it shouldn't cause so much confusion now that the first
flight has happened.  If it's better PR for the program, OK, the test they
plan for the morning of September 11th, the second time DC-X will show
daylight under its landing legs, this time 300 feet worth in an otherwise
similar flight profile, yeah, OK, this will be the first flight.  Ayup.
 
There's still no guarantee of live TV coverage, though it does seem likely. 
The commercial networks have all been invited, but there's no way to say which
if any of them might carry it live.  NASA Select seems very unlikely to carry
the flight at this point, as Discovery is scheduled to launch the day before.
C-Span is a longshot possibility; the idea has just been suggested to the MDA
Public Affairs office.  
 
Looking further ahead, there's no specific word on when the third flight will
be, but chances are it'll happen toward the end of September.  Historically,
test programs of radically new vehicles tend to start out taking their time
between flights, then gradually work up to quicker turnarounds as experience
is gained and the number of post-flight tweaks drops.
 
DC-X may break this pattern with an early demo of quick turnaround between
flights, but such a demo has not yet been specifically scheduled.  In general,
the near-term push is going to be to expand DC-X's forward flight envelope,
looking at base drag and dynamic pressure on the airframe at higher subsonic
speeds.  Beyond that, flight testing will depend on the earlier results, as
well as on the arrival of DC-X's final $5m in FY '94 funding.
 
 
             Politics: DC-X Followon ("SX-2") Funding Update
 
[Note from the editor: If you've never contacted your elected representatives
in Washington before, now is a good time to start.  It's painless, it can
actually be pretty effective, and if you don't believe developing the means
of affordable space access is a good cause, chances are you wouldn't be
reading this, eh?  For some tips on making effective contact, see the
Politics section of the current "DC-X Background". -HV]
 
Well, we hope y'all enjoyed your vacation from talking to politicians; it's
time to get back to work.  Congress is due back from their month-long recess
right after Labor Day, and three different key events in getting SX-2 startup
funding for next year are going to happen in quick succession before mid-
September.  In theory everything is supposed to wait until the House and
Senate Defense Authorization bills we've been working on all summer are
passed in floor votes, but in practice we're going to see a lot of things
going on in parallel with the routine wrapup of the Authorization bills.  
 
 - The House and Senate Appropriations Committees' respective Defense
 Subcommittees (HAC and SAC Defense) will begin deciding how much to actually
 appropriate for Defense.  One way of looking at this is that they will go
 through the respective Authorizations bills, deciding which items to
 actually write checks for.  This is important to us, as in this year's
 fiscal climate the Appropriations process is a likely place for budget
 cutting to take place.
 
 - The House-Senate Defense Conference Committee membership will be selected
 from the members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.  (HASC
 and SASC)  This Defense Conference Committee will then meet to work out a
 compromise version of the Defense Authorization bill.  We need the current
 House language on SSRT to be adopted.  (See the current "DC-X Background" for
 the full text of the House language.)
 
In expected order now, with best-guess dates and SAS action reccomendations:
 
The House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee markup.  John
Murtha, D PA, will preside over markup of the Defense Appropriations bill. 
Murtha has told his subcommittee members to be ready to meet on Tuesday
September 7th, a day before Congress is even formally back in town.  He's in
a hurry.  
 
  - We need calls, letters, and faxes to Murtha plus any HAC Defense
 subcommittee members whose districts you're near, this week and early next
 week, asking them to fully fund Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) at the
 authorized level of $79.88 million.  
 
        House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee List
 ("Representative XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20515" will get mail to them)
 
 Name                          office#        phone     fax  (AC 202)
 John Murtha, chair (D-PA12)   2423 RHOB      225-2065  225-5709
 Joseph McDade, RRM (R-PA10)   2370 RHOB      225-3731  225-9594
 Jerry Lewis (R-CA40)          2312 RHOB      225-5861  225-6498
 Charles Wilson (D-TX2)        2256 RHOB      225-2401  225-1764
 Norm Dicks (D-WA6)            2467 RHOB      225-5916  226-1176
 Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN5)      2336 RHOB      225-4755  225-4886
 Julian Dixon (D-CA32)         2400 RHOB      225-7084  225-4091
 W.G. Hefner (D-NC8)           2470 RHOB      225-3715  225-4036
 Peter Visclosky (D-IN1)       2464 RHOB      225-2461  225-2493
 Buddy Darden (D-GA7)          2308 RHOB      225-2931  225-0473
 C.W. Bill Young (R-FL10)      2407 RHOB      225-5961  225-9764
 Bob Livingston (R-LA1)        2368 RHOB      225-3015  225-0739
 Joe Skeen (R-NM2)             2367 RHOB      225-2365  225-9599
 
 
The next important event, probably underway a few days after Labor Day, will
be the Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee markup.  Senator
Inouye will preside over a process similar to that going on in Murtha's House
subcommittee -- they'll be going through the Senate Defense Authorization
bill and deciding what items to actually appropriate money for.  
 
 - We need calls, letters, and faxes to Senator Inouye and to Subcommittee
 members from your state, asking them to appropriate funds for Single Stage
 Rocket Technology (SSRT) at the House Authorization level of $79.88 million.
 
        Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee List
 ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them)
 
 SENATOR              STATE   FAX       PHONE      Office#
 -----------------------------------------------------------
 Bond, Christopher     R  MO  224-7491  224-5721   SR293
 Bumpers, Dale         D  AR  224-6435  224-4843   SD229
 Byrd, Robert          D  WV  224-4025  224-3954   SH311
 Cochran, Thad         R  MS  224-9450  224-5054   SR326
 D'Amato, Alfonse      R  NY  224-5871  224-6542   SH520
 DeConcini, Dennis     D  AZ  224-2302  224-4521   SH328
 Domenici, Pete        R  NM  224-7371  224-6621   SD434
 Gramm, Phil           R  TX  228-2856  224-2934   SR370
 Harkin, Tom           D  IA  224-9369  224-3254   SH351
 Hollings, Ernest      D  SC  224-3573  224-6121   SR125
 Inouye, Daniel, chmn  D  HI  224-6747  224-3934   SH722
 Johnston, J.Bennett   D  LA  224-2952  224-5824   SH136
 Lautenberg, Frank     D  NJ  224-9707  224-4744   SH506
 Leahy, Patrick        D  VT  224-3595  224-4242   SR433
 Nickles, Don          R  OK  224-6008  224-5754   SH713
 Sasser, Jim           D  TN  224-8062  224-3344   SR363
 Specter, Arlen        R  PA  224-1893  224-4254   SH303
 Stevens, Ted          R  AK  224-2354  224-3004   SH522
 
 
The House-Senate Defense Authorization Bill conference, meanwhile, should be
getting underway the week after Labor Day.  
 
 - We need calls, faxes, and letters to Representative Dellums (HASC chair)
 and Representative Schroeder (HASC R&T Subcommittee Chair) plus any HASC
 members whose district you're near, thanking them for their support for 
 SSRT and asking them to continue their support in the House-Senate Defense
 Authorization conference.  
 
List of HASC R&T subcommittee and selected full HASC members follows. 
(Apologies for the lack of a full HASC members list -- call your local
library info desk for info on who your local Representatives are and whether
they're members of House Armed Services Committee.)
 
House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee On Research And Technology
 
 (all phone #'s in 202 area code, all addresses are Washington DC 20515,
 in either the Cannon, Longworth, or Rayburn House Office Buildings.
 Rep. Schroeder's address, for instance, would be written as:
 
 Representative Schroeder
 2208 Rayburn HOB
 Washington DC 20515 )
                                    phone     fax       address
 Patricia Schroeder, D 1 CO Chair   225-4431  225-5842  2208 RHOB
 
 George J Hochbrueckner, D 1 NY     225-3826  225-0776   229 CHOB
 Owen B Pickett, D VA               ?         ?         ?
 H Martin Lancaster, D 3 NC         225-3415  ?         2436 RHOB
 James H Bilbray, D 1 NV            225-5965  225-8808  2431 RHOB
 Chet Edwards, D 11 TX              225-6105  225-0350   328 CHOB
 Don Johnson, D 10 GA               225-4101  226-1466   226 CHOB
 Frank Tejeda, D 28 TX              225-1640  225-1641   323 CHOB
 Martin T Meehan, D 5 MA            225-3411  226-0771  1216 LHOB
 Jane Harman, D 36 CA               225-8220  226-0684   325 CHOB
 Elizabeth Furse, D 1 OR            225-0855  225-9497   316 CHOB
 Earl Hutto, D 1 FL                 225-4136  225-5785  2435 RHOB
 Dave McCurdy, D 4 OK               225-6165  225-9746  2344 RHOB
 Bob Stump, R 3 AZ                  225-4576  225-6328   211 CHOB
 Stephen E Buyer, R 5 IN            225-5037  225-2267  1419 LHOB
 Peter G Torkildsen, R 6 MA         225-8020  225-8037   120 CHOB
 James M Talent, R 2 MO             225-2561  225-2563  1022 LHOB
 Roscoe G Bartlett, R 6 MD          225-2721  225-2193   312 CHOB
 Duncan Hunter, R 52 CA             225-5672  225-0235   133 CHOB
 John R Kasich, R 12 OH             225-5355  ?         1131 LHOB
 James V Hansen, R 1 UT             225-0453  225-5857  2466 RHOB
 
The following are members of the full House Armed Services Committee who are
also worth contacting on this.  Dellums is the full HASC Chairman, Spence is
the senior HASC Republican, Lloyd, Tanner, and Geren are also on the House
Space, Science, and Technology Committee, while Dornan and Cunningham are
interested in SSTO.
 
 Ron Dellums, D 9 CA HASC Chair     225-2661  225-9817  2136 RHOB
 Floyd Spence, R 2 SC               225-2452  225-2455  2405 RHOB
 Marilyn Lloyd, D 3 TN              225-3271  225-6974  2406 RHOB
 John Tanner, D 8 TN                225-4714  225-1765  1427 LHOB
 Pete Geren, D 12 TX                225-5071  225-2786  1730 LHOB
 Bob Dornan, R 46 CA                225-2965  225-0275  2402 RHOB
 Duke Cunningham, R 51 CA           225-5452  225-2558   117 CHOB
 
 
On the Senate side of the House-Senate Defense Authorization Bill conference,
getting underway the week after Labor Day:
 
 - We need calls, faxes, and letters to Senator Nunn (SASC chair) and Senator
 Exon (SASC "Nuke" Subcommittee Chair) plus any SASC members from your state,
 asking them to support the House Authorization language on SSRT in the
 House-Senate Defense Authorization conference.
 
                   Senate Armed Services Committee List
 ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them)
 
 Name                            office#           phone        fax  (AC 202)
 Sam Nunn (D-GA)   SASC Chair    SD-303            224-3521     224-0072
 James Exon (D-NE) "Nuke" Chair  SH-330            224-4224     224-5213
 John McCain (R-AZ)              SR-111            224-2235     224-8938
 Richard C. Shelby (D-AL)        SH-313            224-5744     224-3416
 Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT)      SH-502            224-4041     224-9750
 Bob Graham (D-FL)               SD-241            224-3041     224-6843
 Dirk Kempthorne (D-ID)                            224-6142     224-5893
 William S. Cohen (R-ME)         SH-322            224-2523     224-2693
 Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)        SR-315            224-4543     224-2417
 Carl Levin (D-MI)               SR-459            224-6221     224-1388
 Dan Coats (R-IN)                SR-504            224-5623     224-1966
 Trent Lott (R-MS)               SR-487            224-6253     224-2262
 Bob Smith (R-NH)                                  224-2841     224-1353
 Lauch Faircloth (R-NC)          SH-716            224-3154     224-7406
 Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)            SH-524            224-5521     224-1810
 John Glenn (D-OH)               SH-503            224-3353     224-7983
 Strom Thurmond (R-SC)           SR-217            224-5972     224-1300
 John Warner (R-VA)              SR-225            224-2023     224-6295
 Charles S. Robb (D-VA)          SR-493            224-4024     224-8689
 Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)           SH-311            224-3954     224-8070
 
 
Whew.  That's it.  It is a lot to ask.  But if we can get through the next
few weeks without losing SSRT funding, we'll be in good shape for the final
hurdle, the House-Senate Defense Appropriations conference, when HAC Defense
and SAC Defense will work out their differences.  More on that next time.
 
To everybody who's worked hard to make DC-X fly, politics and hardware, and
to everyone working on getting a follown funded, thanks.  
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Executive Director,            in the Solar System."
Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
[email protected]           "You can't get there from here."
602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 68499
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:68499 talk.politics.space:3543 sci.space.shuttle:13455
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.space.shuttle
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: URGENT help request for SSRT and Delta Clipper!
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 03:05:11 GMT
Lines: 53
 
 
A key vote on the SSRT program will be early next week. This is the House
Appropriations Defense Subcommittee which will be marking up. They must
vote to fully fund SX-2 or it's likely all over. There are reasons I can't
get into which put the outcome in grave doubt. We need to get phone calls
and faxes to the members of this subcommittee ASAP.
 
If you live in the district of a member of this subcommittee please call
and fax them a letter. ONLY DO THIS IF YOU LIVE IN THE DISTRICT. Too much
non-district mail will only hurt. Also do not mail a letter as there
isn't time for it to arrive and be counted.
 
If you don't live in a district listed below, you can and should write to
Rep. Murtha (the Subcommittee Chair).
 
1. Ask for full funding of the SX-2 and ask that the program be kept
inside the Defense Department. Tell them the Authorizing Committee has
authorized this program and ask that they fund at the level and manner
authorized.
 
2. Point out that the program to date has shown to be very effective and
extremely productive. It has developed flying hardware at a cost and speed
vastly better than past govenrment programs. Therefore the program management
structure should be preserved as much as possible to insure future success.
 
If you support this program, please write and call. This is a very
critical vote.
 
   Allen
 
 
        House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee List
 ("Representative XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20515" will get mail to them)
 
 Name                          office#        phone     fax  (AC 202)
 John Murtha, chair (D-PA12)   2423 RHOB      225-2065  225-5709
 Joseph McDade, RRM (R-PA10)   2370 RHOB      225-3731  225-9594
 Jerry Lewis (R-CA40)          2312 RHOB      225-5861  225-6498
 Charles Wilson (D-TX2)        2256 RHOB      225-2401  225-1764
 Norm Dicks (D-WA6)            2467 RHOB      225-5916  226-1176
 Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN5)      2336 RHOB      225-4755  225-4886
 Julian Dixon (D-CA32)         2400 RHOB      225-7084  225-4091
 W.G. Hefner (D-NC8)           2470 RHOB      225-3715  225-4036
 Peter Visclosky (D-IN1)       2464 RHOB      225-2461  225-2493
 Buddy Darden (D-GA7)          2308 RHOB      225-2931  225-0473
 C.W. Bill Young (R-FL10)      2407 RHOB      225-5961  225-9764
 Bob Livingston (R-LA1)        2368 RHOB      225-3015  225-0739
 Joe Skeen (R-NM2)             2367 RHOB      225-2365  225-9599
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1185 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

Article: 69440
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!wupost!math.ohio-state.edu!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!mindlink.bc.ca!a752
From: [email protected] (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Mass Fractions - Different Viewpoints
Date: 11 Sep 93 19:58:00 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 98
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rsoft.rsoft.bc.ca
 
In the March 1993 issue of Spaceflight (a publication of the British
Interplanetary Society) there is 5 page article by Paul Blase (Virginia, USA)
about the Delta Clipper  - "The First Reusable SSTO Spacecraft".  Blase
writes:
 
"The full scale Delta Clipper will stand 127 feet high and be 30 feet wide at
the base, weigh approximately 80,000 pounds empty, carry 20,000 pounds of
cargo and burn 940,000 pounds of liquid hydrogen and oxygen".
 
In the September issue of Spaceflight there is an interesting letter by Dr.
H. Ruppe (Munich, Germany) who uses these figures to dispute the potential of
the Delta Clipper SSTO to ever reach orbit with any useful payload.  Dr.
Ruppe is the author of a 2 volume textbook on rocketry and space science
(published about 20 years ago - I don't have the exact reference handy) and
is highly regarded in the European aerospace community.  I report his letter
and a reply by Paul Blase for their information content, taking no sides
personally on the issue of DC feasibility.
 
 
Ruppe quotes some figures given in the March 1993 issue of Spaceflight for a
projected DC-1 (the originally published masses are converted to metric tons)
 
Launch mass                        471.8  t
Payload to space station Freedom      9.1 t
Total propellant                    426.4 t
Ascent propellant                   414.7 t
Dry structure mass                   36.3 t
 
 
Ruppe says:
 
"First the good news: the above data are internally consistent" and indicates
that with the given masses, the payload can be delivered assuming SSME
quality propulsion, and an initial thrust to weight ratio of 1.3
 
He then says:
 
"Now the bad news:  our most optimistic mass model gives 56-58 t for the dry
structure, that is 20 to 22 t more than the allocated 36.5 t - even with zero
payload."
 
 
He goes on to say [material in round brackets is in original letter]:
 
" An "expendable" DCE would have about 16 t less dry structure mass and 10 t
less of (return) propellant loading, i.e.
 
Dry structure                       40-42 t
   (very optimistic, I feel; in reality about 49 t)
Propellant loading                  417   t
Launch mass                         471.8 t
Payload                             13-15 t
     ( in reality, perhaps 6 t only)"
 
Ruppe notes that although the expendable would have a positive payload, it
hardly looking promising as a cost saving venture - "It would be of the
utmost poor economy - but this is evident to any Space Cadet reading BIS
publications."
 
 
In a reply to the letter, Mr. Paul Blase states:
 
"The latest source that I have on hand lists the projected dry mass of the
DC-Y [NB not DC-1] as 104,000 lbs (47.2 metric tons) with a fully fueled
launch mass of 1,3000,000 lbs (589.7 metric tons).  The payload is still
projected at 20,000 lbs ( 9 metric tons).  This is still much less than the
56-58 metric tons cited by the writer.  I should note that the Clipper makes
extensive use of advanced composite materials to reduce weight.  Indeed, it
is these NASP-derived materials that make such a vehicle possible."
 
The "structural merit" of the vehicles can be estimated by looking at the
mass fraction, which is the total amount of propellant loaded divided by the
total mass without payload (i.e. what fraction of a fueled vehicle mass is
composed of propellant).  Derived figures for mass fraction are as follows:
 
March Spaceflight article quoting DC-1 masses:
425.2 / 462.7  =  0.912
 
Blase's report of recent DC-Y figures:
542.5 / 589.7 = 0.919
 
Ruppe's estimate of the DC-1 [using 56 ton dry mass]
425.2 / 481.2  =  0.883
 
Ruppe's expendable SSTO [for 40, 42 and 49 ton dry mass]
417 / 457      = 0.918
417 / 459      = 0.908
417 / 466      = 0.895
 
The net result is that MacDonell Douglas is quoting mass fractions of between
0.91 and 0.92 for a reusable vehicle capable of deorbiting and landing, while
Ruppe thinks that it is being optimistic to expect this mass fraction even
for an expendable SSTO that has no landing gear, aerodynamic surfaces, or
thermal protection and which has tanks which do not have to be designed for
dozens of pressurization cycles.
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [email protected]

    DC-X flew for a second time yesterday (September 11th). CNN has been
    showing some footage. More from sci.space as it shows up.
    
    				Cheers,
    				-Abdul-
    

Article: 69512
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:69512 talk.politics.space:3651
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!wupost!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Thank you letter from Dr. Gaubatz of DC team
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 01:41:25 GMT
Lines: 57
 
I just got back from the DC-X test. I assume most of you saw it on
the networks. It was a great flight! While there, the MacDac program
manager, Dr. William Gaubatz, gave me a thank you letter for all of
you who have made phone calls, letters, and briefed your Congresspersons.
Your efforts where much appreciated. Bill Higgins and I are working on a
joint trip report which we should post soon. 
 
The tanks you letter is attached below and I would also like to add my
thanks as well.
 
  Allen
 
----------
 
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
 
Sept 11, 1993
 
Dear Delta Clipper supporters:
 
The first DC-X test flights are now history.  Everyone here at the Clipper Site
in WSMR, New Mexico, is very excited about the flights and believes we will 
have a successful program.  Our vision is being realized by hardware flying.
 
It is fitting that I take this opportunity now to write to each of you
grass-roots supporters who have done so much over the past two years to help
this program along.  Some of you visited your representatives and briefed them
on our work.  Many others wrote letters and made phone calls to members of
Congress and the media.  We know that many key Members of Congress where
impressed by the quantity, understanding, and sincerity of your calls and
letters.  We also know that these calls where, on more than one occasion,
critical in keeping the Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) program alive. To
each and every one of you who worked to make the DC-X1 happen, please accept
the thanks of myself and the members of the Delta Clipper team. We all deeply
appreciate your support and confidence.
 
But at the same time, remember that DC-X1 is not the goal, but a milestone
along the way.  To reach the next milestone of successful flight
demonstrations of the DC-X2 in 1996, we need to make certain that the SSRT
program, so skillfully lead by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BMDO), is continued with the same management style and without interruptions.
If you continue with the same drive you have shown over the past two years, I
have no doubt we will succeed with the DC-X2 and then go on to the DC-1 and
the opening of the space frontier to the public.
 
Sincerely,
 
(signed)
Dr. William A. Gaubatz
Director, Program Manager
Single Stage to Orbit Programs
SSRT/Delta Clipper
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1173 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

Article: 69582
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!avdms8.msfc.nasa.gov!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!fnnews.fnal.gov!fnalv.fnal.gov!higgins
From: [email protected] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Shows Gravity Who's Boss
Date: 13 Sep 93 14:18:02 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov
 
The DC-X flew for the second time Saturday at White Sands Missile
Range in New Mexico, and, as everyone knows by now, a number of
sci.space correspondents were present.  It was thrilling to be there;
I'll have more to say later, but I decided to post this message first. 
I'll steal the subject line from the wonderful headline in Sunday's
*Las Cruces Sun-News*.
 
Below is the text of the attractive color handout given to the press
at the post-flight briefing at 5 PM Saturday afternoon.  This project
has nifty Nineties technology for such things-- it was ready, complete
with little postage-stamp halftone pictures of the flight, six hours
after touchdown.  (Yes, I am aware that this implies there are
computer-readable images, as well as the text, somewhere at White
Sands.  I didn't find out whether we could get the project people to
post them or e-mail them.)  I leave the somewhat eccentric puntuation
as is.
 
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [email protected]
   -   -       Internet:  [email protected]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
==============
 
[tiny colorful SSRT seal here]       [tiny colorful WSMR seal here]
                Near-Real-Time Quick-look Report for
       Single Stage Rocket Technology Low Altitude Flight Test
                         11 September, 1993
 
MISSION OBJECTIVE: to demonstrate the feasibility of a fully reusable,
single stage rocket designed for low cost autonomous operations,
aircraft-like maintenance and vertical takeoff and landing
 
[Note that the scrupulous use of hyphenation in the header has now
been mostly abandoned. --WSH]
 
MISSION OVERVIEW: 
 
--Flight from SSRT site near White Sands Space
Harbor landing strip (Northrup Strip)
 
--Takeoff and land vertically:
 
Vehicle will take off and climb to approximately 300 feet above ground
level.
 
Vehicle will then translate horizontally about 350 feet then descend
to a precise landing on the SSRT site concrete landing pad
 
-- The entire mission including pre-flight and post-flight functions
demonstrates the potential for aircraft-like operations and support
using a cryogenic rocket system.
 
RESULTS:  An autonomous vehicle preparation procedure similar to an
aircraft pre-flight checkout, was begun at 6:18 AM by a minimal number
of vehicle technicians and maintenance personnel, and three vehicle
systems managers using the flight operations control center and ground
support systems.  By 10:04 AM the vehicle was ready to begin automatic
loading of liquid oxygen and hydrogen propellants.  At 10:46 AM the
DC-X system began its final automated internal checks leading to
engine start.  The DC-X took off from its SSRT site launch stand at
11:12:02 MST [I think they mean MDT --WSH], climbed 300 feet above the
lakebed, hovered in place for 3 seconds then began its translation
maneuver by gimballing its engines about 2 degrees providing the
directional control to translate to the landing area.  The DC-X then
gimballed its engines to stop the forward motion, again hovered for 3
seconds, began its descent, lowered its landing gear and performed a
precise controlled landing on the concrete landing pad, 66 seconds
later.  After landing, the DC-X performed autonomous post-landing
safety checks and venting in preparation for the maintenance team to
approach the vehicle.
 
Preliminary data indicates mission was: SUCCESSFUL
 
[5 cm square halftone color picture, caption: "DC-X takes off from
WSMR SSRT site."]
 
Following detailed evaluation of the initial DC-X hover test data
(August 18, 1993) and a thorough vehicle and support system
inspection, the DC-X is shown taking off from its launch stand at the
WSMR SSRT site on September 11, 1993.  The DC-X performed an automated
systems check prior to engine start.  It then autonomously determined
engine readiness fro the flight during the first three seconds after
engine start.  With a 'go-ahead' the vehicle then throttles up and at
about 80 percent of rated thrust, lifts off.
 
[Picture captioned: "DC-X flying horizontally towards landing pad."]
 
Following takeoff the DC-X flew to approximately 300 feet above the
ground, where it hovered for about 3 seconds and began its lateral
translation maneuver.  The DC-X then flew horizontally 350 feet to a
point directly over the landing pad, where it again hovered for about
3 seconds prior to starting its landing phase.  Throughout these
maneuvers the vehicle was gathering aerodynamic, stability, and
control data concerning the low speed vertical and horizontal flight
regime.
 
[Picture captioned: "DC-X in final descent, gear down, for landing."]
 
Once into its descent for landing phase, the vehicle lowered its
landing gear and performed a powered, precise soft landing within 3.5
feet right and 1.5 feet short of the landing pad center.  With a
'weight-on-gear' indication the vehicle shut down its engines and
began its self safing process in preparation for the small, six to
severn person, post-flight recovery crew to arrive.
 
[Picture captioned: "SSRT post-flight recovery crew with DC-X"] 
 
As with any aircraft the recovery crew performed its post-flight
inspection and began cryogenic propellant off-load depressurization.
This initiated the DC-X turnaround process which readies the vehicle
for another flight.  During this entire mission, pre-flight through
post-flight, data were being successfully gathered on the operation of
the SSRT systems and subsystems as well as the entire DC-X system
maintainability and supportability.
    

Article: 69584
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:69584 talk.politics.space:3662
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: DC Funding update
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 19:26:36 GMT
Lines: 15
 
Last week I reported that the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee
had appropriated the full $75 million for SSRT. However, I found out 
at the test flight that they had to cut another $3 billion and thus
only $40M was allocated to SSRT.
 
This may not be bad news since that is enough to get started and there
will be opportunities to transfer the rest later from someplace else.
 
  Allen
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1172 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

Article: 4554
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!caen!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: [email protected]
Subject: DC-X Background 9/13/93
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Followup-To: sci.space
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 07:59:30 GMT
Approved: [email protected]
Lines: 228
 
[Apologies for the mixup last week where we posted the Update instead of this
Background piece. -HV]
 
                             DC-X Background
 
       Copyright 1993 by Henry Vanderbilt and Space Access Society.
 
This is a companion piece to our more-or-less weekly "Space Access Update". 
We're splitting this off for the convenience of those who've already seen the
background material.  The background material will occasionally be updated;
most recent change dates for both the Hardware and Politics sections are
included.  
 
 
         DC-X Hardware Background (last changed August 28th 1993)
 
DC-X is a low-speed flight regime testbed for a proposed reusable rocket-
powered Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) transport, McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace's
"Delta Clipper".  DC-X is intended to prove out rocket-powered vertical
takeoff, nose-first lifting-body to tail-first flight transition, and tail-
first landing.  It is also intended to prove out rapid turnaround of a
reusable rocket by a minimal ground support crew.  DC-X is being tested and
flown by approximately thirty people.
 
DC-X has already pretty much proved out rapid low-cost development of an
advanced aerospace X-vehicle type engineering testbed by a small highly-
motivated engineering team on a tight budget.  DC-X was built by less than
two hundred people, in less than two years, for about $60 million.  Of
course, this sort of thing has been done before -- just not recently.  
 
DC-X stands 40 feet tall, is 13 feet across the base, and is roughly cone-
shaped, with a circular cross-section forward blending into a square base. 
The vehicle has four maneuvering flaps, one set into each side near the base,
and sits on four landing legs.  DC-X masses 22,300 lbs empty and 41,630 lbs
fully fuelled, and is powered by four 13,500 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney RL-10-
A5 liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rocket motors, each able to gimbal +- 8
degrees.  The RL-10-A5 is a special version of the RL-10-A designed for wide
throttling range (30% to 100%) and sea-level operation.  
 
The single DC-X vehicle was officially rolled out of its construction hangar
at MDA's Huntington Beach CA plant at the start of April, then trucked out to
White Sands, New Mexico for ground and then flight tests.  
 
Between Thursday, May 20th and Thursday, June 17th, DC-X underwent a series
of nine engine firings/vehicle systems exercises, including two firings in
one day with complete defueling/vehicle servicing/refueling in between.  
 
On Friday, June 18th, the DC-X crew began breaking down the ground support
equipment and moving it to the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) flight test
site, a distance of about fifty miles.  Meanwhile DC-X was stored in a hangar.  
 
On Friday, July 16th, the ground support equipment move was completed.  DC-X
was taken out of storage, trucked out to the flight test site, and hoisted
upright onto its launch pad.  
 
On Monday, July 19th, the DC-X crew began running a series of ground tests to
make sure everything had made it over intact and was hooked back together
properly.  
 
On Wednesday, August 18th, at 4:43 pm MDT, DC-X made its first flight, a
"bunny hop" stability test that involved climbing 150 feet vertically,
hovering, translating slowly sideways 350 feet, then landing vertically.  The
rocket was under precise control throughout, appearing to move almost as if
on rails, and landed within six inches of the target.  
 
 
               Contacting Your Congressman: Hints and Tips
 
We regularly ask you to phone, fax, or write Representatives A and B or
Senator C, and ask them to support X, Y, and Z.  Here's some tips on how to
do so painlessly and effectively.  
 
Keep phone calls brief, polite, and to the point - tell whoever answers (very
likely an underpaid, overworked staffer who's never heard of what you're
supporting) that you're calling to let them know you support $80 million in
funding next year for BMDO's SSRT ("Single Stage Rocket Technology") program,
and if you feel like it, throw in your favorite reason why this would be a
good thing.  If the person who answers wants to know more, answer their
questions as best you can, otherwise thank them and ring off.
 
Letters, whether via USPS or fax, should also be brief, polite, and to the
point, though you can go into a bit more detail as to why a DC-X followon is
the neatest thing since sliced bread and good for the country too.  Keep it
under a page and state your basic point at the start, so if they're in a
hurry they can figure out what you're trying to tell them with a quick scan.  
 
Don't overdo it, but in general try to know who you're contacting and
emphasize benefits likely to appeal to them, given their positions on the
political spectrum.  Don't give them a laundry list; pick one or two reasons
to support SSRT and explain them succinctly in your own words.  
 
Future US aerospace technological competitiveness plus stemming the ongoing
US loss of international space launch marketshare should appeal to just about
anyone.  Reusable launchers in general promise an order-of-magnitude or more
reduction in launch costs, and SX-2 would demonstrate technologies applicable
to any reusable launcher, not just Delta Clipper.
 
Some benefits worth mentioning:
 
 - defense conversion benefits due to the dual-use nature of SSTO technology.
   (civilian space launch applications)
 - economic benefits of improved US international aerospace competitiveness.
   (We used to have 100% of the international launch market.  That's dropped
   to 40%, losing us billions each year.  Cheaper launch will let us compete.)
 - environmental benefits of reusable hydrogen-powered rockets. (no scrap
   metal dumped downrange, nothing but water vapor for exhaust)
 - the economic benefits to (Colorado, New Mexico, California, Florida,
   Arizona, etc) of launch vehicles operable from or built in that state.
 - if you're so inclined, the benefit of diverting DOD funds that might
   otherwise go for weapons R&D.  
 - if you're so inclined, the security benefits of cheap rapid assured access
   to space for monitoring of rapidly changing situations.
 
 
   DC-X Followon: Political Background (last changed August 28th 1993)
 
The current DC-X program is funded through flight test and data analysis this
fall, and ends after that.  There is an ongoing effort to get the US Congress
to fund a three-year followon program, currently called SX-2 (Space
Experimental 2).  This tentatively looks like being a reusable suborbital
vehicle powered by 8 RL-10-A5 engines, capable of reaching Mach 6 (about 1/4
orbital velocity) and 100 miles altitude, built with orbital-weight tanks and
structure, and able to test orbital grade heat-shielding.  
 
The SX-2 program goal will be to demonstrate all remaining technology needed
to build a reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.  Once SX-2 has been
tested, all that should be necessary to produce a functioning reusable SSTO
is to scale up the SX-2 structures and install more powerful rocket engines.
 
[Developing such engines in parallel to SX-2 is likely to be SAS's next big
push.  Existing engines could work for an orbital proof-of-concept vehicle,
but new engines optimized for SSTO operations would be preferable -HV]
 
Proposed FY '94 funding for SX-2 startup is $75 million.  Total SX-2 program
cost over the next three years would be very much dependent on the contractor
chosen and the details of the design, but would be on the order of several
hundred million.  This is the same order of magnitude as typical recent X-
aircraft programs such as the X-29 and X-31.
 
The $75 million SX-2 startup money now looks like being added to the Advanced
Research Project Agency (ARPA) budget, with at least some of the funding in
following years to come from other interested arms of the government.  SX-2
would still be run by the current BMDO (formerly SDIO) DC-X management team,
even though funded via ARPA, at least under the current House version of the
FY '94 Defense Authorization Bill.  
 
The House of Representatives now seems favorably disposed toward SX-2.  The
biggest hurdle ahead this year will probably be convincing the Senate to go
along when the House-Senate conference committee meets to work out the
differences between the two versions of next year's Defense budget.  
 
 ** This is the section of the House Defense Authorization Bill approved at
 ** the start of August that covers DC-X (SSRT) Followon.  
 
Section 217, Single Stage Rocket Technology
 
(a) Program Funding -- the Secretary of Defense shall establish a Single
Stage Rocket Technology program and shall provide funds for that program
within funds available for the Advanced Research Projects Agency.  That
program shall be managed within the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense
for Acquisition.  
 
(b) Funding -- Of the amount appropriated pursuant to section 201 for
Defense-wide activities, $79,880,000 shall be available for, and may be
obligated only for, Single Stage Rocket Technology.  
 
 ** This is the section of the report accompanying the House Defense
 ** Authorization Bill that covers DC-X Followon.  The report language is
 ** intended to clarify the intent of the bill.
 
 From The House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services
 Report on the FY '94 Defense Department  Authorization Bill, H.R. 2401
 H. Rpt. 103-200, 103rd Congress, 3rd Session; July 30th, 1993, pp. 172-173
 
Single Stage Rocket Technology
 
The budget request included $4.88 million for single stage rocket technology
(SSRT), also known as single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO), within the Ballistic
Missile Defense Office (BMDO) follow-on technologies program to complete the
final testing in phase one of the program.
 
The United States spends over $30 billion each year on space programs.  Yet,
unlike many other commercial activities that have benefitted and achieved
greater efficiencies from military research and development, U.S. commercial
launch costs are at least twice -- and in some instances as much as ten times
-- the costs of foreign competitors.  Similarly, it takes the United States at
least four times as long to provide launch services to any given user.
 
The Congress must remain skeptical and avoid fully embracing the sometimes
overly optimistic claims regarding SSRT/SSTO technology.  Yet, if the United
States is to regain its international competitiveness in this critically
important military and economic area, it must pursue promising enabling space
launch technologies that have the potential of dramatic reductions in launch
costs.  
 
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following:
 
(1) Transitioning SSRT/SSTO from BMDO to a "Space Launch Technology" program
element within the Advanced Research Projects Agency.  
 
(2) Continuing with the current management team.
 
(3) Adding an additional $75 million to begin phase two of the program.
 
(4) Conducting an open competition among aerospace companies for phase two of
the program.  
 
(5) Examining options for DOD, other government agencies/departments, and
industry cost sharing opportunities.  
 
None of the additional funds recommended to be authorized may be obligated
until the congressional defense committees have been provided with a phase
two program plan outlining objectives and technical milestones and certifying
that funding support has been established for fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
 
 ** End of report excerpt
 
 
 Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 Executive Director,                in the Solar System."
 Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
 [email protected]                    "You can't get there from here."
 602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
    

Article: 69822
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!bcm!aio!kjenks
From: [email protected]
Subject: DC-X Fact Sheet
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected] (USENET News Client)
Organization: NASA/JSC/DE44, Mission Operations, Space Station Systems 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 18:24:55 GMT
Lines: 150
 
(Note: I scanned this, then used Optical Character Recognition
and manual clean-up.  This process tends to induce errors in
the text, so don't count on this as gospel.  -- Ken Jenks)
 
DC-X Fact Sheet
Office of External Affairs, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
Washington, D.C. 20301-7100  (703) 695-8743
 
 
Single Stage Rocket Technology Program
 
Background
  
  The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's Single Stage Rocket 
  Technology (SSRT) program is chartered to demonstrate the 
  practicality, reliability, operability and cost efficiency of a 
  fully reusable, rapid turnaround single stage rocket, with the 
  ultimate goal of aircraft-like operations of reusable launch 
  vehicles (RLVs).
  
  The program is focused on using existing technologies and systems 
  to demonstrate the feasibility of building both suborbital and 
  orbital RLVs which are able to fly into space, return to the 
  launch site, and be serviced and ready for the next mission within 
  three days. Such a suborbital RLV could potentially support many 
  of BMDO's planned suborbital system tests and experiments.
  
  As part of the program, BMDO has built an experimental suborbital 
  launch vehicle, officially designated the SX-1 (Spaceplane 
  Experimental), but known as the DC-X (Delta Clipper-Experimental). 
  Flight testing is scheduled to be conducted in mid 1993 at White 
  Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico. The DC-X is designed to 
  take off vertically and return to land in the same attitude. The 
  DC-X is not designed as an operational vehicle capable of 
  achieving orbital flight. Its purpose is to test the feasibility 
  of both suborbital and orbital RLVs.
 
Phases
  
  The SSRT program consists of three phases. Phase I began in August 
  1990 and consisted of a $12 million design and risk reduction 
  competition. At that time, the program was focused on multiple 
  single stage-to-orbit concepts which were found to be potentially 
  viable, including vertical take off and landing (VTOL), horizontal 
  takeoff and landing (HTOL) and vertical takeoff and horizontal 
  landing (VTHL) configurations. Following completion of Phase I, a 
  two-year $60 million Phase II contract was competitively awarded 
  to McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, Huntington Beach, Calif., in 
  August 1991. The program was subsequently restructured and focused 
  on building the DC-X and enabling suborbital RLVs for potential 
  use by BMDO. The DC-X design emphasizes simplified ground and 
  flight operations, vehicle maintenance, rapid turnaround, and 
  operational characteristics that are also relevant to future 
  orbital vehicles. For example, the highly automated control center 
  for this system is manned by only three people: two for flight 
  operations and one for ground operations and servicing.
  Successful completion of the DC-X testing in mid 1993 will form 
  the basis for a Phase III "go/no go" decision by the Department of 
  Defense to develop a follow-on Advanced Technology Demonstrator 
  for support of flight tests and experiments.  If a decision is 
  made to proceed with Phase III, the program will be transferred to 
  another agency.
 
DC-X
  
  Since August 1991, BMDO and McDonnell Douglas have been proceeding 
  with the design and fabrication of the DC-X as well as the 
  planning activities for the vehicle system and subsystem ground 
  and flight tests. A systems ground test facility has been 
  activated at NASA's White Sands Test Facility (WSTF), and a launch 
  and recovery site at WSMR.  The completed DC-X vehicle is 
  undergoing testing on a modified propulsion test stand at the WSTF 
  prior to flight testing at WSMR. Maintenance and ground support 
  techniques required for the flight test phase of the program will 
  be tested, evaluated and refined at WSTF.  The aircraft-like 
  flight test program, planned to start in mid 1993, will begin with 
  low altitude hover flights, gradually increasing in altitude and 
  duration, and lead to suborbital flights to approximately 18,000 
  feet. Throughout the DC-X ground and flight test series, 
  demonstration of low cost operations, vehicle operability, 
  reliability, supportability and maintainability directly linked to 
  follow-on operational vehicles are the prime factors for 
  determining program success.
 
Program Management
  
  Program Manager for the SSRT Program is Major Jess Sponable, U.S. 
  Air Force.  The prime contractor is McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, 
  Huntington Beach, Calif.  Subcontractors include the following: 
  Douglas Aircraft, Long Beach, Calif.; McDonnell Douglas Aerospace-
  East and McDonnell Douglas Research Laboratories, St. Louis, Mo.; 
  Aerojet Propulsion Division, Sacramento, Calif.; Allied Signal 
  Aerospace Co., Torrance, Calif.; Chicago Bridge and Iron Services, 
  Inc., Oak Brook, Ill.; Deutsche Aerospace, Munich, Germany; 
  General Connector, San Fernando, Calif; Harris Corp., Rockledge, 
  Fla.; Honeywell Clearwater, Fla.; Integrated Systems, Santa Clara, 
  Calif.; Martin Marietta, Denver, Colo.; Pratt and Whitney 
  Government Engines and Space Division, West Palm Beach, Fla.; 
  Process Fabrication, Inc., Santa Fe Springs, Calif.; Scaled 
  Composites, Mojave, Calif.; and SpaceGuild, San Carlos, Calif.
  (Current as of April 1993)
 
DC-X Specifications
 
Size
  
  40 feet high, 13l/3feet at base, conical shape
 
Weight
  
  Empty: 20,0001bs With full load of propellants: 41,600 lbs
 
Propellants
  
  Liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen
 
Propulsion
  
  Four RL-lOA5 rocket engines, each generating 13,500 lbs thrust. 
  Each engine throttleable from 30% to lOO%.  Each gimbals +/-8 
  degrees.
 
Reaction Controls
  
  Four 440-lb thrust gaseous oxygen, gaseous hydrogen thrusters
  Guidance, Navigation and Control Avionics
  Advanced 32 bit, 4.5 mips computer, F-15 Navigation System with 
  ring laser gyros. F/A-18 accelerometer and rate gyro package. 
  Global Positioning Satellite P(Y) code receiver. Digital data 
  telemetry system. Radar altimeter.
 
Hydraulic System
  
  Standard hydraulic aircraft-type system to drive vehicle's five 
  aerodynamic flaps and eight engine gimbal actuators (two per 
  engine).
 
Construction Materials
  
  - Aeroshell and base heat shield: Graphic Epoxy composite with 
      special silicone-based thermal protection coating
  - Main propellant tanks: 2219 alloy aluminum
  - Main structural supports: aluminum
  - Landing gear: steel and titanium
 
-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/DE44, Mission Operations, Space Station Systems
      [email protected]  (713) 483-4368
 
     "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
        -- Clarke's Law

Article: 69827
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!aio!kjenks
From: [email protected]
Subject: DC-X Trip Report
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected] (USENET News Client)
Organization: NASA/JSC/DE44, Mission Operations, Space Station Systems 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 18:59:28 GMT
Lines: 198
 
(I apologize if this results in multiple postings, but I'm having
a few problems cross-posting this.  I'm trying it one group at a 
time....  -- KJ)
 
I'm posting this in sci.space for all those interested in the Delta
Clipper/Experimental (DC-X), which is a Single Stage Rocekt Technology
prototype developed for the Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO) by
MacDonnell-Douglas (MDAC).  I'm also posting this in
rec.aviation.stories for those interested in the flying part.
 
09/10/93, 2325 CDT 
I met my flight instructor, J.L. Cavallera, at the Ellington Field Aero
Club.  There was a motorcycle cop hanging around the entrance to the
Club, but I didn't think much about it.  J.L. had already filed an IFR
flight plan for the Grumman Tiger, N28446, and he'd done the pre-flight
inspection.  (I did my own pre-flight, too.)  While we were talking, a
couple of unmarked sedans cruised slowly up the field past us.  J.L.
told me that President Clinton was flying in soon in Air Force One, and
that these guys were Secret Service.  When we were ready, we called EFD
ground control, but they asked us to hold our position, so we watched
the two jets land on runway 17R.  (The first one presumably holds the
armored limo and Secret Service-types, and the second jet was the older
B707 Air Force One.)  Air Force One landed w-a-y long on the runway; I
expect better piloting from the guys who fly our President around.
J.L. and I didn't stick around to see the off-loading.  
 
The Tiger is a whole lot more responsive than the Cessna 150 I usually
fly (N5977G), so it took me a little while to get accostomed to the
controls, but soon we vectored out over Houston and up through Austin
(the State Capitol building was nicely lit), and landed to refuel at
Midland, Texas.  J.L. had called ahead to confirm that we'd be able to
get AvGas at 0300, but we couldn't find the FBO (the gas station).
After cruising the utterly empty taxiways and even the runways for 30
minutes or so, we finally found a phone in the fire station, so we
called the Triton FBO, woke up the attendant, and got him to fuel us
up.
 
J.L. slept for a while while I flew from VOR to VOR across west Texas
and into New Mexico.  We flew on in to Las Cruces International at 0545
MDT.  The night watchman at the Las Cruces UNICOM told us the cabs
didn't start running until about 0700 -- this would be very bad, since
we were due at the Las Cruces Onate High School at 0630.  The approach
into Las Cruces was pretty strange.  We had the airport in sight, and
El Paso flight watch told us we could land on runway 26, but UNICOM
told us runway 35.  We did a LORAN approach into 35, and the runway
lights came on when we were about 2 miles out.  But all we saw was the
lights leading up to the displaced threshold, and a couple of red
lights in the distance -- no lights on the runway itself.  Trusting
that there would indeed be a runway down there somewhere, and keeping
the option open of landing on runway 26, we came on down.  From about
100 yards away, our landing lights finally revealed the numbers for 35,
so down we went.  (Don't try this at home.  When we had doubts about
the runway, we should have asked UNICOM, and stayed in the air until we
knew exactly where we should land.)  We were on the ground at 0545 MDT.
 
While J.L. did the post-flight and tied down the Tiger, I called the
cab.  Fortunately, the cabs really did run 24 hours, and after picking
us up at 0600, the cab driver managed to get us to Onate High School in
a speed-limit-straining 25 minutes.  (I gave him a healthy tip.)
 
09/11/93, 0625 MDT
J.L. and I were surprised to see more than a dozen busses in front of a
beautiful, modern high school.  Somehow, I expected two crummy old army
busses, but these were Greyhound-style coaches.  We checked in at the
MDAC desk, where Jan Thiessen welcomed us briefly, gave us each a
badge, an information packet (I'll scan mine and post it later), and a
staw hat with a "DC-X" hat band.  (Mine was a little too small for my
fat head, but it did provide some protection from the NM sun.  It was a
great gimme for the launch!)
 
J.L. and I boarded bus #9; I didn't recognize anybody on board.  Our
guide, Lt. Tronti, USA, had an intermittent commentary telling us about
a little about the high school (they have a MacDonald's for a
cafeteria) and the town of Las Cruces, then later a little about the
White Sands Missile Range.  (You'll see most of it when I post the
information packet later on.)
 
After an hour's ride, we got to the bleachers, tents and trailers about
3.1 miles from the DC-X launch stand.  WSMR had a very impressive set
of logistics put together to support us visitors.  There were munchies
(biscuits, apples, oranges, banannas, and cookies) and drinkables
(orange juice, soft drinks, bottled water and coffee) in the VIP tent;
I assume there were similar amenities in the Press Tent.  The VIP tent
also had telephones; after a bit of experimentation I finally got a
call through to my wife, Lisa, to tell her I had arrived safely.  There
was also a Video Tent where, we were told, we could gather after the
launch to see the details we'd miss by being 3.1 miles away.  All in
all, WSMR obviously knows how to treat visitors who come to watch
rocket launches in the desert.  (KSC take note.)
 
The loudspeaker system let us know that there would be a delay due to a
glitch in a ground support computer, so I wandered around to find
people I knew.  I met up with Marianne Dyson, who is the president of
the local chapter of the National Space Sociey and a professional
science fiction writer.  You may remember her story in Analog a while
back about a contingency de-orbit in a space shuttle which had some
problems retrieving a military satellite.  She's also published some
poetry in Analog.  (Plug, plug.)  Marianne introduced me to Jerry
Pournelle as Ken Jenks from NASA/Johnson.  He paused, then said, "So,
you're the enemy."  I just smiled.  Actually, I had met Jerry at a
science fiction convention long, long ago, but he obviously didn't
remember.  I also met G. Harry Stine, Max Hunter, and that Zubrin
fellow.  I told Zubrin we had been talking about his Mars Direct on the
Internet.  He knew what Internet is, but he didn't know we'd been
talking about his ideas.  (I oughta hang around with Marianne more
often; she knows nifty people.)  I also ran into one of my co-workers,
Ted Kenny, who works in my section at JSC.
 
During this long delay, J.L. and I wandered into the Video Tent where
we met a reporter from AvLeak (I'm sorry -- I don't remember his
name).  He had a Radio Shack hand-held scanner which was tuned to the
comm channel the DC-X folks were using to discuss their launch.  We
heard on that channel that there was a problem with a valve in a "skid"
which turned out to be a piece of ground support equipment (GSE).
(Next time I go to one of these things, I'll bring Gerry Creagor and
some of his radios.)
 
Eventually, they fixed (or ignored!) the intermittent problems with the
GSE and got the bird tanked up.  Around 11 AM (my watch was still set
on CDT, so I'm not exactly sure of the time) we finally got a
countdown, so we returned to our seats.  The folks sitting behind me in
the bleachers were MDAC folks who were on the DC-X design team.  We
chatted about RCS jets for a while -- DC-X uses the world's first
hydrogen/oxygen, throttleable reaction control system, as opposed to
the fixed-thrust (non-throttleable) hydrazine jets used by most
spacecraft.  The DC-X's H2/O2 jets use gaseous H2 & O2, but in the
final vehicle, they'll be fed off of the main liquid H2 & O2 tanks.
 
Meanwhile, out on the launch stand (note: NOT launch pad) white smoke
bloomed around the vehicle as condensation from cryogenic hydrogen
rose in the desert air.  The MDAC folks explained that they were 
using liquid hydrogen to cool down the RL-10 engines before ignition;
I replied that we do the same thing for Shuttle engines.
 
The countdown was announced on the PA system.  
 
At T-0, orange flames shot out from the base of the vehicle in the
distance, then white smoke billowed, momentarilly obscuring the
rocket.  The DC-X rose smoothly off the pad, with yellow flames
covering the launch stand.  As the vehicle cleared the pad, the yellow
flames died away, and the DC-X balanced on the bluish flames of the
hydrogen/oxygen engines.  After a few seconds of upward motion, the
DC-X stopped(!) and hovered in place over the launch stand.  It then
started moving s-l-o-w-l-y toward the bleachers.  I could see small
puffs of vapor from the sides of the vehicle as the RCS jets exerted
their control authority.  About this time, the sound of the launch
reached the bleachers.  The rocket stopped again and hovered briefly,
then DROPPED toward the ground.  The exhaust plumes turned yellow
again, and clouds of smoke and dust kicked up on the ground.  (I
learned later that the yellow flames were caused by interaction between
the exhaust plume and an ablative paint on the concrete around the
launch stand and landing area.)  The landing gear deployed, with one
landing skid just a fraction of a second late.  The cloud loomed up
around the vehicle, almost obscuring the landing.  In a splash of
orange flame, the DC-X touched down smoothly.  The crowd broke into
cheers and applause.
 
As the smoke cleared away, one of the MDAC folks behind me said, sotto
voce, "See?  It really is reusable!"
 
J.L. and I quickly adjourned to the Video Tent to watch the instant
replays.  On the TV monitor, we could see a whole lot more detail,
like control surface movements and flames licking up the sides of
the vehicle.  After watching a few replays from different angles,
we went back to the bleachers.  The brass came out and gave a few
speeches.  Pete Conrad gave a succinct synopsis of the test flight,
including the pre-flight anomalies, and a give-em-hell speech.
 
After the speeches, J.L. and I arranged for Ted Kenney to give us a
ride from Onate High School back to Las Cruces International (Ted had a
rent-a-heap parked back at the high school).  We got back on bus #9,
and I even caught a brief nap on the ride.  
 
09/11/93, 1445 MDT
Ted picked up his friend, Cathy Furgiuele, who works at Krug Life
Sciences in Houston.  (Ted had been unable to arrange a ticket for
Cathy, so she had to hang out in the hotel during the launch.  What a
bummer.)  We found ourselves a Subway restaurant in a truck stop for a
late lunch, then Ted and Cathy dropped us off at the airport.  Our
flight back to Houston was mostly uneventful, but we were passed by at
T-38 out of Ellington whom the El Paso flight watch clocked at 630
knots airspeed.  That's flying!
 
I'll post some of the press kit information I picked up at WSMR in
sci.space.  I'll close with one of my favorite quotes.
 
-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/DE44, Mission Operations, Space Station Systems
      [email protected]  (713) 483-4368
 
     "Even considering the improvements possible... the gas
      turbine could hardly be considered a feasible application to
      airplanes because of the difficulty of complying with the
      stringent weight requirements."
	-- US National Academy of Sciences, 1940
 
     "It may not be possible to build a vehicle with single-stage-
      to-orbit capability in the mid 1990s."
        -- US National Academy of Sciences, 1990

Article: 69910
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:69910 talk.politics.space:3685
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: SSRT Senate Alert
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 13:44:13 GMT
Lines: 42
 
 
 
There was a breakfast briefing for the Senate last Tuesday. Representatives
from about 10 Senators came and where briefed on SSRT. It sparked many
followon efforts and we need letters and phone calls to help with the
followup. 
 
The Senators to contact are:
      Name            Address   Phone (AC 202)    Fax (AC 202)
1. Sam Nunn           SD 303    225-3521          225-0072
2. James Exon *       SR 217    225-4224          225-5213
3. Strom Thurmond **  SR 217    225-5972          225-1300
4. Robert Byrd ***    SH 311    225-3954          225-8070
 
* To those of you who called, thanks. We hear his office was swamped
with calls on this. There are indications the pressure is working so
let's keep it up!
 
** Thurmond should only be written to and called if you live in South
Carolinia. If you live elsewhere, concentrate on Nunn and Exon. If you
live in SC, PLEASE call and write to express your support.
 
*** At least some fo Byrd's staff are very excited about this program. We
only need letters from West Virginia here.
 
Some talking points:
 
1. The SSRT program is producing results for very small amounts of money.
2. Only $75M is needed for next year and total costs are $300 to $400M.
   Point out that this number is reliable since the program has a track
   record of producing flying hardware on time and on budget.
3. This project has support of the Air Force up to and including the Chief
   of staff.
 
  Thanks
  Allen
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1169 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

Article: 69921
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:69921 talk.politics.space:3686
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: ERROR CORRECTION (was Re: SSRT Senate Alert)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 15:20:52 GMT
Lines: 12
 
In my recent post on Senators to write I gave the phone numbers as
224-XXXX. They should be 224-XXXX.
 
Sorry about that!
 
  Allen
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1169 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

Article: 69961
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!ra!cs.umd.edu!skates.gsfc.nasa.gov!s224cr!xrcjd
From: [email protected] (Charles J. Divine)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NSS Alert on SSRT, Space Station
Date: 16 Sep 1993 21:27:41 GMT
Organization: NASA/GSFC Greenbelt Maryland
Lines: 18
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: s224cr.gsfc.nasa.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 
These two alerts are official NSS alerts.
 
We are asking everyone to contact their two Senators and urge support
for the space station project.
 
We are asking everyone in the country to contact Senator Daniel
Inouye of Hawaii and urge him to support full funding ($79 million)
for the SSRT project.  Senator Inouye's FAX number is  1-202-224-6747.
His telephone number is 1-202-224-3934.
 
Both projects will be voted on next Tuesday in the afternoon.  The
space station project will be voted on by the whole Senate.  SSRT is
being voted on by Inouye's subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
 
Thank you for your assistance.
-- 
Chuck Divine

Article: 4569
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl!ames!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: [email protected]
Subject: Space Access Update 9/20/93
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Followup-To: sci.space
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 22:56:08 GMT
Approved: [email protected]
Lines: 311
 
                     Space Access Update #20  9/20/93
                         (Formerly "DC-X Update")
                 Copyright 1993 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's semi-weekly publication. 
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all,
period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever point
looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting BMDO's "SSRT" (Single Stage
Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its planned-but-not-yet-funded followon,
SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely about the
technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2.
 
We anticipate a change of focus in a couple of months, if all goes well. 
Once SX-2 startup funding is (with your help!) assured, we plan to begin
working on establishment of a healthy second X-rocket development track at
NASA, and on getting development of suitable engines started for the fully
reusable orbital ships that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.
 
With luck and hard work, we should see one or more fully reusable SSTO
testbeds flying to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production
prototypes entering test a couple of years after that.  Join us and help us
make this happen.
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
(For more info on Space Access Society, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150,
 Phoenix AZ 85044, or email [email protected])
 
[Editors note -- For those of you seeing this for the first time who need a
bit more context, look for the subsequent post titled "DC-X Background". -HV]
 
 
DC-X Test Program Status
 
The long version of our trip report from the DC-X Invitational will have to
wait a bit longer; we're just finishing recovering from the King Kong Cold we
caught on the road, and we also had to burn some time last week responding to
skullduggery in the Senate cloakroom.  SAS members, see your private addendum;
the rest of you will have to wait a bit for the inside scoop.  (Hey, we have
to give the paying members some extra consideration, after all.)
 
Meanwhile, some odds and ends of fact we've gleaned:
 
 - DC-X's sides (and now the nose) are coated with a heat-resistant paint good
 to about 500 F.  Maintenance between flights consists of scrubbing off soot
 and scorch marks, according to one DC-X crew member with "Simple Green"
 household cleanser!  The lighter gray circles and bars visible on one side of
 the rocket are where the US flag, "McDonnell-Douglas", BMDO and SSRT decals
 were burnt off during static engine test firings this spring.
 
 - The launch stand and landing pad areas are not bare concrete after all. 
 They are coated with an ablative paint of some sort; this paint produces the
 orange glow seen at takeoff and landing, as the rocket plumes boil it off.
 (Thanks, Ken Jenks)  That orange glow, by the way, is startlingly vivid seen
 in person, not the washed out pale color seen on a video monitor with the
 color intensity turned back a bit.
 
 - DC-X's RCS (Reaction Control System) gaseous H2/O2 control jets have not
 been fired in flight yet.  They're used primarily for roll axis control and
 haven't been needed in the short flights so far.  The jets of vapor seen from
 near the base of the vehicle in flight are vented cold gas.  
 
 - DC-X's RL-10-a5 engines have been fired on at least 13 occasions since
 vehicle testing started this spring, with no overhaul.  Inspections have shown
 some signs of corrosion in the hot sections, but nothing that will get in the
 way of continued flight testing.
 
 - The DC-X flight test program is perilously short of money.  They have to pay
 for things ranging from commercial delivery of propellant cryogens and
 pressurization/purge gases, to White Sands Missile Range support services, and
 if the $4.88 million for FY'94 flight test continuation doesn't come through,
 they could end up shutting down well before they're done the planned tests.
 
 - The next flight of DC-X is still tentatively set for the end of this month.
 
In other news, there is a behind-the-scenes debate brewing among SX-2
supporters as to how ambitious the program should be.  All parties agree that
initially SX-2 should use the same RL-10-a5 engines as DC-X to avoid delays and
development risk.  The less conservative faction (SAS included) wants the SX-2
vehicle(s) designed with oversize tanks and structures so that once more
powerful engines are available, at least one SX-2 can be upgraded to near-
orbital capability.  Possibly, fingers crossed, if everything goes right, no
payload, no promises, upgraded to the point where it can actually make a
minimal orbit and return in one piece.  
 
The more conservative types are sensibly cautious about promising too much on
a limited budget, and have a very good point in that it would be far too easy
for the perception to arise that anything short of orbit is failure.  Such a
perception was one of the factors that turned NASP into an endless study
program, after all.
 
Finally, SAS has a fair collection of DC-X related video and will be offering
compendium tapes for sale soon in VHS only.  We already have tape of the first
flight and of an extended BMDO background piece on SSRT, and we expect to have
footage from the second flight plus video of DC-X talks given recently at the
Worldcon in the next day or two.  Email [email protected] or write us at
SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044 for more info.  Prices will be
nominal; SAS members will get a discount because they're already paying for
part of our overhead.  
 
 
Politics: DC-X Followon ("SX-2") Funding Update - Midseason Review
 
Backgrounder: The Funding Process
 
The Congressional funding process has two phases, "Authorization", then
"Appropriation".  Authorization is roughly equivalent to drawing up a shopping
list for the coming year, while Appropriation can be looked at as going
through the shopping list deciding how much of each item to actually buy.
Authorized budget items are often reduced or deleted in the Appropriations
process, but seldom increased, and new items are rarely added.  
 
The Congress debates and passes "Authorizations" and "Appropriations" bills
for each major area of government, about a dozen pairs of bills in all.  The
ones we're concerned with are the Defense Department (DOD) Authorizations and
Appropriations bills.  DOD happened to be where the necessary money and
management style was when DC-X was getting started up.  
 
Both the House of Representatives with 435 members elected in population based
districts, and the Senate with 100 members elected two per state, draw up and
pass their own versions of each "Authorizations" and "Appropriations" bill.  
 
Authorizations bills generally originate in the appropriate specialized
committees within the House and Senate, in this case the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees (HASC and SASC).  Appropriations Bills generally originate
in specialized subcommittees of the powerful House and Senate Appropriations
Committees (HAC and SAC), in this case the HAC and SAC Defense Subcommittees.  
 
Each bill will generally go from the subcommittee that drafts it, to the full
committee that "marks it up" (modifies it), then to the full House or Senate
that will amend it and approve it in "floor votes", votes of all members.
 
At this point, there will be two separate versions of the bill, House and
Senate.  There are a number of ways to come up with a common version for final
passage into law, but the method that concerns us is the "Conference
Committee", a committee with members from both House and Senate whose job is
to negotiate a compromise version.  The Conference version is then near-
automatically approved by both House and Senate, thus becoming law.  
 
A Conference Committee is usually made up of selected members from the House
and Senate committees that wrote the bills in the first place.  Generally the
committee and subcommittee heads plus their minority party counterparts (the
"Ranking Republican Members" or RRM's on each committee and subcommittee) are
automatically included.  The House and Senate don't necessarily send equal
numbers, since Conference Committee approval requires a majority among the
House members plus a majority among the Senate members - an overall majority
of Conference Committee members is not enough.  
 
 
Current Status Of SX-2 ("SSRT Followon") Funding
 
 -- Authorizations
 
The House Defense Authorization includes $79.88 million for SSRT next year,
$4.88 million for DC-X flight testing and $75 million for startup of the SX-2
followon to DC-X.  This is what we're working to get in the final budget.
 
The Senate Defense Authorization includes a $30 million line item, to be
divided among SSRT, NASP, and Spacelifter as DOD decides.  This is not great,
but better than nothing.  Senator Domenici's amendment matching House levels
for SSRT was defeated 66 to 33 last Tuesday.  There seems to have been some
dirty pool involved -- details in the SAS members' private followup.
 
The Senate Defense Authorization has been passed, while the House version
still awaits a final floor vote last we heard.  As soon as the House version
is passed (likely in the next day or two), the Conference process will start,
with Conference members announced (they're likely already selected) and the
Defense Authorizations Conference getting underway.  This conference is VITAL
to us!  We must get them to adopt something as close to the favorable House
SSRT language as possible.  
 
 
 -- Appropriations
 
Neither the House nor the Senate Defense Appropriations bill has "reached the
floor" (gone to the full House or Senate for amendment and debate) yet.  
 
The House Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee (HAC Defense, John
Murtha chairman) has appropriated $40 million for SSRT, roughly half what was
authorized.  Not great, but not bad either, given that HAC Defense trimmed an
additional $6 billion from the overall DOD Appropriation at the last minute.
Your calls and letters probably helped prevent SSRT getting zeroed out here.
 
The Senate Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee (SAC Defense, Daniel
Inouye chairman) will probably mark up in the next few days.  This is the
second area where we have to push for favorable treatment of SSRT, to improve
our position in the eventual Defense Appropriations conference.  
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
We have a tentative list of House-Senate Defense Authorization conferees (SASC
& HASC committee/subcommittee heads and RRM's) attached.  Call, write, or fax:  
 
 - Senator Sam Nunn, SASC chairman.
 - Senator James Exon, SASC "Nuke" subcommittee chairman.
 - Any Senator on the list from your state.
 - Representative Ron Dellums, HASC chairman.
 - Representative Patricia Schroeder, HASC R&T Subcommittee chair.
 - Any Representative on the list whose district is nearby.
 
Ask them to support the House Defense Authorization language on BMDO's Single
Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT).  On the Senate side, pay particular attention
to giving at least one good reason to support SSRT to the Senators who voted
against the Domenici SSRT Amendment.  Thank the Senators (marked with a *) who
voted for that amendment, and ask the ones who didn't (politely) why not.  On
the House side, thank Representatives Dellums and Schroeder for their past
support and ask them to continue it.  
 
We also recommend calls, letters, and faxes to Senator Inouye, chairman of the
Senate Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee (SAC Defense) and to
any SAC Defense members from your state, asking them to appropriate funds for
Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) at the House Authorization level of
$79.88 million.  Here too, thank the Senators who voted for Domenici's SSRT
amendment, and inquire politely of the others why they opposed SSRT, while
giving them at least one good reason why they should support it.
 
That's all for this week.  Thanks for all the good work so far.  We're close to
winning what we need for the coming year.  Keep at it.
 
[Note from the editor: If you've never contacted your elected representatives
in Washington before, now is a good time to start.  It's painless, it can
actually be pretty effective, and if you don't believe developing the means of
affordable space access is a good cause, chances are you wouldn't be reading
this, eh?  For some tips on making effective contact, see the Politics section
of the subsequent "DC-X Background" posting. -HV]
 
 
 -- Likely Conferees from the Senate Armed Services Committee --
 ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
 (* = voted for the Domenici Amendment favoring full funding for SSRT.)
 
  Name                               office#         phone        fax  (AC 202)
  Sam Nunn (D-GA)   SASC Chair       SD-303          224-3521     224-0072
  James Exon (D-NE) "Nuke" Chair     SH-528          224-4224     224-5213
  John McCain (R-AZ)                 SR-111          224-2235     224-8938
 *Richard C. Shelby (D-AL)           SH-509          224-5744     224-3416
  William S. Cohen (R-ME)            SH-322          224-2523     224-2693
  Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)           SR-315          224-4543     224-2417
  Carl Levin (D-MI)                  SR-459          224-6221     224-1388
  Dan Coats (R-IN)                   SR-404          224-5623     224-1966
 *Trent Lott (R-MS)                  SR-487          224-6253     224-2262
 *Bob Smith (R-NH)                   SD-332          224-2841     224-1353
 *Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)               SH-110          224-5521     224-1810
 *John Glenn (D-OH)                  SH-503          224-3353     224-7983
  Strom Thurmond (R-SC)              SR-217          224-5972     224-1300
  John Warner (R-VA)                 SR-225          224-2023     224-6295
 
 
 -- Likely Conferees from the House Armed Services Committee --
 (all phone #'s in 202 area code, all addresses are Washington DC 20515,
 in either the Cannon, Longworth, or Rayburn House Office Buildings.
 Rep. Dellums' address, for instance, would be written as:
 
 Representative Dellums
 2136 Rayburn HOB
 Washington DC 20515 )
                                   phone     fax       address
 Ron Dellums, D 9 CA HASC Chair    225-2661  225-9817  2136 RHOB
 Floyd Spence, R 2 SC HASC RRM     225-2452  225-2455  2405 RHOB
 Patricia Schroeder, D 1 CO        225-4431  225-5842  2208 RHOB
 Earl Hutto, D 1 FL                225-4136  225-5785  2435 RHOB
 Dave McCurdy, D 4 OK              225-6165  225-9746  2344 RHOB
 Bob Stump, R 3 AZ                 225-4576  225-6328   211 CHOB
 Duncan Hunter, R 52 CA            225-5672  225-0235   133 CHOB
 John R Kasich, R 12 OH            225-5355  ?         1131 LHOB
 James V Hansen, R 1 UT            225-0453  225-5857  2466 RHOB
 Ike Skelton, D MO                 225-2876  225-2695  ?
 Jon Kyl, R AZ                     225-3361  225-1143  ?
 Norman Sisiky, D VA               225-6365  226-1170  ?
 
 
 -- Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee List --
 ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
 (* = voted for the Domenici Amendment favoring full funding for SSRT.)
 (note - Phil Gramm of Texas did not vote either way on the amendment.)
  
  SENATOR              STATE   FAX       PHONE      Office#
  -----------------------------------------------------------
 *Bond, Christopher     R  MO  224-7491  224-5721   SR293
  Bumpers, Dale         D  AR  224-6435  224-4843   SD229
  Byrd, Robert          D  WV  224-4025  224-3954   SH311
 *Cochran, Thad         R  MS  224-9450  224-5054   SR326
 *D'Amato, Alfonse      R  NY  224-5871  224-6542   SH520
  DeConcini, Dennis     D  AZ  224-2302  224-4521   SH328
 *Domenici, Pete        R  NM  224-7371  224-6621   SD434
  Gramm, Phil           R  TX  228-2856  224-2934   SR370
  Harkin, Tom           D  IA  224-9369  224-3254   SH351
  Hollings, Ernest      D  SC  224-3573  224-6121   SR125
  Inouye, Daniel        D  HI  224-6747  224-3934   SH722
 *Johnston, J.Bennett   D  LA  224-2952  224-5824   SH136
  Lautenberg, Frank     D  NJ  224-9707  224-4744   SH506
  Leahy, Patrick        D  VT  224-3595  224-4242   SR433
  Nickles, Don          R  OK  224-6008  224-5754   SH713
  Sasser, Jim           D  TN  224-8062  224-3344   SR363
  Specter, Arlen        R  PA  224-1893  224-4254   SH303
 *Stevens, Ted          R  AK  224-2354  224-3004   SH522
 
 
 
 Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 Executive Director,            in the Solar System."
 Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
 [email protected]           "You can't get there from here."
 602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

A number of DC-X images are available.  Some are described below.  There
are also images of the fuel tank, RL-10 engine, and some rollout/static
test images, and an artist's conception of DC-Y

Thanks to Larry Klaes for finding the message with the pointers...

They are available in: PUBLIC:[NASA]DCX*.GIF
                                    DCY*.GIF

[I know this isn't NASA, but I'm not about to change the directory name...]

- dave


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:	21-SEP-1993 11:42:00.50
From:	VERGA::KLAES        "IDC, PKO3-1/27D, Pole 27-C, 223-3283"
Subj:	GIF files of DC-X locations
To:	PRAGMA::GRIFFIN

Article: 73036
From: [email protected] (Andy Cohen)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-X Flight GIF
Date: 17 Sep 1993 15:44:29 GMT
Organization: MDA-W, SSD
 
I just uploaded a GIF file entitled DCXFLIGHT.GIF to bongo.cc.utexas.edu.
This GIF is a figure which goes with the DC-X article from MDA.  The GIF
shows three views of the Delta Clipper in launch, in horizontal movement
and in landing....  For those who really missed out on the video.....
 
In the video this second flight did look different.  Besides the BAD
commentary from a BMDO rep ("It's tilting towards the crowd now") and the
lack of Conrad comments...  during the descent phase the model drops quite
quickly.  The landing gear pop out in a relatively uncoordinated way....one
of them was slow...  otherwise it's hard to see the difference even though
it went up much higher.....


Article: 73078
From: Chris W. Johnson <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC-X Flight GIF
Date: 17 Sep 1993 20:27:13 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Computation Center
 
In article <[email protected]> Andy Cohen,
[email protected] writes:

> I just uploaded a GIF file entitled DCXFLIGHT.GIF to bongo.cc.utexas.edu.
> This GIF is a figure which goes with the DC-X article from MDA.  The GIF
> shows three views of the Delta Clipper in launch, in horizontal movement
> and in landing....  For those who really missed out on the video.....
 
Thanks, as always, Andy. I've ever so slightly renamed the file to 
"dcx-flight.gif" and moved it into the pub/delta-clipper/images 
directory on ftp.cc.utexas.edu (AKA bongo), so it's now publicly 
available.
 
For those who were wondering why they couldn't find it earlier, 
the explanation is that the "incoming" directory on the site is 
world writeable, but NOT world *readable* for security reasons.
So, until I notice something has been uploaded to the incoming
directory and move it into one of the other directories, nobody
can get at it.
 
I generally check the incoming directory for files about once a 
day, BTW.
 
Sameless plug: If you have files pertaining to the Delta Clipper 
program that aren't in the archive, the incoming directory is 
waiting....
 
With regard to the effort to get an MPEG of the first flight on-
line, Henry Vanderbilt has been kind enough to send a tape. 
(Thanks Henry! And thanks to you others who've also offered tapes.) 
As soon as the tape arrives, I'll begin victimizing the friend who 
offered to convert it to an MPEG movie and I'll get it onto the 
archive as quickly as possible. I'll post to sci.space when it's 
available.
 
----Chris
 
Chris W. Johnson
 
Internet:   [email protected]
            [email protected]
UUCP:       {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj
 
....congratulating the Delta Clipper team on the successful second flight
   of DC-X on September 11th. "We hope to fly every week until we run out 
   of money. [....] We're running on fumes." --Col. Simon P. Worden, BMDO


Article: 73244
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected]
Subject: DC-X GIF's Now Available on ames.arc.nasa.gov
Sender: [email protected] (USENET News Client)
Organization: NASA/JSC/DE44, Mission Operations, Space Station Systems 
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 13:59:13 GMT
 
The following pictures from the DC-X/SSRT launches have been posted
for your viewing pleasure on ames.arc.nasa.gov:
 
  ames.arc.nasa.gov:/pub/SPACE/GIF/dcx01.gif   
       shows the DC-X vehicle on 09/10/93, the day before its second
       launch
 
  ames.arc.nasa.gov:/pub/SPACE/GIF/dcx02.gif   
       shows Ken Jenks arguing with Jerry Pournelle on 09/11/93, the
       day of the launch we fans got to attend (Jenks in red; Pournelle
       making a fashion statement)
 
  ames.arc.nasa.gov:/pub/SPACE/GIF/dcx03.gif   
       shows the DC-X on its first bunny hop, the one only the DC-X
       team attended.  This was scanned from an 8x10 given to us in
       the information packet MDAC gave us on 09/11/93.
 
I tried to scan the stills of the launch itself, but the best pictures
I have were taken by a hand-held camera with a 200mm lens, so they're
too blury to scan well.  I tried, but all you can see is a few blobs.
If anybody else has some good photos, I'll scan & post them.
 
-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/DE44, Mission Operations, Space Station Systems
      [email protected]  (713) 483-4368
 
     "We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy,
      but because it is fun." 
	-- John F. Kennedy, as [mis]quoted by 
             Scott Brigham, [email protected],
             in alt.folklore.urban

Dave,

  I'm getting an unknown block type when I try to view these with 
xv on a Mips/Ultrix system. Has anyone been able to view them 
successfully?

Actually, I ftp'd it off a Vax that I used DECnet copy


Duh...

Yep, worked after I set binary mode in FTP

Article: 69910
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:69910 talk.politics.space:3685
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: SSRT Senate Alert
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 13:44:13 GMT
Lines: 42
 
 
 
There was a breakfast briefing for the Senate last Tuesday. Representatives
from about 10 Senators came and where briefed on SSRT. It sparked many
followon efforts and we need letters and phone calls to help with the
followup. 
 
The Senators to contact are:
      Name            Address   Phone (AC 202)    Fax (AC 202)
1. Sam Nunn           SD 303    225-3521          225-0072
2. James Exon *       SR 217    225-4224          225-5213
3. Strom Thurmond **  SR 217    225-5972          225-1300
4. Robert Byrd ***    SH 311    225-3954          225-8070
 
* To those of you who called, thanks. We hear his office was swamped
with calls on this. There are indications the pressure is working so
let's keep it up!
 
** Thurmond should only be written to and called if you live in South
Carolinia. If you live elsewhere, concentrate on Nunn and Exon. If you
live in SC, PLEASE call and write to express your support.
 
*** At least some fo Byrd's staff are very excited about this program. We
only need letters from West Virginia here.
 
Some talking points:
 
1. The SSRT program is producing results for very small amounts of money.
2. Only $75M is needed for next year and total costs are $300 to $400M.
   Point out that this number is reliable since the program has a track
   record of producing flying hardware on time and on budget.
3. This project has support of the Air Force up to and including the Chief
   of staff.
 
  Thanks
  Allen
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1169 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

Article: 69921
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:69921 talk.politics.space:3686
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: ERROR CORRECTION (was Re: SSRT Senate Alert)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 15:20:52 GMT
Lines: 12
 
In my recent post on Senators to write I gave the phone numbers as
224-XXXX. They should be 224-XXXX.
 
Sorry about that!
 
  Allen
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1169 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

Article: 69961
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!ra!cs.umd.edu!skates.gsfc.nasa.gov!s224cr!xrcjd
From: [email protected] (Charles J. Divine)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NSS Alert on SSRT, Space Station
Date: 16 Sep 1993 21:27:41 GMT
Organization: NASA/GSFC Greenbelt Maryland
Lines: 18
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: s224cr.gsfc.nasa.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 
These two alerts are official NSS alerts.
 
We are asking everyone to contact their two Senators and urge support
for the space station project.
 
We are asking everyone in the country to contact Senator Daniel
Inouye of Hawaii and urge him to support full funding ($79 million)
for the SSRT project.  Senator Inouye's FAX number is  1-202-224-6747.
His telephone number is 1-202-224-3934.
 
Both projects will be voted on next Tuesday in the afternoon.  The
space station project will be voted on by the whole Senate.  SSRT is
being voted on by Inouye's subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
 
Thank you for your assistance.
-- 
Chuck Divine

Article: 70723
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:70723 talk.politics.space:3817
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!caen!usenet.cis.ufl.edu!eng.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Rebuttal to recent Senate handout on SSRT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 18:29:18 GMT
Lines: 176
 
 
When the full Senate voted on the DOD Authorization bill an amendment was
added to fully fund the SSRT program. When Senators went to the floor they
where given a one page handoug consisting of several bullets on the program.
The hadnout had several errors in it and saveral pro-space organizations
prepared rebuttals. This is from the Space Frontier Foundation. Later
tonight I will post the rebuttal from NSS.
 
I will also be posting an alert for a key vote next week. you can use this
as background for any calls you make.
 
  Allen
 
------------------
 
                                 SPACE
                                FRONTIER
                               FOUNDATION 
 
                           A  White Paper  on...
 
                            Single Stage Rocket 
                             Technology Program
 
Summary
 
Several members of the United States Senate were misled by an inaccurate and 
biased flyer handed to them immediately before a vote on DOD's highly
successful Single Stage Rocket Technology program.  This white paper corrects
the record, point by point, so that this vital program may be considered on 
its merits in future Senate deliberations.  
 
Who we are
The Space Frontier Foundation is a grass roots organization of American
citizens dedicated to opening the space frontier to human exploration and
settlement as rapidly as possible.  We are an independent, volunteer-run
organization and do not receive funding from the SSRT program or its
contractors.  
 
Background
During consideration of the FY94 Department of Defense Authorization bill, an 
amendment (#853) was introduced by Senators Domenici and Bingaman to provide 
initial funding for Phase Two of the Single Stage Rocket Technology Program
(SSRT).  
 
The first phase of this program has been successfully managed by the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization, producing the DC-X test vehicle which has flown
twice successfully in recent weeks on-time and within budget.  The second 
phase, which would probably be transferred to the Advanced Research Projects
Agency, would continue the quick prototyping approach of phase one, after
which a decision could be made to go ahead with phase three: building a
fully-capable single stage to orbit demonstrator.  The three year total cost
of phase two would range from $350-400 million.  
 
Misinformation
During the Tuesday, September 14th debate on the Domenici-Bingaman  amendment
an anonymous handout was distributed to Senators as they entered the chamber
to cast their votes.  The Space Frontier Foundation has evaluated this handout 
and believes it contains serious errors and represents a lack of
understanding of the SSRT program specifically and space transportation
issues generally by the unknown author or authors.  
 
The handout was divided into two parts: weak arguments in favor of the 
Domenici-Bingaman amendment, and strong (and inaccurate) arguments against it.
The remainder of this white paper is a point by point analysis of the 
handout's arguments, which are quoted verbatim in italics.    
 
Damned by faint praise
 
[SSRT] Has captured public imagination
 
Many of our members flew out to White Sands recently to witness the second 
test flight. The public demand to view this historic vehicle was so great
that the base was opened up to a large group from the general public for the
first time to watch a test of this nature.  It is safe to say that among pro-
space Americans, this is by far the most popular space effort currently
underway.
 
[SSRT is an]  Efficient new way of doing business
 
This project has set an example for federal procurement and is a model for 
President Clinton's drive to reinvent government and make it work. Total BMDO
overhead has been less than 3% of expenditures, which is a fine standard for
other DOD projects to live up to.
 
[SSRT] Could possibly make space flight as common as air travel
 
We agree. This is why the program is so popular with our members.
 
[SSRT] Aims to reduce cost from $5,000 per pound to $50
 
This is overstating the case a bit.  It may be that the SSRT program's 
breakthroughs in technology and operational approach will bring about costs 
of $50 per pound, but that is well into the future, and has never been
claimed by the program. The declared goal of $500 per pound is achievable and
will bring about significant cost savings for the government.  In addition,
it will allow the U.S. to recapture 100% of the world launch market (2/3 of
which has been lost to foreign competition).
 
Lies, damn lies, and statistics
 
[the SSRT] Program will cost $6 billion
 
The phase of the SSRT program you are currently considering for funding will 
only cost $400 million over about 3.5 years. Far less than $6 billion and
given the programs track record, there will be no overruns or schedule slips.
This phase and the resulting SX-2 vehicle will answer all open questions and
pave the way to significant cost reductions in US launch costs.
 
[the SSTO will be a] 700 ton spaceship that flies up and back
 
That weight makes it smaller than a medium airliner and far less than the 
Space Shuttle. It isn't a large vehicle by aerospace standards. The fact that
it flies up and back means it is reusable and will save the government
billions in launch costs.  It is hard to see why this is considered a
disadvantage.
 
[SSRT program] Risks are very great. Requires new engines, new engineering
 
Independent assessments done by other airframe companies and consultants 
(like the Aerospace Corporation) have concluded that it can be done with
todays technology and materials. Yes there is risk (as in any project) but
the rapid prototyping approach used by BMDO allows the program to come to an
easy end if the results don't pan out. Since DC-X is working as expected, we
should continue with the SX-2.  If it fails, we can end the program cleanly
at that time.
 
If [vehicle] weight growth is even 1.5%, payload would be zero
 
Part of the conservative approach taken by BMDO includes a 15% allowance for 
weight growth. Even with a 20% growth in weight, a working SSRT vehicle would 
lift as much as the existing Atlas launcher for 10% the cost. To get the above
numbers, the author of the handout incorrectly assumes increases in the
structure of the spacecraft will cause the fuel to get heavier. This is not
only incorrect, but probably dishonest, as the author should know better.
 
Wrong vehicle for DOD
 
The DOD space launch budget is just as large as NASA's. It will benefit just
as much as NASA by the drastic cost reductions possible with this technology.
In addition, the ability to rapidly launch payloads and conduct reconnaissance 
granted by this approach is of far greater use to DOD operational 
requirements than NASA.
 
Possible right vehicle for NASA
 
Cost savings in launches and easy access to the International Space Station 
do make this a win for NASA. However, NASA is about three years behind BMDO
and valuable time would be lost if this project where turned over to NASA. At
the same time, the SSRT technologies should be transferred to them. The Space
Frontier Foundation believes competing programs culminating in a fly off is
the best approach.
 
Conclusion
 
The Space Frontier Foundation is very disturbed that this error-filled 
handout was allowed to muddy the waters of the debate on this important
program. That the author or authors of this document didn't sign their names
to it seems to us clear evidence that even they are not willing to stand 
behind their arguments.  We hope you won't either.
 
For additional information, please contact:
 
Allen Sherzer
Space Frontier Foundation
16 First Avenue
Nyack, NY  10960
1-800-78-SPACE
 
 
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1161 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

Article: 70724
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:70724 talk.politics.space:3818
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!caen!usenet.cis.ufl.edu!eng.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Legislative alert for SSRT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 18:30:11 GMT
Lines: 106
 
 
The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by Sen. Daniel
Inouye (D-HI), will be makring up the FY94 defense appropriation bill
on Tuesday Sept. 28.
 
Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) is a member of the subcommittee and has
requested that Sen. Inouye fully fund the SSRT program for next year.
This will provide $75 million for work to begin on the SX-2 (DC-X
followon) and another $5 million to finish DC-X testing.
 
We don't know if Inouye will go for this or not. We need to keep the
pressure up so please keep the phone calls coming. We know that the
level of interest is going up and one very key staffer said the
program was 'on a roll'. However, more calls and faxes are needed to
secure support.
 
Phone calls to the following people are URGENTLY needed today through
Tuesday. I'll also post district offices which you can call on the weekend,
but it you call a district office, try and speak with the Senator and if
you can't, then call the Washington office on Monday.
 
For talking points, see the previous posting on Rebuttal so SSRT handout.
 
The following people are committee leaders. Anybody can call them but if
you live in the state, please make a special effort to contact them. I
am also listing the key staffers and they should be called as well.
 
1. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Chair
(202) 224-3934 DC Office
(808) 541-2542 Honolulu Office
 
Staffers:
Mr. Dick D'Amato, Committee staff, (202) 224-7255
Mr. Richard Collins, Committee staff, (202) 224-7255
Mr. Frank Kelly, Personal staff, (202) 224-3934
 
Message: "Please support Sen. Domenici's request to fully fund the Single
Stage Rocket Technology Program in tuesday's markup of the defense 
appropriations bill".
 
2. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), ranking member
(202) 224-3004
(907) 271-5915
 
Staffers:
Mr. Steve Cortese, commitee staff, (202) 224-2739
Mr. Andrew Lundquist, personal staff, (202) 224-3004
 
Message: "Please support Sen. Domenici's request to fully fund the Single
Stage Rocket Technology Program in tuesday's markup of the defense 
appropriations bill".
 
3. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), Chair, full appropriations committee
(202) 224-4521 - DC office
(304) 342-5855 - Charlseton WV office
 
Staffers:
Ms. Lisa Tuite (pronounced toot), personal staff, (202) 224-2164
 
Message: Please speak to Sen. Inouye and ask him to fund the Single Stage
Rocket Technology Program in tuesday's markup of the defense 
appropriations bill".
 
 
The following are the other members of the subcommittee. Do not call them
unless you live in their state. If you do however, please make a special
effort to contact them and express your support.
 
1. Sen. DeConcini (D-AZ), member
(202) 224-4521, DC office
(602) 670-6831, Tucson office
 
Staffers:
Mr. Chip Walgren (202) 224-4521
 
Message: "Please speak to Sen. Inouye and ask him to fund the Single Stage
Rocket Technology Program in tuesday's markup of the defense 
appropriations bill".
 
2. Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), member
(202) 224-2934, DC office
(214) 767-3000, Dallas office
 
Staffer:
Mr. Mike Champness (202) 223-2934
 
Message: "Please speak to Sen. Inouye and ask him to fund the Single Stage
Rocket Technology Program in tuesday's markup of the defense 
appropriations bill".
 
3. Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), member
(202) 224-3041, DC office
(904) 422-6100, Tallahassee office
 
Staffer:
Mr. Kevin monroe (202) 224-3041
 
Message: "Please speak to Sen. Inouye and ask him to fund the Single Stage
Rocket Technology Program in tuesday's markup of the defense 
appropriations bill".
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1161 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

Article: 70790
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Next DC-X flight scheduled
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1993 13:19:25 GMT
Lines: 12
 
 
The next DC-X flight is currently scheduled for 30 September. The vehicle
will go to 1200 feet. They currently expect to get up to 7,000 feet by
the end of October with four flights. That's one per week.
 
  Allen
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1160 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

Article: 70927
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Schedule of next five DC-X flights
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 19:00:41 GMT
Lines: 26
 
 
Here is the current schedule for the next few DC-X flights. Looks like
the turnaround test will be after the next flight. After that, it's
four flights in two weeks. Not bad.
 
        Altitude  Qbar   Velocities  Time
  Date     (feet) (psf)     (fps)    (sec)     Comments
 9/30/93   1200   15/5     120/75      73   Gimabl Roll, 90 degree Cn data
                                            (Vt = 30), balloons
10/13/93   2850   15/10    120/100    120   AVS 'tack' maneuvers (50 fps, 
                                            small lat accels), ascent/decent
                                            drag, RCS roll, wind limits
10/16/93   4350   20/10    140/100    130   Curved ascent to 1000', 90 degree
                                            Dn data (Vt - 50 fps), ascent/
                                            decent drag (M=10), no roll, wind
                                            limits
10/20/93   7000  <=40/20   <=200/140  145   Alternate pad, curved ascent to
                                            vertical over landing pad, GPS 
                                            aiding, flap data
10/27/93   7000  <=40/20   <=200/140  145   Gimbal controlled rotation at
                                            apogee.
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1158 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

Article: 4577
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: [email protected]
Subject: Space Access Update #21, 9/27/93
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Followup-To: sci.space
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 17:15:37 GMT
Approved: [email protected]
Lines: 353
 
                     Space Access Update #21  9/27/93
                         (Formerly "DC-X Update")
                 Copyright 1993 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's semi-weekly publication. 
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all,
period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever point
looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting BMDO's "SSRT" (Single Stage
Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its planned-but-not-yet-funded followon,
SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely about the
technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2.
 
We anticipate a change of focus in a couple of months, if all goes well. 
Once SX-2 startup funding is (with your help!) assured, we plan to begin
working on establishment of a healthy second X-rocket development track at
NASA, and on getting development of suitable engines started for the fully
reusable orbital ships that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.
 
With luck and hard work, we should see one or more fully reusable SSTO
testbeds flying to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production
prototypes entering test a couple of years after that.  Join us and help us
make this happen.
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
(For more info on Space Access Society, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150,
 Phoenix AZ 85044, or email [email protected])
 
[Editors note -- For those of you seeing this for the first time who need a
bit more context, look for the subsequent post titled "DC-X Background". -HV]
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Well, we may not get around to a full White Sands DC-X launch trip report for
a while.  This is the home stretch of the annual Congressional budget process.
Things have been hopping, and likely will continue that way for another few
weeks.  Our attempt at a word picture of the doings in southern New Mexico
will just have to wait a bit longer.  
 
Meanwhile, there's no shortage of news.
 
 
DC-X Test Schedule
 
Dates for the next three flights of DC-X have been tentatively set, with the
first of these targeted for this coming Thursday, September 30th.  Following
that would be the fast turnaround demo, with flights on October 13th and 16th.
At least one and possibly two flights would follow before the end of October.
 
Keeping in mind that these dates aren't yet firm, the turnaround times between
flights would be 24 days (already accomplished), 19 days, 16 days, and 3 days.
 
Test profiles for the next three flights will still be basically straight up
then straight down again, with higher speed and altitude each time.  
Thursday's flight is aimed (again tentatively) at reaching 1200 feet.  The
exact schedule and profile for this flight is due to be nailed down in a
meeting Monday the 27th, according to an MDA spokesperson.  
 
Schedule and profiles for each subsequent flight will of course depend in part
on results from the previous one.  Among the things they'll be looking at in
these next few flights (in addition to reusable rocket operability) will be
base drag and aerodynamic pressure distribution at higher forward speeds.  
 
After October, unless the $4.88 million in FY '94 flight test continuation
funding has arrived, DC-X testing will most likely be shut down for lack of
money, after a total of either six or seven flights.  FY '94 technically
starts October 1st, but chances are FY '94 DOD funding won't be law until
midmonth or later.  
 
[Last-second addendum -- we just received considerable extra detail on the
next five weeks tentative DC-X flight test schedule.  The two additional
October flights are pencilled in for the 20th and 27th.  SAS members, look for
full details in your members-only SAU supplement later today. -HV]
 
 
DC-X Random Facts
 
 -- The problem with hydrogen gas getting inside DC-X (mentioned several times
 here over the past few months) looks like being solved.  It turns out that the
 "eyeball" gimballing seals around the engines (spherical-section metal plates
 around the nozzles) were lifting slightly out of their seats at landing,
 under pressure from the hydrogen-rich exhaust gas trapped between the vehicle
 and the ground.  The leak mechanism was spotted by an IR video camera placed
 inside the engine compartment for the second flight.  Presumably the fix will
 involve holding the "eyeball" plates down against their circular sockets more
 firmly, by beefing up the hold-down springs (assuming they're spring-loaded).
 
 -- The "ablative coating" on the landing pad is actually an industrial
 compound called "Super Slick", laid down as insurance against gear damage or
 toppling if DC-X were to land with significant horizontal velocity.  So far,
 there's been no need for this; DC-X has landed both times with near zero
 sideways speed.  The ablative protection for the pad as the stuff boils off
 is an unplanned side benefit.  
 
 
Current Status Of SX-2 ("SSRT Followon") Funding
 
You may recall that last week we hinted at dirty pool in the Senate prior to
the 66-33 defeat of the Domenici Amendment that would have fully funded SSRT. 
Well, the details are all over the place anyway; now we can talk about it.  
 
 -- Senate Skullduggery --
 
A couple of weeks ago, rumors started floating around of active anti SX-2
lobbying in Washington.  The names of various major aerospace contractors and
government research centers were mentioned, but hey, these were just rumors.
 
Then we lost the Domenici Amendment vote (which would have brought Senate
Defense Authorization SX-2 funding up to the House level of $79.88 million)
by a lopsided 66-33 margin, when we'd thought we had a chance to win.
 
Since then we've gotten reliable reports that a severely misleading anti SSTO
flyer was actually handed out in the Senate cloakroom before the vote, a rather
rude and untraditional thing to do by Senate standards, even if the flyer
weren't a pack of lies as regards SX-2.  
 
We immediately composed a refutation and sent it out (with annotated copies of
the flyer -- yes, the flyer mysteriously showed up on our fax machine) to all
the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  SASC is of course due to
conference with their House counterparts in the next few days, said conference
being a prime opportunity to restore the $79.88 million SSRT authorization
level that was voted down after the flyer circulated.  Presumably Senators
don't like being lied to any more than the rest of us.  We'll see.  
 
The text of the flyer is attached at the end of this update.  While we're
fond of our particular refutation letter, the points made are obvious enough
that we'll save everyone a bit of storage space.  We might mention, though,
that SX-2 will be a lot closer to seventy tons fully fuelled than it will be
to seven hundred.  
 
 -- House Hijinks --
 
Meanwhile, it turns out that the House Appropriations Committee has some
staffers with ideas of their own.  HAC gave SSRT $40 million in their final
Defense markup, half the House authorized level -- our reaction as of last
week was that this is not great, but not bad given the cuts made elsewhere.  
 
It turns out though that the report language accompanying the HAC Defense
markup is loaded with clever and not-so-clever SSTO killers.  On the clever
side was the bit ordering ARPA to run SSTO themselves, rather than contracting
it out to any other government agency (regular ARPA practice to date.) This
would kick the current BMDO DC-X management team off the job and hand it
directly to ARPA, which has no great interest in actually flying rockets
itself.  As one unkind but knowledgable person put it, this would likely
result in ARPA buying another supercomputer and painting "SSTO" on the side.  
 
On the other end of the subtlety scale was the part where the report flat-out
recommends bringing expendable "Spacelifter" (formerly NLS, the "Never Launch
System") back from its well-deserved grave for "aggressive development".  
Reusable SSTO would be relegated to a "thoughtful, long-term research and
development program" specifically aimed at an eventual Spacelifter successor. 
If that didn't make the point bluntly enough, they went on to say SSTO should
be "a very slow, long-term technology effort" aimed at "developing a
prototype" of an operational medium-payload SSTO.  
 
In other words, turn SSTO into the next NASP - a long-term aerospace welfare
program, aimed at the ever-receding target of producing a useful cargo-
carrying example of an entirely new type of vehicle on the very first try. 
Like NASP, it would produce ten years of funding for tech development and
simulation-shuffling, and like NASP, it would never produce an actual flight
vehicle.  
 
This is, in our opinion, an attempt to produce a two track National Aerospace
Jobs Program, since while "Spacelifter" in theory could be an improvement over
current US expendables, on the evidence to date it is near certain to be
overstaffed and overdesigned, and to end up over budget, over schedule, and
just as expensive as current expendables by the time it actually flies.  The
current US space launch establishment is about as likely to produce a simple
rugged cheap easy-to-operate spacelift vehicle, expendable OR reusable, as we
are to produce a Picasso next time we pick up a paintbrush.  
 
Hrrrmph.  And now that we have vented our editorial spleen on this attempt to
subvert the intentions of the actual members of HAC Defense, we have to say
this:  SAS recommends that you NOT raise a major fuss over these matters.  Not
yet anyway.  There is a lot going on behind the scenes in the way of efforts to
quietly fix these problems.  The best way to back these efforts up as members
of the public is to keep up the sharply focussed positive pressure in favor of
fully funding "SSRT followon", the SX-2, over the next couple of weeks.
 
Then we shall see what we will see.
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
We're asking for basically the same actions as last week, contacting members of
the Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee (SAC Defense), and
also contacting likely participants in the upcoming House-Senate Defense
Authorizations conference.  There are a couple changes in emphasis, however.
 
SAC Defense has moved to top priority, both because of the problems with the
HAC Defense report language, and because SAC Defense is now supposed to mark up
the Senate Defense Appropriations bill tomorrow, Tuesday the 27th.  
 
We recommend immediate calls or faxes to Senator Daniel Inouye, chairman of
the SAC Defense subcommittee, to Senator Ted Stevens, Ranking Republican on
the subcommittee, to Senator Robert Byrd, extremely influential member of the
subcommittee (Byrd is chairman of the full SAC) and to any SAC Defense members
from your state.  
 
Ask them to appropriate funds for the Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT)
program at the House Defense Authorization level of $79.88 million.  Thank the
Senators (marked with a *) who voted for Domenici's SSRT amendment, and
inquire politely of the others why they opposed SSRT, while giving them at
least one good reason why they should support it.  Emphasis on "politely". 
Please, no flames.  Yet.
 
 -- Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee List --
 ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
 (* = voted for the Domenici Amendment favoring full funding for SSRT.)
 (note - Phil Gramm of Texas did not vote either way on the amendment.)
  
  SENATOR              STATE   FAX       PHONE      Office#
  -----------------------------------------------------------
 *Bond, Christopher     R  MO  224-7491  224-5721   SR293
  Bumpers, Dale         D  AR  224-6435  224-4843   SD229
  Byrd, Robert          D  WV  224-4025  224-3954   SH311
 *Cochran, Thad         R  MS  224-9450  224-5054   SR326
 *D'Amato, Alfonse      R  NY  224-5871  224-6542   SH520
  DeConcini, Dennis     D  AZ  224-2302  224-4521   SH328
 *Domenici, Pete        R  NM  224-7371  224-6621   SD434
  Gramm, Phil           R  TX  228-2856  224-2934   SR370
  Harkin, Tom           D  IA  224-9369  224-3254   SH351
  Hollings, Ernest      D  SC  224-3573  224-6121   SR125
  Inouye, Daniel        D  HI  224-6747  224-3934   SH722
 *Johnston, J.Bennett   D  LA  224-2952  224-5824   SH136
  Lautenberg, Frank     D  NJ  224-9707  224-4744   SH506
  Leahy, Patrick        D  VT  224-3595  224-4242   SR433
  Nickles, Don          R  OK  224-6008  224-5754   SH713
  Sasser, Jim           D  TN  224-8062  224-3344   SR363
  Specter, Arlen        R  PA  224-1893  224-4254   SH303
 *Stevens, Ted          R  AK  224-2354  224-3004   SH522
 
 
Meanwhile, the House-Senate Defense Authorization conference could start any
day now, as soon as the House makes their version of the DOD Authorization
official.  We have a tentative list of conferees (SASC & HASC committee and
subcommittee heads and RRM's) attached.  Call, write, or fax:  
 
 - Senator Sam Nunn, SASC chairman.
 - Senator Strom Thurmond, SASC Ranking Republican
 - Senator James Exon, SASC "Nuke" subcommittee chairman.
 - Any Senator on the list from your state.
 - Representative Ron Dellums, HASC chairman.
 - Any Representative on the list whose district is nearby.
 
Ask them to support the House Defense Authorization language on BMDO's Single
Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) program in the Defense Authorization conference.
 
On the Senate side, pay particular attention to giving at least one good
reason to support SSRT to the Senators who voted against the Domenici SSRT
Amendment.  Thank the Senators who voted for that amendment, and ask the ones
who didn't (politely) why not.  
 
On the House side, thank Representative Dellums for his past support and ask
him to continue it.  (We've taken Representative Schroeder off the list because
of a recent speech indicating that she's solidly behind SSRT, and feedback
that her office has been getting a LOT of calls.  Good work, all.  Notes of
appreciation for her support wouldn't hurt.)
 
 
 -- Likely Conferees from the Senate Armed Services Committee --
 ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
 (* = voted for the Domenici Amendment favoring full funding for SSRT.)
 
  Name                               office#         phone        fax  (AC 202)
  Sam Nunn (D-GA)   SASC Chair       SD-303          224-3521     224-0072
  James Exon (D-NE) "Nuke" Chair     SH-528          224-4224     224-5213
  John McCain (R-AZ)                 SR-111          224-2235     224-8938
 *Richard C. Shelby (D-AL)           SH-509          224-5744     224-3416
  William S. Cohen (R-ME)            SH-322          224-2523     224-2693
  Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)           SR-315          224-4543     224-2417
  Carl Levin (D-MI)                  SR-459          224-6221     224-1388
  Dan Coats (R-IN)                   SR-404          224-5623     224-1966
 *Trent Lott (R-MS)                  SR-487          224-6253     224-2262
 *Bob Smith (R-NH)                   SD-332          224-2841     224-1353
 *Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)               SH-110          224-5521     224-1810
 *John Glenn (D-OH)                  SH-503          224-3353     224-7983
  Strom Thurmond (R-SC)              SR-217          224-5972     224-1300
  John Warner (R-VA)                 SR-225          224-2023     224-6295
 
 
 -- Likely Conferees from the House Armed Services Committee --
 (all phone #'s in 202 area code, all addresses are Washington DC 20515,
 in either the Cannon, Longworth, or Rayburn House Office Buildings.
 Rep. Dellums' address, for instance, would be written as:
 
 Representative Dellums
 2136 Rayburn HOB
 Washington DC 20515 )
                                   phone     fax       address
 Ron Dellums, D 9 CA HASC Chair    225-2661  225-9817  2136 RHOB
 Floyd Spence, R 2 SC HASC RRM     225-2452  225-2455  2405 RHOB
 Patricia Schroeder, D 1 CO        225-4431  225-5842  2208 RHOB
 Earl Hutto, D 1 FL                225-4136  225-5785  2435 RHOB
 Dave McCurdy, D 4 OK              225-6165  225-9746  2344 RHOB
 Bob Stump, R 3 AZ                 225-4576  225-6328   211 CHOB
 Duncan Hunter, R 52 CA            225-5672  225-0235   133 CHOB
 John R Kasich, R 12 OH            225-5355  ?         1131 LHOB
 James V Hansen, R 1 UT            225-0453  225-5857  2466 RHOB
 Ike Skelton, D MO                 225-2876  225-2695  ?
 Jon Kyl, R AZ                     225-3361  225-1143  ?
 Norman Sisiky, D VA               225-6365  226-1170  ?
 
 
That's all for this week.  Thanks for all the good work so far.  Things don't
look quite as rosy as they did a week ago, but good things seldom come easy.
 
 
[Note from the editor: If you've never contacted your elected representatives
in Washington before, now is a good time to start.  It's painless, it can
actually be pretty effective, and if you don't believe developing the means of
affordable space access is a good cause, chances are you wouldn't be reading
this, eh?  For some tips on making effective contact, see the Politics section
of the subsequent "DC-X Background" posting. -HV]
 
 
 Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 Executive Director,                 in the Solar System."
 Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
 [email protected]                  "You can't get there from here."
 602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
 
 
     [Text of flyer circulated in the Senate Tuesday 9/14/93]
 
               DOMENICI SINGLE STAGE TO ORBIT
 
Arguments for:
 
 -- Has capture public imagination
 -- Efficient new way of doing business
 -- Could possibly make space flight as common as air travel
 -- Aims to reduce cost from $5000 per pound to $50
     
Arguments against:
 
 -- Program will cost $6 billion
 -- 700 ton spaceship flies up and back
 -- Risks are very great.  Requires new engines, new engineering
 -- If weight growth is even 1.5%, payload would be zero
 -- Wrong vehicle for DOD
    -- Optimum for manned flight, millions of pounds per year
    -- But DOD needs less than 100,000 pounds/year
 -- Possibly right vehicle for NASA
 
     [End of text]

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Allen W. Sherzer" 26-SEP-1993 10:27:05.84
To:	[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	NSS Rebuttal to Senate handout

Below is the NSS official rebuttal to the Senate handout. Some have asked
to see the actual handout, it is included in this rebuttal after the first
paragraph. Keep the calls roling in!

  Allen

----------------

			    THE HARD FACTS on SSRT 
                    furnished by THE NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY

Last week during consideration of the FY94 DOD Authorization bill,
Senators Domenici (R-NM) and Bingaman (D-NM) introduced an
amendment (Amendment 850) to authorize the BMDO Single Stage
Rocket Technology Program (SSRT).  During debate on this amendment
the following "fact" sheet was distributed to Senators:

			Domenici Single Stage to Orbit

Arguments For:

			-Has captured public imagination

			-Efficient new way of doing business

			-Could possibly make space flight as common as air
			  travel

			-Aims to reduce cost from $5,000 per pound to $50

Arguments Against:

			-Program will cost $6 billion

			-700 ton spaceship that flies up and back

			-Risks are very great.  Requires new engines, new
			  engineering

			-If weight growth is even 1.5%, payload would be zero

			-Wrong vehicle for DOD

			-Possible right vehicle for NASA

The National Space Society found this information to be largely
inaccurate and misleading.  Indeed, the fact that the authors of this
handout did not sign the sheet or identify themselves strongly implies
that they know the information is inaccurate and are not willing to
stand behind it.  We hope you will consider the following rebuttal in
your considerations on this important program. 
									
2

Arguments For:

		-Has captured public imagination 
			
This is very true.  Several hundred people recently flew out to White
Sands to witness the first re-use of the DC-X which was built under
this program.  Our organization has seen a ground swell of support for
this program and it is likely the most popular space related effort in
the country. 

		-Efficient new way of doing business

This is also true.  BMDO has built a totally re-usable prototype
spacecraft, the Delta Clipper X (DC-X) for $60 million (about twice
the cost of the Space Shuttle toilet).  The project has demonstrated
on time and on budget performance in every aspect of its execution. 

		-Could possibly make space flight as common as air travel

Again, true.  If the project works, it will finally make space travel
routine and affordable. 

		-Aims to reduce cost from $5,000 per pound to $50

Although it may eventually be that this technology brings costs down
to something like the $50 level, this will be a long way away.  The
initial goal is $500 per pound. A significant reduction from the
$5,000 to $10,000 per pound it costs today. 


Arguments Against:

		-Program will cost $6 billion

The SSRT program's next stop is to build a follow-on vehicle called
SX-2.  It will answer almost all of the questions associated with
building a production vehicle. However, the SX-2 will cost less than
$400 million (roughly $100 million per year), not $6 billion. 

	3

		-700 ton spaceship that flies up and back

It is not clear why this is a point against.  In fact, the reusability
implied by the statement is a key factor in the low cost potential for
this technology. 

		-Risks are very great.  Requires new engines, new engineering

Assessments done by the Aerospace Corporation indicate the risks are
not that great.  In addition, six of the seven major airframe
companies have all said that it can be done.  SX-2 will answer the
open questions;  surely we can afford $100 million per year given the
huge potential payback of this project? 

		-If weight growth is even 1.5%, payload would be zero

This demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the problem by
the authors of this handout.  Over 90% of the weight of a SSTO vehicle
is fuel.  Any weight growth must come from the spacecraft structure
itself.  A 1.5% increase in weight would only result in a 1,500 pound
reduction in payload.  Besides, the SSRT vehicle weight budget already
allows a 15% as a contingency for weight growth.  This means that the
vehicle can weigh 15% over expectations and still carry the full payload. 

		-Wrong vehicle for DOD

DOD currently spends about $5 billion per year on launchers.  A
functioning Delta Clipper would cut that amount to less than $1
billion.  At this rate, SSRT would pay for itself in roughly one year.
That alone would be enough but there is more.  Most of all, DOD needs
ROUTINE space access. It needs the ability to launch on a moments
notice to deal with rapidly changing situations.  No other vehicle has
this potential.  This is why the Air Force up to and including the
Chief of Staff have expressed support for this program.  In fact,
recent DOD Mission Need Statements (like MNS 202-92) can only be met
with a vehicle like the one being developed as part of the SSRT program. 

		-Possible right vehicle for NASA

Indeed it would be.  In fact, NASA has recently shown interest in this
technology. However, the successful track record of the SSRT program
should not be interfered with.  It should continue with NASA running
another effort leading to a fly-off between the two. 

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date: Fri, 24 Sep 93 18:23:00 -0400
% From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[email protected]>
% To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
% Subject: NSS Rebuttal to Senate handout

Article: 71322
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:71322 talk.politics.space:3921
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Senate Appropriations Subcommittee zeros out SSRT. Help needed.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 20:42:37 GMT
Lines: 98
 
 
The Senate DOD Approrpiations Subcommittee marked up today. They allocated
no money for SSRT. The full committee will markup on Monday. Unless they
put some money in, it will be very hard to keep the program alive in
conference. Please call the committee leaders and your local Senator if
you live in a state with a Senator on the Appropriations committee. Below
is the list of Senators and staff.
 
If you have already called, please call again and ask them to restore
funds in the Committee markup.
 
Below is a list of people to call and what to say.
 
The following people are committee leaders. Anybody can call them but if
you live in the state, please make a special effort to contact them. I
am also listing the key staffers and they should be called as well.
 
1. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Chair
(202) 224-3934 DC Office
(808) 541-2542 Honolulu Office
 
Staffers:
Mr. Dick D'Amato, Committee staff, (202) 224-7255
Mr. Richard Collins, Committee staff, (202) 224-7255
Mr. Frank Kelly, Personal staff, (202) 224-3934
 
Message: "Please support Sen. Domenici's request to fully fund the Single
Stage Rocket Technology Program in tuesday's markup of the defense 
appropriations bill".
 
2. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), ranking member
(202) 224-3004
(907) 271-5915
 
Staffers:
Mr. Steve Cortese, commitee staff, (202) 224-2739
Mr. Andrew Lundquist, personal staff, (202) 224-3004
 
Message: "Please support Sen. Domenici's request to fully fund the Single
Stage Rocket Technology Program in tuesday's markup of the defense 
appropriations bill".
 
3. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), Chair, full appropriations committee
(202) 224-4521 - DC office
(304) 342-5855 - Charlseton WV office
 
Staffers:
Ms. Lisa Tuite (pronounced toot), personal staff, (202) 224-2164
 
Message: Please speak to Sen. Inouye and ask him to fund the Single Stage
Rocket Technology Program in tuesday's markup of the defense 
appropriations bill".
 
 
 
 
The following are the other members of the subcommittee. Do not call them
unless you live in their state. If you do however, please make a special
effort to contact them and express your support.
 
1. Sen. DeConcini (D-AZ), member
(202) 224-4521, DC office
(602) 670-6831, Tucson office
 
Staffers:
Mr. Chip Walgren (202) 224-4521
 
Message: "Please speak to Sen. Inouye and ask him to fund the Single Stage
Rocket Technology Program in tuesday's markup of the defense 
appropriations bill".
 
2. Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), member
(202) 224-2934, DC office
(214) 767-3000, Dallas office
 
Staffer:
Mr. Mike Champness (202) 224-2934
 
Message: "Please speak to Sen. Inouye and ask him to fund the Single Stage
Rocket Technology Program in tuesday's markup of the defense 
appropriations bill".
 
3. Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), member
(202) 224-3041, DC office
(904) 422-6100, Tallahassee office
 
Staffer:
Mr. Kevin monroe (202) 224-3041
 
Message: "Please speak to Sen. Inouye and ask him to fund the Single Stage
Rocket Technology Program in tuesday's markup of the defense 
appropriations bill".
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1154 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

Article: 4699
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: [email protected]
Subject: Space Access Update #22  10/03/93
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Followup-To: sci.space
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 07:26:29 GMT
Approved: [email protected]
Lines: 311
 
                     Space Access Update #22  10/03/93
                  Copyright 1993 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's semi-weekly publication. 
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all,
period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever point
looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting BMDO's "SSRT" (Single Stage
Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its planned-but-not-yet-funded followon,
SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely about the
technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2.
 
We anticipate a change of focus in a couple of months, if all goes well. 
Once SX-2 startup funding is (with your help!) assured, we plan to begin
working on establishment of a healthy second X-rocket development track at
NASA, and on getting development of suitable engines started for the fully
reusable orbital ships that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.
 
With luck and hard work, we should see one or more fully reusable SSTO
testbeds flying to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production
prototypes entering test a couple of years after that.  Join us and help us
make this happen.
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
[For more info on Space Access Society, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150,
Phoenix AZ 85044, or email [email protected].]
 
[Editors note -- For those of you seeing this for the first time who need a
bit more context, look for the subsequent post titled "DC-X Background".]
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
DC-X September 30th Flight Causes Rise In "Grecian Formula" Stock
 
It turns out that last Thursday's third flight of DC-X was a bit less routine
than originally reported.  Chances are the flight crew got some new gray hairs
during the first few seconds off the pad, before the flight control system
compensated for an engine problem and flew the rest of the mission profile
correctly.  
 
The test began around 10:28 am local time, with everything apparently normal
though engine startup, right up until throttle-up for takeoff.
 
For some reason as yet unknown, DC-X's engines didn't throttle up as rapidly
as expected, with thrust ramp-up delayed several seconds.  As a result, DC-X
spent considerably longer than planned hanging right over the pad area until
engine thrust built up.  Once that happened, the flight control system ran
thrust up to 95% to catch up with the programmed flight profile.  
 
The rest of the flight went as planned, the main features being a 180 degree
around-axis roll of the vehicle using main engine gimballing for control, and
a peak altitude of 1200 feet.  DC-X landed within two feet of the target
position and within one second of the target flight duration.  
 
We hear the lag in engine response is being looked at, but we don't have any
information yet as to the cause.  We're told though that the launch stand did
take some damage from rocket blast during the extra hang-time over the pad. 
This may or may not affect the schedule for the next pair of flights, the
turnaround test pencilled in for October 13th and 16th.  We'll probably have
more about this a week from now.  
 
Pure speculation department:  This was the 16th firing of DC-X's RL-10-A5
engines -- two test-stand runs before installation, nine test-stand runs
installed in DC-X, two DC-X static pad firings, and now three DC-X flight
tests.  The RL-10-A5 is a new RL-10 variant, and one of its new features is
the provision of wide-range throttling (30%-100%).  It's possible that some
portion of the redesigned throttle machinery will turn out to need maintenance
after fifteen firings, perhaps maintenance as simple as disassembly and
regreasing of some mechanical throttle component.  
 
Whatever Thursday's problem turns out to have been, the way to bet is that
it was something hard to predict but easy to fix.  Finding such is what flight
test is for.  
 
It's not clear yet, by the way, whether the throttle-up lag was the same for
all four of DC-X's engines, or whether the lag varied by engine.  In the
latter case particularly, the successful recovery and completion of the test
was a triumph for DC-X's designers, and especially for the people who wrote
the flight control software.  
 
[Editor's note - Surviving engine glitches at takeoff is one of the tougher
requirements in designing a rocket SSTO, and is the main reason operational
vertical-takeoff SSTO's will likely have a minimum of six to eight engines, to
reduce the impact of unplanned thrust variations.  DC-X with only four engines
is marginal in this regard -- not enough engines for thrust variations to
average out much at all.  DC-X's recovery from Thursday's shaky takeoff speaks
well for her designers and for the VTOL wingless reusable rocket concept.]
 
 
SAS Now Has DC-X Flight Tapes
 
We finally got hold of official first and second DC-X flight videotapes, plus a
BMDO "Delta Clipper" promo piece and amateur video from the second flight and
from various DC-X talks.  Drop a note to Space Access Society, 4855 E Warner
Rd #24-150, Phoenix 85044, or to [email protected], for details.  If you've
already asked for info, we do have your name and will get back to you with no
further action on your part.  We've been holding off until we had all the
expected material before making any promises.  Orders will be filled in the
order received.  
 
 
Pro-Space Demo In LA November 6th
 
David Anderman called this evening and mentioned he's trying to get as big a
pro-space demonstration as possible going in Los Angeles, Saturday November
6th, 11 am, outside the Westwood Federal Building (corner of Sepulveda and
Wilshire) in Century City.  He has a bunch of SoCal pro-space organizations
supporting him and a bunch of proposed space missions to be demonstrated for.  
 
SAS recommends that if you do decide to go, dress comfortable-but-neat, bring
an easy-to-carry sign that can be read and grasped in a one-second TV shot
("Space = Growth - But You Can't Get There From Here" and "Space - Affordable
Access NOW!" come to mind) and be utterly shameless about getting your signs
out in front of any TV cameras that do show up.  The ideal would be to present
a sharp focus on the most pressing space problem, lack of affordable access. 
 
Practically speaking, the message is likely to be a bit more diffuse, but
demos can be a good excuse to get out in the autumn air and meet new people.  
Speaking from early '70's experience, simple rhythmic chants ("We want to GO! 
We want to GO!  We want to GO!", "Space NOW!  Space NOW!  Space NOW!" and
suchlike) are a great way to pass the time, and they'll make you far more
impressive on the evening news than would be a bunch of sheepish-looking
people standing around holding incomprehensible signs.  If you do go, think of
it as a thinking-person's pep rally, and cut loose a bit.  
 
 
Current Status Of SX-2 ("SSRT Followon") Funding
 
It's been a busy week on Capitol Hill, with significant developments in both
House and Senate in the effort to fund a DC-X followon.
 
[Editor's note - think of Congressional "Authorizations" as a shopping list for
the coming year, and "Appropriations" as going through the list, writing down
how much of each Authorized item to actually buy.]
 
 -- House Of Representatives
 
The news in the House is overall good.  The House Defense Authorization is
finally approved, so the House-Senate Defense Authorization conference should
be going forward next week.  We still don't have a final list of conferees,
but there's no reason to believe our list of HASC and SASC (House and Senate
Armed Services Committee) leaders won't be pretty close to the mark.  The
House Defense Authorization still contains the most favorable language on SSRT
we've gotten so far, authorizing $79.88 million for it in FY '94.  
 
In a bit of a surprise, the House Defense Appropriations bill was also passed
this week.  Apparently it went through so quickly because Representative
Murtha (House Appropriations Committee, Defense subcommittee chairman) worked
with the House leadership to ram it through with minimum changes from his HAC
Defense version.  
 
The bad news is that this means the stealth SSTO-killer language (see SAU #21)
is still in the accompanying report.  The good news, and this is very good
news, is that when Representative Walker attempted to fix the SSTO language in
a "colloquy" on the House floor, Representative Murtha asked him to hold off,
promising Walker that he, Murtha, would fix the SSTO language in the House-
Senate Defense Appropriations conference.  Murtha by all reports keeps his
promises.  
 
 -- The Senate
 
Meanwhile, over in the Senate, things aren't going so well.  Senator Inouye's
Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense subcommittee (SAC Defense) "marked up"
last Thursday, and reports are they zeroed out the $30 million combined NASP-
SSTO-Spacelifter line item from the Senate Defense Authorization.
 
That combined line item wasn't perfect, but it was far better than no line
item at all for purposes of negotiating an acceptable compromise in the House-
Senate Defense Appropriations conference due a week or two from now.  The full
Senate Appropriations Committee is due to meet Monday to mark up the Senate
Defense Appropriation.  This is our last chance before the conference to get
SSRT reinserted in the Senate version of this funding bill.
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
We recommend calls or faxes ASAP to Senator Robert Byrd, chairman of the
full Senate Appropriations Committee, to Senator Daniel Inouye, chairman of
the SAC Defense subcommittee, and to any SAC members from your state.  
 
Ask them to fund BMDO's Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) program at the
House Defense Authorization level of $79.88 million.  
 
 -- full Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) list --
 ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
 (* = voted for the Domenici Amendment favoring full funding for SSRT.)
 (note - Phil Gramm of Texas did not vote either way on the amendment.)
  
  SENATOR              STATE   FAX       PHONE      Office#
  -----------------------------------------------------------
 *Bond, Christopher     R  MO  224-7491  224-5721   SR293
  Bumpers, Dale         D  AR  224-6435  224-4843   SD229
 *Burns, Conrad         R  MT  224-8594  224-2644   SD183
  Byrd, Robert          D  WV  224-4025  224-3954   SH311
 *Cochran, Thad         R  MS  224-9450  224-5054   SR326
 *D'Amato, Alfonse      R  NY  224-5871  224-6542   SH520
  DeConcini, Dennis     D  AZ  224-2302  224-4521   SH328
 *Domenici, Pete        R  NM  224-7371  224-6621   SD434
 *Feinstein, Dianne     D  CA  228-3954  224-3841   SH331
 *Gorton, Slade         R  WA  224-9393  224-3441   SH730
  Gramm, Phil           R  TX  228-2856  224-2934   SR370
  Harkin, Tom           D  IA  224-9369  224-3254   SH351
  Hatfield, Mark        R  OR  224-0276  224-3753   SH711
  Hollings, Ernest      D  SC  224-3573  224-6121   SR125
  Inouye, Daniel        D  HI  224-6747  224-3934   SH722
 *Johnston, J.Bennett   D  LA  224-2952  224-5824   SH136
  Kerrey, Robert        D  NE  224-7645  224-6551   SH316
  Kohl, Herbert         D  WI  224-9787  224-5653   SH330
  Lautenberg, Frank     D  NJ  224-9707  224-4744   SH506
  Leahy, Patrick        D  VT  224-3595  224-4242   SR433
 *Mack, Connie          R  FL  224-9365  224-5274   SH517
 *McConnell, Mitch      R  KY  224-2499  224-2541   SR120
  Mikulski, Barbara     D  MD  224-8858  224-4654   SH320
  Murray, Patty         D  WA  224-0238  224-2621   SDB34
  Nickles, Don          R  OK  224-6008  224-5754   SH713
  Reid, Harry           D  NV  224-7327  224-3542   SH324
  Sasser, Jim           D  TN  224-8062  224-3344   SR363
  Specter, Arlen        R  PA  224-1893  224-4254   SH303
 *Stevens, Ted          R  AK  224-2354  224-3004   SH522
 
 
Meanwhile, the House-Senate Defense Authorization conference should get
underway this week.  We have a tentative list of conferees (SASC & HASC
committee and subcommittee heads and RRM's) attached.  Call, write, or fax:  
 
 - Senator Sam Nunn, SASC chairman.
 - Senator Strom Thurmond, SASC Ranking Republican
 - Any Senator on the list from your state.
 
 - Representative Ron Dellums, HASC chairman.
 - Any Representative on the list whose district is very near - you never know
 how the next redistricting might go, and neither do they.
 
Ask them to support the House Defense Authorization language on BMDO's Single
Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) program in the Defense Authorization conference.
 
On the Senate side, pay particular attention to giving at least one good
reason to support SSRT to the Senators who voted against the Domenici SSRT
Amendment.  Thank the Senators who voted for that amendment, and ask the ones
who didn't (politely) why not.  
 
 
 -- Likely Conferees from the Senate Armed Services Committee --
 ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
 (* = voted for the Domenici Amendment favoring full funding for SSRT.)
 
  Name                               office#         phone        fax  (AC 202)
  Sam Nunn (D-GA)   SASC Chair       SD-303          224-3521     224-0072
  James Exon (D-NE) "Nuke" Chair     SH-528          224-4224     224-5213
  John McCain (R-AZ)                 SR-111          224-2235     224-8938
 *Richard C. Shelby (D-AL)           SH-509          224-5744     224-3416
  William S. Cohen (R-ME)            SH-322          224-2523     224-2693
  Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)           SR-315          224-4543     224-2417
  Carl Levin (D-MI)                  SR-459          224-6221     224-1388
  Dan Coats (R-IN)                   SR-404          224-5623     224-1966
 *Trent Lott (R-MS)                  SR-487          224-6253     224-2262
 *Bob Smith (R-NH)                   SD-332          224-2841     224-1353
 *Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)               SH-110          224-5521     224-1810
 *John Glenn (D-OH)                  SH-503          224-3353     224-7983
  Strom Thurmond (R-SC)              SR-217          224-5972     224-1300
  John Warner (R-VA)                 SR-225          224-2023     224-6295
 
 
 -- Likely Conferees from the House Armed Services Committee --
 (all phone #'s in 202 area code, all addresses are Washington DC 20515,
 in either the Cannon, Longworth, or Rayburn House Office Buildings.
 Rep. Dellums' address, for instance, would be written as:
 
 Representative Dellums
 2136 Rayburn HOB
 Washington DC 20515 )
                                   phone     fax       address
 Ron Dellums, D 9 CA HASC Chair    225-2661  225-9817  2136 RHOB
 Floyd Spence, R 2 SC HASC RRM     225-2452  225-2455  2405 RHOB
 Patricia Schroeder, D 1 CO        225-4431  225-5842  2208 RHOB
 Earl Hutto, D 1 FL                225-4136  225-5785  2435 RHOB
 Dave McCurdy, D 4 OK              225-6165  225-9746  2344 RHOB
 Bob Stump, R 3 AZ                 225-4576  225-6328   211 CHOB
 Duncan Hunter, R 52 CA            225-5672  225-0235   133 CHOB
 John R Kasich, R 12 OH            225-5355  ?         1131 LHOB
 James V Hansen, R 1 UT            225-0453  225-5857  2466 RHOB
 Ike Skelton, D MO                 225-2876  225-2695  ?
 Jon Kyl, R AZ                     225-3361  225-1143  ?
 Norman Sisiky, D VA               225-6365  226-1170  ?
 
 
This should all be wrapped up one way or another before October is over.
It's hard to say what our chances are right now, but pushing hard over the
next couple of weeks will definitely improve the odds.  Once more unto the
breach, dear friends...
 
[Note from the editor: If you've never contacted your elected representatives
in Washington before, now is a good time to start.  It's painless, it can
actually be pretty effective, and if you don't believe developing the means of
affordable space access is a good cause, chances are you wouldn't be reading
this, eh?  For some tips on making effective contact, see the Politics section
of the subsequent "DC-X Background" posting. -HV]
 
 
 Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 Executive Director,                    in the Solar System."
 Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
 [email protected]                         "You can't get there from here."
 602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

    Tomorrow's World on BBC 1 had an item about the Delta Clipper last
    week. They showed the first flight - very impressive.
    
    Peter

Article: 4742
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: [email protected]
Subject: Space Access Update #24  10/11/93
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Followup-To: sci.space
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 03:37:34 GMT
Approved: [email protected]
Lines: 320
 
                     Space Access Update #24  10/11/93
                  Copyright 1993 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's semi-weekly publication. 
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all,
period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever point
looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting BMDO's "SSRT" (Single Stage
Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its planned-but-not-yet-funded followon,
SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely about the
technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2.
 
We anticipate a change of focus in a couple of months, if all goes well. 
Once SX-2 startup funding is (with your help!) assured, we plan to begin
working on establishment of a healthy second X-rocket development track at
NASA, and on getting development of suitable engines started for the fully
reusable orbital ships that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.
 
With luck and hard work, we should see one or more fully reusable SSTO
testbeds flying to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production
prototypes entering test a couple of years after that.  Join us and help us
make this happen.
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
[For more info on Space Access Society, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150,
Phoenix AZ 85044, or email [email protected].]
 
[Editors note -- For those of you seeing this for the first time who need a
bit more context, look for the subsequent post titled "DC-X Background".]
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
DC-X Schedule And Test Status
 
 -- DC-X Engine Problems Diagnosed, Cured
 
We have more info on the engine problems at the start of DC-X's most recent
flight on September 30th.  It's already been reported that the basic problem
was helium gas bubbles being ingested with the liquid hydrogen fuel, causing
throttleup lags that varied engine to engine.  This caused DC-X to hang over
the launch stand several seconds longer than planned, before the control
system compensated for the problem and got back on to the programmed flight
profile.  
 
A more detailed sequence of events:
 
 - The liquid hydrogen tank is normally brought up to operating pressure, then
 pressurization helium gas is cut off, long enough before start to allow
 helium bubbles to clear out of the fuel.  In this instance, a faulty
 regulator allowed helium to continue entering the tank right up to engine
 start.  (The implication is that the helium feed is at the bottom of the
 tank, else there'd be no bubbles.  Presumably this was a matter of keeping
 the plumbing simple.)
 
 - At engine start, helium bubbles still in the vicinity of the fuel inlets
 (the mesh baffles designed to keep the engines fed despite fuel slosh would
 have tended to collect bubbles) were ingested in varying amounts.  In
 essence, the engines were sucking foam for a few seconds, losing thrust as a
 result, the degree and duration of the thrust loss varying by engine.  
 
 - DC-X came up off the launch stand at a 12 degree angle off vertical and hung
 there briefly before the Flight Control System (FCS) corrected, slewing the
 base of the vehicle sideways about six feet.  The launch stand took some
 damage around this time from the rocket blast.  
 
 - The helium bubbles passed, engine thrust came up to normal, and the FCS ran
 throttle setting up to 95% to catch up with the planned flight profile.  This
 would have had DC-X accelerating upwards at a brisk net .7 G, assuming a 50%
 propellant load.
 
 - DC-X flew out the rest of the test normally, the chief features being a 180
 degree axial roll done via main engine gimballing, and a maximum altitude of
 1200 feet.  Flight duration was within 1 second and landing location within 2
 feet of the targets.
 
The immediate cure for the engine problem is repairing the faulty helium
regulator.  There are also changes being made to bleed off helium if the
regulator problem should ever recur.
 
The next two tests are now scheduled for October 20th and 23rd, a week later
than originally planned.  The launch stand damage should be repaired in plenty
of time for the next flight.  
 
The engines themselves are fine.  There is no reason to believe the helium
ingestion would have done them any harm, according to Gary Hudson, who among
his other qualifications to comment owns an RL-10.
 
 
 -- DC-X Flight Test Money Almost Gone
 
DC-X's current funding runs out at the end of October, and unless new money
shows up from somewhere, the DC-X flight test program will have to shut down
by early November, despite being far from completed.  
 
The immediate problem seems to be that the test program was paced to stretch
its FY '93 funding to the start of FY '94 - October 1st.  FY '93 funding to
cover final construction of DC-X plus flight test was around $38 million, a
tight budget for this sort of project.  Meanwhile, though, the FY '94 DOD
budget is still not passed, and may not be for several more weeks.  
 
DOD is now operating under a "continuing resolution", essentially getting
funding on a month by month basis at FY '93 levels.  Unfortunately, this
funding is not delivered line-item by line-item; major departments get chunks
of money and then are responsible for subdividing it themselves.  It looks
like BMDO has not given SSRT any new money money under the continuing
resolution.  
 
There are three possible cures for this problem: The FY '94 DOD budget could
be passed before the end of the month and SSRT's money expedited through the
chosen funding outfit (ARPA, BMDO, or whoever), McDonnell-Douglas could
public-spiritedly volunteer to pay for continued testing out of company funds,
or someone could talk to the right people at BMDO and get SSRT a share of
BMDO's continuing resolution money, 
 
The first of these is nothing to bet on, the second is unlikely and may not
even be legal, leaving BMDO coming up with some continuing resolution money
for SSRT as the best option we can see.  (BMDO, by the way, is highly unlikely
to respond to direct pressure from the general public; we don't recommend
such.)  It is possible that this is simply an oversight that will be quickly
cleared up, once word gets to the right ears.  We'll see.  
 
 
Editorial: SSTO Opponents and the Standing Army Syndrome
 
We've recently begun running into organized opposition to the "SX-2" fast-
track X-vehicle development among the more-or-less permanent Washington space
policy establishment, the senior Congressional staffers who specialize in
space.  This opposition mostly comes out in the form of attacks on SSTO in
general, because SX-2 is hard to attack in and of itself, being radically
different from anything these people are used to.  The worst _true_ thing
we've heard from any of these people about SX-2 was "But it might work!"
 
The most damning charge they can think of against SSTO in general is that it
would take fifteen years and cost $15 billion.  
 
This could even come true - but only if SSTO is done _their_ way, the way they
reflexively assume is the only possible way:  Development by a pan-industry
consortium, supervised by a small army of civil servants from every government
agency interested in launch, trying to leap from clean paper to an operational
space vehicle in a single bound.
 
Most of these people really don't understand that there is an alternative to
development by a standing army at a billion a year for ten or fifteen years. 
They think that recent history is simply the natural order of things.  
 
The fact of the matter is that you only throw an army at a problem, and grind
it down in endless overkill on every detail, under two circumstances: 
 
 - One, when the problem is overwhelmingly large and the nation decides it
 MUST be solved, FAST.  EG, D-Day, Apollo, Desert Storm.  
 
 - Two, when you have an army on the payroll anyway and you have to keep them
 busy.  EG, Shuttle, Station - and potentially "Spacelifter", the renamed Never
 Launch System, apparently trying to rise from the grave once more.
 
This standing-army-development-as-jobs-program approach tends to produce
results ranging from marginal to disastrous.  The people involved can't help
knowing they're drawing hi-tech welfare, not working on a national priority. 
Only a pervasive sense of urgency can overcome paper-pusher inertia in a
standing-army project; when the urgency is absent, the project bogs down.  
 
As for the space launch problem being overwhelmingly large, Apollo essentially
ended that.  We learned enough going to the Moon that afterwards, we could
have gone back to developing space launchers the way we developed supersonic
aircraft:  Via a series of engineering testbeds, "X-vehicles", built by small
highly talented teams, as quick and cheap and off-the-shelf as possible, the
only requirement being to fly as high and fast as the state of the art
allowed, in order to gain the experience to further advance the state of the
art in the next X-vehicle a year or two later.  
 
But we had a standing army to keep employed...
 
We must not make that mistake again.  The future space launch capability of
this nation must not be treated as a hi-tech jobs program.  
 
DC-X has pointed the way.  In three years, for around $100 million a year, 
SX-2 can put us in a position to make rational decisions based on actual
flight test data about the future launch requirements of our nation.  SX-2 can
also reinforce DC-X's demonstration of a far more affordable approach to 
spacecraft development than the discredited "standing army" method.
 
                                        - Henry Vanderbilt
 
 
SX-2 Has Support In House, But Opposition Strong In Senate
 
We're in the home stretch of this year's DOD funding process.  The House-Senate
Defence Authorizations conference should meet tomorrow, Tuesday, and get down
to business.  The most recent info we have is that the entire Senate Armed
Services Committee (SASC) wil take part, along with about thirty of their House
Armed Services Committee counterparts.
 
We have strong support on the House side, from HASC chair Ron Dellums and 
from HASC Research & Technology Subcommittee chair Patricia Schroeder.  
 
We have problems on the Senate side, in particular within the office of Senator
Strom Thurmond, the Ranking Republican member of SASC, where an SASC staffer
named Mansfield has emerged as strongly opposed to SX-2 funding.  In general
we're going into the conference with only scattered support on the Senate
side.  We need to do all we can to improve that, and one way to do that is to
convince Thurmond, the minority party leader in SASC, that SX-2 deserves his
support.  
 
We have similar problems on the Senate side of the upcoming House-Senate
Defense Appropriations conference, but the current best guess is this will not
happen until next week at the earliest - the Senate has not passed its DOD
Appropriations bill yet, and they will likely end up spending a fair amount of
time debating Somalia and Haiti before they do.
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
Call, write, or fax:  
 
 - Senator Strom Thurmond, SASC Ranking Republican.
 - Any Senator on the SASC list from your state.
 
Ask them to support, in the DOD Authorization conference, the House Defense
Authorization language that provides $79 million for BMDO's Single Stage
Rocket Technology (SSRT) program.  Emphasize if you get the chance that the
"SX-2" project this starts up will fly in three years for around a hundred
million a year, allowing a fully informed decision three years from now on any
further pursuit of SSTO launch vehicles.  Emphasize that if there's any doubt
about that schedule and budget, they should look at DC-X, which flew in two
years for $60 million.
 
If you have a local Representative on the House side of this conference, and
you haven't already contacted them in support of SSRT Followon funding, you
should do that as well.  List of HASC conference participants follows after the
SASC list.
 
 
 -- Conferees from the Senate Armed Services Committee (the whole SASC) --
  ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
  (* = voted for the Domenici Amendment favoring full funding for SSRT.)
 
  Name                               office#         phone        fax  (AC 202)
  Sam Nunn (D-GA)   SASC Chair       SD-303          224-3521     224-0072
  Strom Thurmond (R-SC) RRM          SR-217          224-5972     224-1300
  James Exon (D-NE) "Nuke" Chair     SH-528          224-4224     224-5213
  John McCain (R-AZ)                 SR-111          224-2235     224-8938
 *Richard C. Shelby (D-AL)           SH-509          224-5744     224-3416
  William S. Cohen (R-ME)            SH-322          224-2523     224-2693
  Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)           SR-315          224-4543     224-2417
  Carl Levin (D-MI)                  SR-459          224-6221     224-1388
  Dan Coats (R-IN)                   SR-404          224-5623     224-1966
 *Trent Lott (R-MS)                  SR-487          224-6253     224-2262
 *Bob Smith (R-NH)                   SD-332          224-2841     224-1353
 *Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)               SH-110          224-5521     224-1810
 *John Glenn (D-OH)                  SH-503          224-3353     224-7983
  John Warner (R-VA)                 SR-225          224-2023     224-6295
  Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT)         SH-316          224-4041     224-9750
  Bob Graham (D-FL)                  SH-524          224-3041     224-6843
 *Dirk Kempthorne (D-ID)             SD-367          224-6142     224-5893
  Lauch Faircloth (R-NC)             SH-702          224-3154     224-7406
  Charles S. Robb (D-VA)             SR-493          224-4024     224-8689
  Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)              SH-311          224-3954     224-8070
 *Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)        SH-703          224-5922     224-0776
 
 
 -- Likely Conferees from the House Armed Services Committee --
 (all phone #'s in 202 area code, all addresses are Washington DC 20515,
 in either the Cannon, Longworth, or Rayburn House Office Buildings.
 Rep. Dellums' address, for instance, would be written as:
 
 Representative Dellums
 2136 Rayburn HOB
 Washington DC 20515 )
 
 (Absent a specific office address, "Representative XYZ, Washington DC 20515"
  has a reasonable chance of working.  Apologies for the missing addresses.)
  
                                   phone     fax       address
 Ron Dellums, D 9 CA HASC Chair    225-2661  225-9817  2136 RHOB
 Floyd Spence, R 2 SC HASC RRM     225-2452  225-2455  2405 RHOB
 Patricia Schroeder, D 1 CO        225-4431  225-5842  2208 RHOB
 Earl Hutto, D 1 FL                225-4136  225-5785  2435 RHOB
 Dave McCurdy, D 4 OK              225-6165  225-9746  2344 RHOB
 Bob Stump, R 3 AZ                 225-4576  225-6328   211 CHOB
 Duncan Hunter, R 52 CA            225-5672  225-0235   133 CHOB
 John R Kasich, R 12 OH            225-5355  ?         1131 LHOB
 James V Hansen, R 1 UT            225-0453  225-5857  2466 RHOB
 Ike Skelton, D MO                 225-2876  225-2695  ?
 Jon Kyl, R AZ                     225-3361  225-1143  ?
 Norman Sisiky, D VA               225-6365  226-1170  ?
 Browder, Glen, D AL               225-9020  225-3261  ?
 Dornan , Robert      R CA                   225-2965  ?
 Hefley, Joel         R CO         225-1942  225-4422  ?
 McCloskey, Frank     D IN         225-4688  225-4636  ?
 Evans, Lane          D IL         225-5396  225-5905  ?
 Montgomery, G.V.     D MS         225-3375  225-5031  ?
 Bilbray, James       D NV         225-8808  225-5965  ?
 Hochbrueckner, GeorgeD NY         225-0776  225-3826  ?
 Lancaster, H. Martin D NC         225-0666  225-3415  ?
 Weldon, Curt         R PA         225-8137  225-2011  ?
 Machtley, Ronald     R RI         225-4417  225-4911  ?
 Spratt,, John        D SC         225-0464  225-5501  ?
 Ravenel,, Arthur     R SC         225-4340  225-3176  ?
 Lloyd, Marilyn       D TN         225-6974  225-3271  ?
 Ortiz, Solomon       D TX         226-1134  225-7742  ?
 Bateman, Herbert     R VA         225-4382  225-4261  ?
 Pickett, Owen        D VA         225-4218  225-4215  ?
 
 
For some tips on making effective contact, see the Politics section of the
subsequent "DC-X Background" posting.  
 
 
 Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 Executive Director,                    in the Solar System."
 Space Access Society                              - Robert A. Heinlein
 [email protected]                         "You can't get there from here."
 602 431-9283 voice/fax                                 - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 72079
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:72079 talk.politics.space:4021
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: SSRT Conferees in Senate anounced. Please call and express support.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 15:04:15 GMT
Lines: 44
 
 
The conferees for the Senate on the DoD Authorization bill have been
anounced. At the moment, the Senate is against any spending for SSRT.
People in the House will be pushing for SSRT, but we need to help them
by calling, and faxing these Senators.
 
Please fax and call these people if you live in their state. If not,
send your faxes and calls to Senator Nunn and Senator Exon. 
 
Ask them to support the original House language on the SSRT program.
 
 
                Senate Armed Services Committee
 
Name                            Address            Phone      FAX
                                                   (AC 202)   (AC 202)
Sam Nunn (D-GA)                 SD-303 20510      224-3521     224-0072
James Exon (D-NE)               SH-330 20510      224-4224     224-5213
 
 
John McCain (R-AZ)              SR-111 20510      224-2235     224-8938
Richard C. Shelby (D-AL)        SH-313 20510      224-5744     224-3416
Joseph I. Lieberman (R-CT)      SH-502 20510      224-4041     224-9750
Bob Graham (D-FL)               SD-241 20510      224-3041     224-6843
Dirk Kempthorne (D-ID)                            224-6142     224-5893
William S. Cohen (R-ME)         SH-322 20510      224-2523     224-2693
Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)        SR-315 20510      224-4543     224-2417
Carl Levin (D-MI)               SR-459 20510      224-6221     224-1388
Dan Coats (R-IN)                SR-504 20510      224-5623     224-1966
Trent Lott (R-MS)               SR-487 20510      224-6253     224-2262
Bob Smith (R-NH)                                  224-2841     224-1353
Lauch faircloth (R-NC)          SH-716 20510      224-3154     224-7406
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)            SH-524 20510      224-5521     224-1810
John Glenn (D-OH)               SH-503 20510      224-3353     224-7983
Strom Thurmond (R-SC)           SR-217 20510      224-5972     224-1300
John Warner (R-VA)              SR-225 20510      224-2023     224-6295
Charles S. Robb (D-VA)          SR-493 20510      224-4024     224-8689
Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)           SH-311 20510      224-3954     224-8070
 
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1143 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

Article: 72320
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:72320 talk.politics.space:4053
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: End of DC-X flight tests
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 22:47:16 GMT
Lines: 11
 
 
According to a source, the DC-X flight tests will end on October 23 when
the money runs out. Of the funds available via continuing resolution,
none will be spent on SSRT.
 
  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1142 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

    Another great idea/concept/project/launcher down the drain ...
    
    Inexpensive access to space doesn't exactly to be on the top
    of our leaders's agendas. Serves us right for electing them (-;
    
    One thing, if DC-Y development and operations costs are so low,
    why doesn't some private company or consortium of companies 
    invest on it. They could sell its services to the governament
    and all other comers, while making a nice profit on it.
    
    ... Is it because while costs are low for governament they are
    still too high for private companies ?
    
    ... Or its just that private companies will not invest in such
    long term / hight risk projects ?
    
    Just what would be the total costs of a DC-Y fleet, 10 Billion
    for development and another .5 Billion per DC-Y launcher ???
    
    Gil

RE          <<< Note 819.121 by MAYDAY::ANDRADE "The sentinel (.)(.)" >>>

>    One thing, if DC-Y development and operations costs are so low,
>    why doesn't some private company or consortium of companies 
>    invest on it. They could sell its services to the government
>    and all other comers, while making a nice profit on it.
    
  This is a really good question. If it is as inexpensive as people claim
and if it will reduce costs to 10% of current launch costs, who ever built
it would make a bundle. Obviously people are skeptical of the claims. 

  If the claims are true, someone will build something like this before long.
If they are not, then it's probably better to move on to something else.

  George

Is there any LEGAL or POLITICAL reason why a private organisation could NOT
provide some funding to continue DC-X test flights??

If this could be allowed, I would be willing to contribute a moderate sum, 
perhaps via the Space Access Society, towards this aim. If enough people 
were to follow this example (10,000 x $100 = $1M) there may be enough money
to at least complete the DC-X program. 
A better bet would be to get private business sponsorship, but that takes 
much more effort. Is anyone in the USA willing to dig-in-and-shove to get
some results??.

	John Travell.

RE     <<< Note 819.123 by COMICS::TRAVELL "John T, UK VMS System Support" >>>

>Is there any LEGAL or POLITICAL reason why a private organisation could NOT
>provide some funding to continue DC-X test flights??

  None that I can think of. It would, of course, be subject to FAA regulations
and flight control rules while flying through controlled air space between
18,000 and 60,000 feet, but if you were to build one and if you filed an IFR
flight plan I see no reason why you couldn't continue flight tests.

>A better bet would be to get private business sponsorship, but that takes 
>much more effort. Is anyone in the USA willing to dig-in-and-shove to get
>some results??.

  If we get results sure, but before I shell out my hard earned money I'd
want to be sure that it would really work. If it is as cheap as they claim,
someone will get private funds, build it, operate it, and make a bundle. If
that doesn't happen, it's probably because the claims are overly optimistic.

  George

re .124
    
>If it is as cheap as they claim, someone will get private funds, build it,
>operate it, and make a bundle. If that doesn't happen, it's probably because
>the claims are overly optimistic.
    
    Yes but when many businesses are panicking about the results of the
    next *quarter* they are just not prepared to spend a few hundred
    million over the next three years to produce a second prototype and so
    on to build a craft that might be producing revenue by the end of the
    decade and might break even when? The technical claims and the claims
    about the launch and operating costs may be spot on but you still have
    to persuade someone to part with hard-earned cash.
    
    Another problem is that it could be that the development costs are high
    enough to make investments elsewhere give better return on investment.
    Even if you are convinced of the accuracy of the Delta Clipper "business
    plan", if you find that building a better smart bomb (just an example)
    gives a higher ROI, sentiment aside, what would you do? There is such a
    thing as strategic direction but shareholder's interests have to be
    considered too.
    
    There is a r�le here for an altruistic government i.e. to take a long view
    that businesses won't.
    
    I have previously expressed my personal preference for X-30 over DC-X
    but it is abundantly clear that the space shuttle is not the last word
    in space transportation and a viable space program needs investment in
    *some* step forward.

    Private companies are sometimes willing to take the long view,
    and bet the company on some worth while investment.
    
    Example:	
    
    o	Digital  spent over $ 1 Billion to develop the Alpha AXP
    
    o	Boing is investing I don't know how many Billions on the 
    	next 7x7 plane.
    
    o	Even in space. Just after the shuttle became "operational"
        The Shuttle main contrator (I forget the name) offered to 
    	build an extra shuttle out of  its  own pockets in return 
    	for the rights to operate it privatly.
    
    In the case of the DC-X / DC-Y, or any other new space launcher
    what would reaaly help the private company into investing would
    be tax exemptions and market garantees from the governament.
    
    It would cost the governament NOTHING, and would benefit all.
    
    Example:
    
    o	100% tax exemption during developement and for the first
    	10 years of operations.
    
    o   A garantee to buy 50 flights a year at $ 25 Million / flight 
    	(i.e. $ 1000 / pound) for 10 years after operations start.
    
    Gil

Article: 4153
From: Chris W. Johnson <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
Subject: Delta Clipper Archive Mailing List
Date: 13 Oct 1993 01:09:50 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Computation Center
 
In an effort to make information from the Delta Clipper/SSRT archive
site available in a more timely and convenient fashion than periodic
FTPing typically permits, I've created a mailing list to which items
destined for the archive's news directory will be sent immediately. In
addition, the list will also be used to periodically announce the
availability of new documents on the site which are not time
sensitive. The list will be moderated, and will *not* provide a
discussion forum, as sci.space and talk.politics.space already do a
fine job of providing such a forum. 
 
I hope this will deliver information like vote alerts and launch
dates/results to people who can't always stay on top of sci.space and
talk.politics.space (an understandable problem) in a quick and convenient 
manner. 
 
If you've ever taken a look at the archive's news directory, you'll
know that it's mostly postings by Allen Sherzer and Henry Vanderbilt
(thanks Henry & Allen); the bulk of the traffic on the list will be
the same. If I can get Allen & Henry to send such items directly to
the list, I will. Otherwise, the information will continue to arrive
on the list as I manually extract it from the newsgroup traffic
(typically at least once a day on weekdays, and at random intervals 
on weekends). 
 
Now that all of that is out of the way.... If you want to subscribe to
this mailing list, send an email message with "subscribe ssrt-news" as
the first line of the message body (the Subject line is ignored) to
"[email protected]". You'll receive a message in return
confirming your subscription, and providing instructions on how to do
things like un-subscribing should you later decide the list just isn't
for you. If you encounter problems, send me email at one of the
addresses listed at the end of this mesage. 
 
As an aside, if you're not familiar with the (unofficial) Delta
Clipper archive site, you can get familiar with it by doing an
anonymous ftp to the pub/delta-clipper directory of ftp.cc.utexas.edu.
(The site is listed in the sci.space FAQ, BTW.) 
 
DISCLAIMER: This is archive is not a sanctioned activity of The
University of Texas and should not be construed as support for the
Delta Clipper program on the part of The University of Texas. As you
would expect, the goal here is to make information available to the
Internet community; what people do with the information is up to them.
 
----Chris
 
Chris W. Johnson
 
Internet: [email protected]
          [email protected]
UUCP:     {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj
 
-- The Delta Clipper Experimental (DC-X) rocket flies yet again Oct. 20 & 23.
   "We hope to fly every week until we run out of money. [....] We're running 
   on fumes." --Col. Simon P. Worden, BMDO

Article: 74283
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:74283 talk.politics.space:4417
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!hela.iti.org!aws
From: [email protected] (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: SSRT Results from Authorization conference
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 16:22:39 GMT
Lines: 42
 
 
The conference for the FY '94 DoD Authorization and Appropriation is
now done. The SSRT program seems to have survived. Unconfirmed reports
say that $17M is authorized for the program. I don't know yet what the
Appropriations Conference came up with but the two committees worked
closely together so I suspect they will get that much.
 
The Rules Committee will be going over the Appropriation Bill for the
House today and the Authorization Bill tomorrow. Votes should come
soon after that.
 
This isn't the full $75M we wanted but it will keep the program alive
until the OSTP study is released. Considering that it was dead two
weeks ago, this is very good.
 
Those of you who called, good job. It was the direct support of the
Members of Congress which saved the day and I think you had a big
part in winning their support. Everybody on the SSRT is very appreciative
of your help.
 
But we still can't relax. We must continue to get the calls to Congress and
even more now to Gore's office. This is vital to help the insiders who are
working the OSTP study. We need Administration support to keep this program
alive next year. The $17M won't last long and they must agree to reprogram
funds. 
 
 Either call/fax at:
 
          Gore's Public Comment Line:      202/456-2326
          Gore's Public Fax Line:          202/456-7044
 
 Or write to: 
 
          The Honorable Albert Gore
          Office of the Vice President
          Old Executive Office Building
          Washington, DC  20501
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mordecai: "What do we do after we do it?"     |
|   [email protected]    |   Marshall Duncan: "Ya live with it."                  |
+--------------------1116 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF SX-2----------------------+

Article: 74652
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:74652 talk.politics.space:4446
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Space Access Update #27  11/10/93
Date: 11 Nov 93 05:23:01 GMT
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 218
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
Summary: DC-X followon funded at $40 million
 
 
                     Space Access Update #27  11/10/93
                  Copyright 1993 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's semi-weekly publication. 
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all,
period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever point
looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting BMDO's "SSRT" (Single Stage
Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its planned-but-not-yet-funded followon,
SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely about the
technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2.
 
We anticipate a change of focus in a couple of months, if all goes well. 
Once SX-2 startup funding is (with your help!) assured, we plan to begin
working on establishment of a healthy second X-rocket development track at
NASA, and on getting development of suitable engines started for the fully
reusable orbital ships that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.
 
With luck and hard work, we should see one or more fully reusable SSTO
testbeds flying to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production
prototypes entering test a couple of years after that.  Join us and help us
make this happen.
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
[For more info on Space Access Society, on our next annual conference "Space
Access '94 (March 11-13 in Scottsdale, Arizona) or on the DC-X/SSTO video
we've recently begun shipping, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150,
Phoenix AZ 85044, or email [email protected].]
 
[Editors note -- For those of you seeing this for the first time who need a
bit more context, look for the subsequent post titled "DC-X Background".]
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
DC-X Schedule And Test Status
 
 
 -- DC-X Should Fly Again Before End Of Year
 
DC-X (and its test site at White Sands Missile Range) is currently on
standby, shut down but not yet torn down and trucked away, with a small
maintenance crew keeping an eye on things.  As of this evening, it looks
possible that flight test preparations could be underway again as early as
the end of next week.  "Could be", mind; despite the good news about FY '94
funding (see "DC-X/SX-2 Funding" story below) there are still a number of
hurdles ahead.  
 
You may recall that DC-X flight test money ran out in late October, one day
before the fast turnaround test was due to be flown.  At the time, it looked
as if the DC-X contract would have to be terminated by November 3rd if new
funding didn't show up.  This would have required that the test site be torn
down, the equipment (and DC-X itself) placed in storage, and the test crew
reassigned or laid off.  This would have made it expensive and time-
consuming to restart DC-X flight testing; chances are that if this
termination had happened, DC-X never would have flown again.
 
Fortunately, BMDO, MDA, and WSMR seem to have worked out a deal to keep the
contract active and the test site intact, albeit dormant.  WSMR didn't have
any other immediate use for that particular patch of desert, so leaving the
test site set up wasn't a major problem.  McDonnell-Douglas had already
moved most of the DC-X crew back to Huntington Beach, but kept a small
maintenance crew onsite even after November 3rd.  They say they have no
plans to lay off anyone anytime soon.
 
The precise details of the deal to keep the contract alive aren't known,
but it seems very unlikely that BMDO came up with any more money beyond the
$5 million or so in temporary FY'94 "continuing resolution" funding they'd
already put into DC-X flight test this fall.  As long ago as the April DC-X
rollout, there was good-humored sparring between BMDO and MDA about how much
it might be worth in the long run to MDA to keep this project alive.
 
If a lot of things all go perfectly, the DC-X test site could be bustling
again by the end of next week.  Practically speaking, it will probably take
longer, but it does look like DC-X will be flying again before the end of
the year.
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Space Access Society Notes
 
Our first batch of "S.A.S. DC-X/SSTO Video v1.0" tapes went out Monday via
USPS First Class; our thanks to everyone who's waited patiently for their
tapes, in some cases for over a month.  People who requested tape contents
and ordering info through mid-September should have gotten email already;
replies to tape (and SAS and SA'94) info requests since mid-September will
be going out over the next two days.  Our sincere apologies for the delay.
 
We now have a firm contract with the Safari Resort in Scottsdale, Arizona for
"Space Access '94", our March 11th-13th 1994 look at the technology,
politics, and economics of near-term affordable access.  (Note that some of
our earlier flyers listed the wrong hotel.)  The preliminary SA '94 speakers
list includes Hunter, Gaubatz, Hudson, and Burnside Clapp from the rocket
world, Niven from the SF world, Pournelle, Harry Stine and Rick Cook from
both sides.  We expect to add more over the coming months.  Write or email
for more info on SA'94.  
 
And if you want to see a really beautiful two-page composite photo of DC-X's
second flight, find a copy of the Sunday _New York Times_ magazine section
for 11/07/93 and turn to pages 46-47.  It's worth a trip to your local
library or out-of-town newsstand; it'll knock your eyes out.  We're looking
into getting the right to reproduce it on something more durable than
newsprint, but it could take a while.  Get a look at a copy while the paper
is still fresh if you can.  
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
DC-X/SX-2 Gets $40 Million For FY'94!
 
The House-Senate conference committee on the DOD Appropriations bill for FY
'94 (which already started October 1st) came back with their compromise
version of the bill this morning, which was quickly passed by the full
House, then this evening by the Senate.  The President will sign this bill
by tomorrow night, lest the entire Defense Department shut down at midnight
when the current temporary "continuing resolution" DOD funding expires.  
 
There is $40 million for DC-X and its followon in this bill, and there's
essentially no chance this will be changed or deleted before the bill
becomes law.  We've won!  Time to celebrate!  
 
OK.  Finished now?  Good, because what we've won was a major battle, but it
wasn't the war.  
 
What this bill actually provided is $40 million for "a competitive SSTO
program" to be conducted by ARPA, the DOD Advanced Research Projects Agency.
The language barring ARPA from paying another government agency to actually
manage the project (normal ARPA practice) is gone, a good thing as this
clause was a guaranteed DC-X/SX-2 killer.  As one wag put it at the time,
"If ARPA has to run this in-house, they'll most likely spend the money on a
new supercomputer and paint 'SSTO' on the side."
 
The problem is that, from early reports (we won't see the actual bill
language before Friday at the earliest) the bill doesn't specify who will
run this "competitive SSTO program".  ARPA could pick anyone at all, or
use the money for paper studies inhouse, or simply not do anything with it.
 
There's also the matter of the still-pending DOD Authorization conference
bill.  Latest word is that the DOD Authorization is finalized, but won't be
voted on and signed until sometime next week.  We still haven't a clue as
to what sort of SSTO-killer language might be in this, or what conditions
might be imposed on doing SSTO; they're being very close-mouthed about it.
 
There is an urgent need over the next few days to persuade ARPA to commit to
continuing the DC-X "Single Stage Rocket Technology" (SSRT) project under
its current BMDO management team.  This is the next big push.
 
If this goes well, the next step will be to put $5 million into completing
DC-X flight testing.  The remaining $35 million would be used to start a
fast-track design competition to build the SX-2 high-speed reusable rocket
testbed as a followon to DC-X.  
 
(Background: The DOD Authorizations conference is essentially the Senate
 Armed Services Committee meeting with the senior two-thirds of the House
 Armed Services Committee.  The Defense Authorizations bill in general sets
 out what items money may be spent on, in what manner, and under what
 conditions.)
 
(Background: The DOD Appropriations conference is mainly made up of the
 Defense Subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 
 The Defense Appropriations bill sets the actual amounts of money available
 for various programs, in effect writing the checks.)
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
If you've been in contact with anyone on the House or Senate Appropriations
Committee, Defense subcommittees (John Murtha, HAC Defense chair, Daniel
Inouye, SAC Defense chair), be sure to write, phone, or fax them and thank
them for the $40 million they appropriated within the DOD budget for SSTO. 
Make a special effort to thank Murtha; his support was crucial.  
 
And be sure, while you're at it, to ask them to make sure that ARPA uses
the existing proven-succesful BMDO SSRT "DC-X" management team to run the
new "competitive SSTO program".  (BMDO SSRT is the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization's Single Stage Rocket Technology program) 
 
You should also contact Representative Pat Schroeder (House Armed Services
Committee, R&T subcommittee chair) to thank her for her support for SSTO,
and to ask her to make sure ARPA uses the existing proven-successful BMDO
SSRT management team to run the new "competitive SSTO program".  
 
 
 John Murtha, House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee Chair
 phone(202) fax       address
 225-2065   225-5709  2423 RHOB, Washington DC 20515
 
 Patricia Schroeder, HASC Research & Technology Subcommittee Chair                 
 phone(202) fax       address
 225-4431   225-5842  2208 RHOB, Washington DC 20515
 
 
And thanks to all of you out there who've worked to get us this far.  This
may have been only one battle of many, but it was a big one, and hard-
fought, and we won it.  Our ideas are gaining acceptance and we as a group
are gaining strength.  If we stay focussed and stick together, we'll keep
on winning.  
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
     "SSTO?  C'mon, the only people who support that are Trekkies 
       and right-wingers."  - The Unknown Staffer
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 4971
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl!ames!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: [email protected]
Subject: Space Access Update #28  11/19/93
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Followup-To: sci.space
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 04:34:52 GMT
Approved: [email protected]
Lines: 469
 
                   Space Access Update #28  11/19/93
                Copyright 1993 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's semi-weekly publication. 
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all,
period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever point
looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting BMDO's "SSRT" (Single Stage
Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its planned-but-not-yet-funded followon,
SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely about the
technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2.
 
We anticipate a change of focus in a couple of months, if all goes well. 
Once SX-2 startup funding is (with your help!) assured, we plan to begin
working on establishment of a healthy second X-rocket development track at
NASA, and on getting development of suitable engines started for the fully
reusable orbital ships that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.
 
With luck and hard work, we should see one or more fully reusable SSTO
testbeds flying to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production
prototypes entering test a couple of years after that.  Join us and help us
make this happen.
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
[For more info on Space Access Society, on our next annual conference "Space
Access '94 (March 11-13 in Scottsdale, Arizona) or on the DC-X/SSTO video
we've recently begun shipping, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150,
Phoenix AZ 85044, or email [email protected].]
 
[Editors note -- For those of you seeing this for the first time who need a
bit more context, look for the subsequent post titled "DC-X Background".]
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
DC-X Schedule And Test Status
 
 
 -- DC-X Still Grounded
 
DC-X (and its test site at White Sands Missile Range) is still on standby,
shut down but not yet torn down and trucked away, with a small maintenance
crew keeping an eye on things.  It has been in this state since the end of
October, when flight test funding ran out.
 
Funding for resumption of DC-X flight test has been appropriated in the
fiscal year 1994 Department of Defense budget, and completion of DC-X's
flight test program is specifically called for in the accompanying DOD
authorization legislation.  (See attachment containing full text of the
Congressional FY'94 DOD space launch funding launguage.)
 
The problem is that funding now has to go through ARPA (DOD's Advance
Research Projects Agency, DC-X's new home) to be passed on to BMDO, who
will then in turn pass it on to McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (MDA), the
actual DC-X construction and test contractor.  This is a new path; the
procedures and persons responsible for funding DC-X haven't yet been
established at ARPA.
 
It's only been a week since the DOD funding bills were finally passed, but
there's not much excuse for delay in this particular matter.  DC-X is an
existing program temporarily put on hold.  ARPA is now responsible for DC-X
as part of its responsibility for the continuation of BMDO's SSRT (Single
Stage Rocket Technology) program, and DC-X's flight test program is
specifically mentioned for completion in the FY'94 DOD Authorization,
section 213, subsection b, item 1A:  "(1) $17,000,000 shall be available
for the single-stage rocket technology (SSRT) program, including - 
(A) completion of phase one of the SSRT program begun in the Ballistic
Missile Defense Office..."  DC-X's flight test program is mandated for
completion in the accompanying report language, section 213, paragraph 8: 
"The funds shall also be used to complete phase one of the single stage
rocket technology program..."  "Shall be used" is pretty unambiguous.
 
There are restrictions and conditions on spending for DC-X's followon, the
SX-2, but there is no restriction on immediate restart of DC-X flight test,
and no excuse for delay.  The crew is standing by, the hardware is
gathering dust.  Every day that passes without ARPA funding resumption of
DC-X flight test is a day wasted.  
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
SX-2 Startup Funded, But Hurdles Remain
 
As reported in our last issue, the FY'94 DOD Appropriations bill as finally
passed contains $40 million total for the SSRT program, including both
completion of DC-X flight test and startup of DC-X's followon, the SX-2
high-speed suborbital reusable rocket.  
 
Regular readers will recall that as of SAU #27, we were still worried about
what sort of anti-SSTO "gotcha's" the companion FY'94 DOD Authorizations
bill might end up carrying.  We are pleased to report that while there are a
number of hedges and restrictions on going ahead with SX-2, none of them are
insurmountable.
 
The most noteworthy restriction is a requirement that the SSRT program hold
off on releasing to industry the RFP (Request For Proposals) for SX-2 until
OSTP (the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy) comes back
with the results of yet another review of national space launch policies
and programs, sometime in January at the earliest.  
 
Positive treatment in this OSTP study is vital to getting started on SX-2
in 1994.  The OSTP study is supposed to define future Administration space
launch policy.  Very likely if it doesn't come back with a positive
evaluation of reusable SSTO rockets in general and the SSRT program in
particular, release of the SX-2 RFP (and thus the start of the bidding for
the contract to build SX-2) will be delayed indefinitely, with the SSRT
program downgraded to at best a low-level paper study program, and possibly
killed outright.  
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
We need to get two things done:  Restart DC-X flight test as soon as
possible, and make sure that SSTO gets fair and reasonable treatment in the
OSTP report due out in January.
 
Restarting DC-X flight test is a useful goal both for its own sake and
because it will establish a funding path for further SSTO work via ARPA,
blazing a trail for SX-2.
 
Getting a fair shake for reusable SSTO rockets in the upcoming White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy space launch report is vital to
getting SX-2 solidly underway in the coming year.
 
We're going to recommend that you contact various members of Congress on
the first point, restarting DC-X flight test.  Congress funds ARPA,
Congress voted in the law that now requires ARPA to continue DC-X flight
test, and members of Congress will be listened to if they ask ARPA to do so
with minimal delay.  
 
We're also going to do something a little bit different, and recommend that
you contact the Vice President (and former Senator from Tennessee), Al Gore,
on both the first and second points.  
 
As a senior member of the Clinton Administration (and as their de facto
lead man on hi-tech issues), Gore has far more direct influence at OSTP
than any member of Congress, and also should have some level of influence
at ARPA.  (The President, of course, could simply tell ARPA and OSTP what
to do, but given the other demands for his attention, the limited level of
uproar we few can raise, and VP Gore's known interest in matters of high
tech, we are far more likely to get useful results by talking to Gore.)
 
 
Recommended Action:
 
Phone, fax, or write Representative John Murtha, Representative Pat
Schroeder, and (if you've already been in touch with them this year on the
subject of DC-X) your own representative and/or Senators.  Thank them for
their support for the DOD SSRT program, and ask them to make sure that ARPA
restarts DC-X flight testing as soon as possible, as called for in the
FY'94 DOD Authorization.
 
If you're writing or faxing, or if you phone and the person who answers
asks for more background, explain DC-X's history, from initial proposal to
flying hardware in less than three years for less than $70 million, and its
current situation, grounded in mid-flight test due to slow-arriving funds,
as briefly as possible in your own words.  
 
Phone, fax, or write VP Gore's office, and ask that he make sure that
reusable Single Stage To Orbit rockets get full and fair consideration in
the current OSTP space launch policy review, and that he make sure that
ARPA restarts DC-X flight testing as soon as possible, as called for in the
1994 DOD Authorization.  
 
If you're writing or faxing, or if you phone and the person who answers
asks for more background, explain the need for and the advantages of
reusable SSTO space launchers, in your own words, as briefly as possible. 
(See the companion piece "DC-X Background" for more on this.)
 
 
 John Murtha, House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee Chair
 phone(202) fax       address
 225-2065   225-5709  2423 RHOB, Washington DC 20515
 
 Patricia Schroeder, House Armed Serviced Committee, Research & Technology
 Subcommittee Chair 
 phone(202) fax       address
 225-4431   225-5842  2208 RHOB, Washington DC 20515
 
 Al Gore, Vice President of the United States
 phone(202) fax       address
 456-2326   456-7044  The Honorable Albert Gore
                      Office of the Vice President
                      Old Executive Office Building
                      Washington DC 20501
 
 
When I first volunteered for this job, I figured it would be five years
before we knew if we'd succeeded or failed in talking the country into a
whole new approach to the problem of getting into space affordably.
 
A year and a half down, three and a half to go.  So far, so good.
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
     "SSTO?  C'mon, the only people who support that are Trekkies 
       and right-wingers."  - The Unknown Staffer
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
 
------------------------------Attachment---------------------------------
 
          Final Congressional FY'94 DOD Space Funding Language
 
      (from the Congressional Record, November 9th and 10th, 1993)
                 (full text -- approximately 250 lines)
 
 
   (DOD FY'94 Authorizations Conference Bill, Space-Related Sections)
 
SEC 213. SPACE MODERNIZATION PLAN 
 
(a) PLAN REQUIRED. - 
 
  (1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop a plan that establishes and 
clearly defines priorities, goals, and milestones regarding modernization of 
space launch capabilities for the Department of Defense, or, if appropriate, 
for the Government as a whole.  The plan shall specify whether the Secretary 
intends to allocate funds for a new space launch vehicle or other major space 
launch development initiative in the next future-years defense program 
submitted pursuant to section 221 of title 10, United States Code. 
 
  (2) The plan shall be developed in consultation with the Director of the 
Office of Science and Technology Policy. 
 
  (3) The Secretary shall submit the plan to Congress at the same time in 
1994 that the Secretary submits to Congress the next future-years defense 
program. 
 
(b) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS - Of the amount authorized to be appropriated in 
section 201, $35,000,000 shall be available through the Office of the 
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology for research, 
development, test, and evaluation of new non-man-rated space launch systems 
and technologies.  None of that amount may be obligated or expended for any 
operational United States space launch vehicle system in existence as of the 
date of the enactment of this Act.  Of that amount -
 
  (1) $17,000,000 shall be available for the single-stage rocket technology 
(SSRT) program, including - 
 
    (A) completion of phase one of the SSRT program begun in the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Office; 
 
    (B) concept studies for new reusable space launch vehicles; 
 
    (C) data base development on domestic and foreign launch systems to 
support design-to-cost, engine development, and reduced life-cycle costs; and 
 
    (D) examination of reusable engine thrust chamber component applications 
to achieve advanced producibility, cost, and durability information needed 
for improved designs; and 
 
  (2) $18,000,000 shall be available for similar tasks related to expendable 
launch vehicles, including -
 
    (A) concept studies for new expendable launch vehicles; 
 
    (B) data base development on domestic and foreign launch systems to 
support design-to-cost, engine development, and reduced life-cycle costs; and 
 
    (C) examination of reusable engine thrust chamber component applications 
to achieve advanced producibility, cost, and durability information needed 
for improved designs. 
 
(c) REQUIREMENTS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF NEW LAUNCH VEHICLES. - If the space 
launch plan under subsection (a) identifies a new, non-man-rated expendable 
or reusable launch vehicle technology for development or acquisition, the 
Secretary shall explore innovative government-industry funding, management, 
and acquisition strategies to minimize the cost and time involved.
 
(d) COST REDUCTION REQUIREMENT. - The plan shall provide for a means of 
reducing the cost of producing existing launch vehicles at current and 
projected production rates below the current estimates of the costs for those 
production rates.
 
(e) STUDY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN SPACE LAUNCH 
VEHICLES. - 
 
  (1) The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a comprehensive study of the 
differences between existing United States and foreign space launch vehicles 
in order - 
 
    (A) to identify specific differences in the design, manufacture, 
processing, and overall management and infrastructure of such space launch 
vehicles; and 
 
    (B) to determine the approximate effect of the differences on the 
relative cost, reliability, and operational efficiency of such space launch 
vehicles. 
 
  (2) The Secretary shall consult with the Administrator of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration and, as appropriate, the heads of other 
Federal agencies and appropriate personnel of United States industries and 
academic institutions in carrying out the study.
 
  (3) The Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
study no later than October 1, 1994. 
 
                        <end of section 213> 
 
 
  (DOD FY'94 Authorization Conference Report, Space-Related Sections)
 
Space launch modernization (sec. 213) 
 
The budget request included $53.9 million for the national launch system 
(NLS) program, $43.3 million for the national aerospace plane (NASP), $58.5 
million for medium launch vehicle (MLV) RDT&E, $330.7 million for Titan space 
launch vehicle RDT&E, and $4.88 million for single-stage rocket technology 
(SSRT).
 
The House bill would authorize the requested amount for NLS; add $36.7 
million for NASP, $37.0 million for MLV improvements, $15.0 million for a 
Centaur upper stage processing facility for Titan, and, in a legislative 
provision (sec. 217), $75.0 million for SSRT.
 
The Senate amendment would deny the request for NLS and NASP, reduce the 
request for Titan by $24.1 million due to the availability of prior-year 
funds for upper stage vehicle research, and approve the request for MLV and 
SSRT.  In addition, the Senate amendment would authorize $30.0 million for 
RDT&E on new launch vehicle technology.  The Senate amendment included a 
provision (sec. 214) that would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a 
space launch roadmap which focuses available resources on a single 
development or acquisition effort.
 
The House recedes on MLV and Titan funding and the provision on SSRT.  The 
House recedes with an amendment on the space launch roadmap provision.
 
The Senate recedes on prior-year upper stage vehicle funding.
 
The conferees agree that the national aerospace plane should be phased out in 
an orderly fashion in fiscal year 1994.  The conferees conclude that the 
Department of Defense cannot afford to pursue an X-plane development program 
at this time.  The conferees do believe that the Department, preferably in 
cooperation with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, should 
retain a vigorous level-of-effort technology program in hypersonic vehicles.  
Accordingly, the conferees agree to authorize $40.0 million for hypersonic 
vehicle research.  The conferees direct the Secretary of the Air Force to 
report to the congressional defense committees no later than April 1, 1994, 
on the allocation of these funds, the funding profile for the balance of the 
Future Years Defense Program, and the relationship between the DOD and NASA 
programs.
 
The conferees understand that the President's Science Advisor intends to 
review national space launch policy and programs again.  This review may 
supersede the recommendations contained in the Department of Defense Bottom 
Up Review which concluded that the Department could not afford any new launch 
acquisition programs, despite an acknowledgement of serious deficiencies in 
space launch capabilities and competitiveness.
 
To preserve options for the Administration during this planned review, the 
conferees agree to modify the Senate provision to authorize $35.0 million 
for space launch modernization for fiscal year 1994, despite the conclusions 
of the DOD Bottom-Up Review.  This amount includes the $4.88 million 
requested for launch technology within the Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization.  These funds shall be used to keep the various technology and 
system options open.  The funds shall also be used to complete phase one of 
the single stage rocket technology program, and to continue the space 
transportation main engine effort.
 
If the Administration decides to pursue any new technology or acquisition 
programs, they shall be competitively awarded.  The conferees also stress the 
importance of ensuring that small- and medium-sized companies are able to 
compete in any new program.
 
The Conferees agree with the Senate position that the Administration must 
stop trying to keep multiple space launch programs alive despite ever-
dwindling resources.  The conferees agree that the Administration must focus 
scarce resources to achieve any success at all.
 
The conferees recognize the merits in all the major competing technologies, 
including airbreathing propulsion, single-stage rocket technology, and rugged 
expendable concepts.  The conferees also recognize that there may be 
opportunities to improve existing systems in terms of cost, reliability, and 
responsiveness.  At the same time, based on unfortunate experience, the 
conferees are extremely wary of excessive optimism on costs, schedule, and 
performance.
 
The conferees are concerned that the U.S. commercial launch industry is 
rapidly losing ground to foreign competitors, which in turn is driving up the 
cost of U.S. government launches.  The conferees are also concerned that the 
existing systems enjoy a near monopoly position for launches of government 
payloads in their respective weight and volume classes.  In addition to 
offering few incentives for cost control, this situation has resulted in a 
large excess industrial capacity as the number of actual and planned 
government satellite launches has declined.  In addition, overall, NASA and 
the Department of Defense have demonstrated a remarkable inability to work 
together.  Across the government, a debilitating culture favors complexity, 
fragility, and accommodation to unique payload demands.  To date, neither the 
government nor industry has attempted to approach space launch as they do 
cargo transport by truck, rail, ships, or aircraft.  In these areas, 
standardization, rugged design, performance margins, low cost, and 
responsiveness are of overriding importance.
 
These problems are well-known: most, in fact, were addressed by the recent 
DOD review.  The Department concluded, however, that these problems were not 
pressing enough to warrant a major initiative in the current budget 
environment.
 
The conferees fear that this course will lead to an obsolete and ineffective 
U.S. launch industry over the long term, while national security concerns 
could preclude significant reliance on foreign systems - despite heavy 
dependence on foreign sources in other critical defense industries.  The 
conferees expect the Administration to come to grips with these issues and be 
prepared to present a coherent set of policies and programs to Congress early 
next year.
 
It is widely asserted that foreign launch vehicle programs enjoy distinct 
advantages over U.S. launch systems in terms of cost and responsiveness.  The 
provision would require the Department of Defense to study this issue, in 
parallel with a National Aeronautics and Space Administration study.
 
                   <end of sec. 213 report language>
 
 
 
   (DOD FY'94 Appropriations Conference Bill, Space-Related Section)
 
                       SPACE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
 
The House and Senate each included specific direction for many of the
various DOD and intelligence space and related programs.  The conferees
agree with the language contained in the two different reports except as
addressed elsewhere in this joint statement or as modified in this section.
 
The conferees believe it is premature in fiscal year 1994 to begin the
aggressive development of a new medium launch vehicle.  
 
The conferees are unwilling at this time to endorse the evolution of
improvements to Pegasus and Taurus class small lift vehicles and the
suggestion that the Defense Department should spur development of
alternative competitive vehicles.  
 
The conferees agree that the Defense Department and intelligence community
should provide, not later than 1 June 1994, a technologically achievable
and affordable plan for how current and planned large payloads may be
downsized on a reasonable schedule to permit launch on a medium lift
vehicle.  The conferees believe it is premature to decide now as to when
such downsizing can be achieved.  
 
 
                         SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES
 
The conferees agree to provide a total of $60,000,000 to ARPA for research
and development activities for space launch vehicles.  The conferees agree
not to provide $53,906,000 to the Air Force for a new National Launch
System vehicle as proposed by the House, but rather agree to provide
$10,000,000 to ARPA to begin program concept definition for a new,
affordable, near-term medium launch vehicle.  The conferees also agree to
provide $40,000,000 for a competitive Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) vehicle
as proposed by the House; however, the conferees agree to modify the House
language to permit reimbursement to the Air Force for projects approved by
the Director of ARPA.  Finally, the conferees also agree to provide
$10,000,000 as proposed by the House for launch technology development
projects such as hybrid propellants and parafoils.
 
               <end of DOD space appropriations section>

For those who may be interested, :-)

There is a good spread in the centre pages of SPACEFLIGHT this month (Nov 1993)
it extends to a 3 page article, written by W. Paul Blase Of Virginia, USA.

This is periodical ISSN 0038-6340. 

I have a copy, but copyright laws dictate not transcribing it in full.

	John Travell.

Article: 75549
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!agate!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!mindlink.bc.ca!a752
From: [email protected] (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Is the DC-1 economically viable?
Date: 28 Nov 93 17:22:00 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 76
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mindlink.bc.ca
 
UPDATED INFORMATION - DC-1 DEVELOPMENT COSTS
 
After I posted the beginning of this thread, Allen Scherzer replied to a
question I had mailed him several days ago inquiring about up-to-date
estimates for DC-1 development and production costs.  Allen indicated that
current estimates were:
 
Development and production of a fleet of 4 vehicles, including precursor
research such as the SX-2 and accumulated interest on money borrowed during
the development:  $5,000 million.
 
Per vehicle production cost:  $250 million
 
Note that these figures essentially imply that development by itself is
$4,000 million, plus four vehicles at $250 million apiece.
 
 
I quoted Harry Stine as indicating that the "most realistic" assumptions for
a DC-1 were $500 million per vehicle (development costs and number of
vehicles undefined).  Allen's figures work out to $1,250 million per vehicle
for the first four vehicles, bearing in mind that you can't purchase the
first vehicle at this price.
 
Essentially, the recent information from Allen does not change my previous
posting, as I had used a $5,000 million figure as the "optimistic" case for
developing the DC-1 and building the first vehicle.  Allen's updated figures
say that I get four, not one vehicles for $5,000 million.  However, the
revenue stream from commercial launches must still cover repaying the entire
$5,000 million - the only difference is that I have 4 vehicles in the hanger
to do this with, not 1.
 
 
 
Pat writes:
 
> While your estimates are reasonable,  they fall on a couple assumptions.
> You use the 10 year 1982-91 launch period.  This was an amazing period of
> draught. From 1986-88, the US wasn't flying much. In the early 80's the
> shuttle wasn't doing much either.
 
However, Pat also writes:
 
> The launch services market seems closer to a billion [dollars].
 
My own calculation indicates a market of $43,000 kg to GTO at $25,000 per kg
for a total of $1,075 (or the equivalent dollar value in LEO launches).  Pat
and I actually don't disagree.
 
>  so if an SSTO captures 70% of that, they are just breaking even.
 
Yes, this looks reasonable, particularly in view of Allen's most recent
development costs.  However, I don't think it is reasonable for a brand new
launcher to capture 70% of the commercial market if it charges current market
rates.  Certainly not the first year, and probably not ever.  Do you think
that the buyers of launch services will allow a single launch system to
achieve a near monopoly ? - they remember the Suttle situation all too well.
 
The DC-1 can't afford to cut prices to attract customers, as it impacts on
cash flow.  It may reasonably however attract customers by offering good
service (reliable, on-time launches and a low mission failure rate).
 
 
 
> The real win comes in expanding the market.
 
Yes.  However, I don't think that extensions of the current commercial market
for launches are going to do it.  As the market in terms of kilograms
increases, the dollars available may not increase very much.  Don't forget
that Arianespace hopes to nearly half the per kilogram cost of launches over
the next few years, as the Ariane 5 comes on line.
 
As has repeatedly been discussed in this group, what is really needed is some
brand new markets for the DC-1.
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [email protected]

Article: 75550
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!caen!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Is the DC-1 economically viable?
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 93 13:29:03 EST
Organization: Delphi Internet
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: delphi.com
 
I just happened to be perusing through the internet here as I have five
free hours of access time and I saw the posting by Bruce Dunn.  I couldn't
resist a reply even though I won't likely be around for the response.  I'm
the government program manager on DC-X and have been involved in SSTO work
extensively since 1986 (then as part of the NASP program).  The economic
analysis done by Bruce is good and thorough, but it reminds me of Mark Twain
said about lies:  There are three kind of lies; damned lies, damnable lies
and statistics.  You can make numbers say anything!  The reality is the US
today spends over $10 Billion on space launch between the Space Shuttle, the
military launchers and the commercial sector (i.e. everything).  A fleet of
4 SSTO's could easily support all of today's launch's with 20K lb payloads,
roughly 20 to 40 flights per year.  Remember a 20K lb payload captures
roughly 80% of all US payloads and 100% (essentially) of commercial payloads.
Let's not talk about cost per pound or even cost per flight.  Instead lets
talk about the operating cost of the system just as we would aircraft.  That
cost is roughly $300 to 500M per year for the 20 to 40 flight per year
flight rate.  Now that's reality (assuming we meet our technical goals) and
even the most ardent critic will have difficulty refuting that a $500M per
year cost is better than today's $10B (albeit you'll have to keep Titan IV
on line to capture the larger payloads).  As for the technical feasibility
of SSTO common sense is finally starting to take hold.
NASA's recent ACCESS TO SPACE study has concluded that SSTO is the way to
go.  In fact their baseline SSTO vehicle (one of them) is designed with
45,000 lbs of payload (due east).  It uses the same composite construction
as McDonnell's DC-Y but they prefer the use of Russian tripropellant engines.
The total weight margin on the vehicle is over 100,000 lbs giving a total
lift margin (payload plus dry weight margin) of close to 150,000 lbs (NASA
likes conservative designs).  Even the Aerospace Corp. the most conservative
of government advisors is coming around with analysis supporting the
feasibility of SSTO using off the shelf technologies (i.e. graphite epoxy is
really the enabling technology).  The real issue is can our wonderful form
of government get it's act together and do this program as a series of X
vehicles without creating a giant program office with hundred's of gov't
employees that love the program to death.  If we can there is every reason
to hope that we can do a series of two X vehicles (the SX-2 as a suborbital
demonstrator of mass fraction issues followed by an SSTO demonstrator) that
will provide cheap space access.  After all we operate aircraft wings
consisting of several dozen aircraft which in many cases are far more complex
than SSTO's or even today's space shuttle (i.e. B-2, B-2, even C-17) at
a cost generally even less than $300 to 500M per year.  As for the expendable
solution, I also work on several "low cost" commercial booster contracts;
Pegasus with OSC, ORBEX with
CTA and Conestoga with EER.  All started out as systems to substantially
lower the cost to access space because they wouldn't be encumbered by gov't
regulations.  Today all are terribly expensive on a $/lb basis (i.e. $10K/lb
) and not that much cheaper than today's larger MLV's on a cost per flight
basis.  The problem is for 80 years we've purchased aerospace hardware on
a dollars per pound empty weight basis and it's expensive if you want
quality and reliablity.  I know all the arguments for dumb and simple, but
when you plug them into the cost model what keeps coming out is just dumb.
Unless your willing to manufacture the boosters in Mexico (or China or Russia)
it's tough to make them cheap.  I know of several proposal which claim
(credibly) to be able to build simple dumb boosters cheap, but none have
any more proof behind their claims than does SSTO today.  In fact
substantially less.  Nonetheless, my own hope is the US will continue to
invest in both solutions for a while till we sort out what makes sense.
I hope my arguments will be taken in the spirit they are given, as food for
thought and constructive argument.

Article: 75568
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!caen!nigel.msen.com!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!mindlink.bc.ca!a752
From: [email protected] (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Is the DC-1 economically viable?
Date: 29 Nov 93 01:25:17 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 68
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mindlink.bc.ca
 
JESS SPONABLE writes:
 
> I'm the the government program manager on DC-X and have been involved in
> SSTO work extensively since 1986 (then as part of the NASP program).  The
> economic analysis done by Bruce is good and thorough, but it reminds me of
> Mark Twain said about lies:  There are three kind of lies; damned lies,
> damnable lies and statistics.  You can make numbers say anything!
 
Thanks for responding.  What you say about statistics is unfortunately true.
However, the alternative of trying to make technological decisions without
recourse to elementary arithmetic is even worse.
 
> The reality is the US today spends over $10 Billion on space launch between
> the Space Shuttle, the military launchers and the commercial sector (i.e.
> everything).  A fleet of 4 SSTO's could easily support all of today's
> launch's with 20K lb payloads, roughly 20 to 40 flights per year.  Remember
> a 20K lb payload captures roughly 80% of all US payloads and 100%
> (essentially) of commercial payloads.
 
However, most of the dollar value here is in the Shuttle.  While the DC-1
could take over eventually a lot of what the Shuttle does, it won't be able
to do it immediately.  The Titan military market is probably forever beyond
the DC-1.  The military hated being forced to use the Shuttle, and now that
they have their own Titan program they won't let go of it.  In any case, most
of the Titan payloads are too large for the DC-1.  A 20 K payload is
"technically" capable of capturing 100% of commercial payloads, but may not
be "politically" capable of capturing them, given the undoubted desire among
the users of commercial launchers to not put their eggs all in one basket.
 
 
> Let's not talk about cost per pound or even cost per flight.  Instead lets
> talk about the operating cost of the system just as we would aircraft.
> That cost is roughly $300 to 500M per year for the 20 to 40 flight per year
> flight rate.
 
Yes - this probably is not at all unreasonable.  The per flight costs
mentioned here are on the order of $12 to $15 million per flight; the figure
I used was actually a much more ambitious $6 million per flight, (for the
optimistic case) which is still a lot higher than that estimated by Stine.
But remember this is operating costs only.  You still have to acquire the
vehicles.  The most recent figures indicate that at the start of operations,
there will be a $5,000 million debt to be retired.  Even at very attractive
interest rates, the debt costs are more than the operating costs.  This the
nature of reusable vehicles.
 
 
> Now that's reality (assuming we meet our technical goals) and even the most
> ardent critic will have difficulty refuting that a $500M per year cost is
> better than today's $10B (albeit you'll have to keep Titan IV
> on line to capture the larger payloads).
 
I think the problem is not whether you could eventually pick up a lot of the
Shuttle business (no doubt you can), but whether you can survive economically
until you can.  My analysis was a short term analysis only, looking at what
the economics would be during the first year or two of operation.
 
 
> I hope my arguments will be taken in the spirit they are given, as food for
> thought and constructive argument.
 
Certainly.  The point here is not to win debating points, but to try to
determine the facts through the fog of rhetoric currently surrounding both
sides of the issue.
 
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [email protected]

    
    Private DC:
    
    As I mentioned in reply .126, the development of the DC vehicle,
    could be possible for a big-private company or a consortium of
    companies ... but ONLY if the governament helped in reducing the
    risks.
    
    The governament doesn't need to help with money, something that
    should be to their liking.   But it does need to HELP, with tax
    exemptions, technology access, and market garanties, etc.
    
    Costs:
    
    Personally I would double, the DC estimates given to 10 Billion 
    for development and .5 Billion per vehicle. This is after all a 
    new launcher not just a new version of an existing one. 
    
    The important thing is that its operating costs should be low,
    with a fleet of 4 DC-Ys and a launch rate of 50 to 100 flights
    per year. Operating Costs should still be below 1 Billion/year.
    
    And of course, most of the initial launches (first few years), 
    need to be garanteed governament launches... until people gained
    confidence on the system.
    
    Shuttle:
    
    As for the Shuttle, even if no DC is ever built, its days are 
    marked. I don't think that congress is likelly to pay for any
    additional vehicles, and the remaining life times of the current
    ones are LIMITED.
    
    	Gil
    

Article: 5159
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!caen!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: [email protected]
Subject: Space Access Update #29  1/12/94
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Followup-To: sci.space
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 04:18:08 GMT
Approved: [email protected]
Lines: 184
 
                     Space Access Update #29  1/12/94
                  Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's semi-weekly publication. 
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all,
period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever point
looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting the government's "SSRT"
(Single Stage Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its recently funded
followon, SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely
about the technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2.  
 
We anticipate a change of focus in a couple of months, if all goes well. 
Once SX-2 startup is (with your help!) assured, we plan to begin working on
establishment of a healthy second X-rocket development track at NASA, and on
getting development of suitable engines started for the fully reusable orbital
ships that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see one or more fully reusable SSTO
testbeds flying to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production
prototypes underway shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society, on our upcoming engineering/politics/
economics conference "Space Access '94" (March 11-13 in Scottsdale, Arizona)
or on the DC-X/SSTO video we have for sale, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-
150, Phoenix AZ 85044, or email [email protected].]
 
[Editors note -- For those of you seeing this for the first time who need a
bit more context, look for our post entitled "DC-X Background".]
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
                  DC-X And SX-2 Face Shutdown, Defunding
 
It's been almost two months since we all talked Congress into writing a check
for forty million for SSTO - five million to finish DC-X flight test, the rest
to start up the followon SX-2 reusable suborbital X-rocket project.  
 
Two months later, DC-X is still grounded and the SX-2 RFP is still on hold.  
 
You'd think that once we got $40 million appropriated for DC-X/SX-2 for this
year, our troubles would be over for a while, right?
 
Wrong.
 
True, there have been some positive developments over the last couple of
months regarding working-level organization and coordination of future SSTO
technology development - but that will have to wait until the next Update.  
 
Right now, the Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) "DC-X/SX-2" project is in
serious danger on two fronts.  
 
 - DC-X Faces Fatal Delay
 
One problem is familiar from last November, when we were pointing out that DC-
X can only stay grounded (funds ran out in late October) for a limited period
before it gets extremely difficult to restart the flight test program.  Well,
that time has arrived.  Unless ARPA finally releases the funding appropriated
two months ago, McDonnell-Douglas will begin handing out layoff notices to the
DC-X crew at the end of this week.  MDA won't have much choice in the matter;
absent funding, the DC-X contract will be terminated by the end of this month,
and people being laid off have to be given two weeks notice.  
 
This just in:  DC-X contract termination notice will be given tomorrow, with
the termination effective February 1st.  This isn't irreversible yet, but it's
getting awfully close.
 
DC-X is in danger of becoming a lawn ornament, and the DC-X team is in
immediate danger of being broken up and scattered.  This rocket does deserve
to go to the Air & Space Museum, true - but after the flight test program is
completed.  Ending its career now would be an incredible waste of resources,
as well as an insult to everyone who has worked to get it this far.  
 
Unfortunately, this sort of bureaucratic foot-dragging has been hard to fight,
as it's difficult to prove it's anything but sensible caution by the civil
service types involved.  
 
 - SX-2 Faces Defunding
 
The other problem is new.  On December 31st, the Comptroller's office at the
Department of Defense released a list of proposed recissions for FY'94, a list
of programs which DOD would be willing to shut down, returning their funding to
the Treasury.
 
DC-X/SX-2 was on this list in the guise of "ARPA Space Program", a fact we
found out early last week.  A week's worth of quiet behind-the-scenes attempts
to get this fixed later, it has become obvious that "ARPA Space Program"
very likely didn't get on the kill list by accident or oversight, and that it
won't come off the list without a fight.  
 
This has at least had the beneficial effect of making it quite clear that DC-
X/SX-2 faces active opposition, not just overcautious foot-dragging.  Now we
have something definite to fight.
 
The immediate problem is Dr. Gary Denman, the head of ARPA.  Denman has
refused to appeal the DC-X/SX-2 funding recission.  Apparently he simply
doesn't want ARPA doing SSTO.
 
Denman's boss is Dr. John Deutch, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition. 
At the moment it's unclear how much Deutch has to do with this attempt to kill
the DC-X/SX-2 "SSRT" program, but it seems unlikely Denman would be taking this
tack without Deutch's backing.
 
Deutch in turn reports to Deputy Secretary of Defense Dr. William J. Perry.
As of Monday the 10th, Perry had not yet approved the draft DOD recissions
list.  Dr. Perry should be able to fix these problems over the next few days,
should he decide to do so, by removing "ARPA Space Program" funding from the
DOD recissions list, and by telling his subordinates to immediately release
enough of that funding to restart DC-X flight test.  
 
 
SAS Action Reccommendations
 
We have to reemphasize one point:  DON'T contact any of the above-mentioned
officials directly, unless you happen to be a drinking buddy of theirs. 
Members of the general public calling them about policy differences will only
annoy them and make them even less likely to do what we want.  The people to
talk to are your elected representatives in Congress - it's part of their job
to act as intermediary between the public and the bureaucracy.
 
What's needed at this point is intervention by one or more of DC-X/SX-2's
influential Congressional backers, the senior people on the Armed Services and
Appropriations committees who decided the US should pursue SSTO technology when
they put together this year's DOD budget.  Their expressed and explicit will
is being thwarted by unelected functionaries, and they are unlikely to take
kindly to this once it's brought to their attention.
 
(Intervention by the Administration, of course, could also clear this up
quickly, but we're unlikely to be able to get any more attention and support
from them now than we could last fall.  The President and Vice President are
both focusing their efforts elsewhere; cheap access to space is not (yet) a
high priority for either.  The White House space staff (OSTP, Office of
Science and Technology Policy) has not yet expressed a strong opinion either
way on SSTO, beyond saying they won't support it unless DOD does also.  Gaining
Administration support for SSTO is a worthwhile long-term effort, but is
unlikely to bear fruit soon enough to solve the immediate problem.)
 
We reccommend that you call or fax your local Representative and/or Senators if
you have any reason to believe that they're already pro-SSTO.  The message to
deliver is that unelected officials are attempting to thwart the will of the
Congress and kill the "SSRT" Single-Stage-To-Orbit program, and that Deputy
Secretary of Defense William J. Perry should be told to have his people:  
 
  1. Remove the "ARPA Space Program" money from the Defense recission list.
 
  2. Release funds to resume DC-X flight test immediately.
  
  3. Have USAF build and fly the SX-2 followon SSTO demonstrator vehicle.
 
We also have some specific regional action reccomendations.
 
 - SF Bay Area people, please lay off Norm Mineta; he's already on board and
 working on this.  Concentrate on Ron Dellums, the Chairman of the House Armed
 Services Committee.  
 
 - Colorado people, please lay off Pat Schroeder; she's already aware of this
 and working on getting it resolved.  
 
 - New Mexico people, congratulations; we understand the entire New Mexico
 delegation is alerted already.  Please don't contact them on this further.
 
 - Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania (Chairman of the HAC Defense
 subcommittee) is important to us, and as far as we know still needs to be
 contacted.  
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
       "SSTO?  C'mon, the only people who support that are Trekkies
                and right-wingers."  - The Unknown Staffer
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" 14-JAN-1994 00:43:23.90
CC:	
Subj:	FW: RD/NSS News no. 79 (Urgent)

                    Speak Now Or The DC-X Might Never Fly Again
===============================================================================
                           Attachment

>From:	NAME: Benigno Muniz Jr.             
	FUNC: 545                             
	TEL: 818-586-3578                     <MUNIZ BEN AT A1 AT RWTMS2>
To:     See Below

************************************************************************
!!    Attention members of the Rocketdyne Employees Space Society     !!
************************************************************************
!!    Please read this on your own time.  Thank You.                  !!
!!    Distribution of this message is encouraged.                     !!
************************************************************************
!!    For changes to the distribution list, or to join the chapter    !!
!!    please contact: tbd                                             !!       
   
***********************************************************************

Many of you have been following the successes of the DC-X program,
a.k.a. Single Stage Rocket Technology demonstrator, which has been
performing research that may be fundamental to lowering the cost of
launching payloads (and perhaps people) into orbit. The program has
run into a bureaucratic roadblock which may prevent the completion of
the planned test sequence, including the "flip" maneuver to validate
re-entry techniques. The help of space activists is urgently needed by
*this Friday* (14 Jan. 1994). The following material was compiled from
several sources: 

* The DC-X1/SSRT vehicle was moth-balled October 28th, after three 
  (successful) flights due to funding constraints.

* In late November, Congress directed the Advanced Research Program 
  Agency (ARPA) to spend $5 million to finish the DC-X1 flight test 
  program and $40 million to begin a DC-X1 follow-on (which would be open 
  to competition).

* There are some bureaucrats within ARPA and other agencies that are 
  pushing for a stop to the DC-X program until a report by the Office of 
  Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) on future launch vehicles is complete.

* As of December 17th, ARPA has not yet released the $5 million required 
  to resume and complete the DC-Xl flight test program. The DC-X1 sits in
  mothballs, with the skilled operations crew getting rusty and/or being 
  reassigned or laid off.  The longer the DC-X1 sits, the greater the 
  problems likely with restarting and completing the flight test program. 

* McDonnell Douglas runs out of funds this Friday, 14-Jan-94 and the 
  DC-X Team will start being laid off. There is the real risk is that 
  after spending about $70 million to get to this part of the program, the 
  DC-X1 may become a "hanger queen" and never fly again. Waiting for the 
  OSTP study will effectively kill the DC-X flight test program.

* Examination of single-stage technology may then be delayed for several 
  years.

******************** WHAT YOU NEED TO DO *****************************

* If your Representative is Jane Harman (D-36th Congressional 
  District-Torrance, Redondo Beach, etc.), you have a vital role to play 
  since she sits on both the House Science, Space and Technology Space 
  subcommittee and the Armed Services Committee. She arrives back in the 
  home district tomorrow so call or fax the *local* office by Friday 
  (voice 310-787-8767, fax 310-787-8425) to ask her to speak to the 
  following people to release the money needed to complete the DC-X1 
  flight test program; 

	Dr. William J. Perry           
	Deputy Secretary of Defense  
	
	Dr. John M. Deutch
	Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
	
	Dr. Gary L. Denman
	Director, ARPA

* Everyone should contact the offices of Senator Dianne Feinstein (local 
  310-914-7300, Washington 202-224-3841, fax 202-228-3954) and *their own* 
  congressman bt Friday and ask them to contact Perry, Deutch and Denman. 
  Also ask that Feinstein call Harman about this.

A sample fax follows:
----------------- cut here ----------------------------------------
Dear Congressman (or Congresswoman or Senator Feinstein),

The Single Stage Rocket Technology program has been performing
research that may be vital to future U.S. space launch vehicles, and
the Congress has directed the Advanced Research Program Agency (ARPA)
to spend $5 million to complete the current test series for the DC-X1
vehicle. However, ARPA has not yet released these funds, and the
program will be shut down on Friday, the 14th of January. 

As one of your constituents, I ask you to please speak to the
following people to have these funds release by ARPA: 

	Dr. William J. Perry           
	Deputy Secretary of Defense  
	
	Dr. John M. Deutch
	Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
	
	Dr. Gary L. Denman
	Director, ARPA

(for Feinstein add: "I also ask that you call Congresswoman Jane Harman 
and ask her to contact these people as well.")

Sincerely,

(your name and address)
----------------- cut here ----------------------------------------

Please let me know if you do any of these actions, I'd like to get some 
feedback. Thanks.

As always, if you wish to take any action please do so on your own time.

Ad Astra Per Ardura Nostra 
(To the Stars through Our Own Hard Work),

Ben Muniz, President
Rocketdyne Employees Space Society / a National Space Society chapter

Article: 78558
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!world!dld
From: [email protected] (Don L Doughty)
Subject: NSS DC-X SSTO Press Rel.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Keywords: DC-X Delta Clipper SSRT SSTO
                            NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY
                           922 Pennsylvania AVE., SE
                             Washington, DC 20003
                               FAX 202-546-4189
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 09:24:55 GMT
Lines: 95
 
For immediate Release
Contact: David Brandt (202) 543-1900
 
 
                   "Keep Delta Clipper,"   Space Advocates Urge
 
 
NSS' Call to Clinton and Gore "Stop the insanity" at Pentagon and
Let the Program Go Forward.
 
 
Amid rumors and press reports that funding -- already appropriated by Congress
-- for the experimental Single Stage to Orbit spacecraft program may be refused
by the Pentagon, space advocates are urging that the program go ahead.
 
"This is crazy," says Lori Gravar, Executive Director of the National Space
Society. "It's one thing to get Congress to appropriate money for a program --
it's another for bureaucrats to refuse to spend it once it's appropriated! 
This is a program that virtually everyone considers exemplary. It's gotten
excellent press everywhere from the New York Times to Popular Science. It's
performed as promised, on time, and within budget. And it promises to lower
launch costs by a factor of ten or more. Maybe it's done too well." 
 
The Delta Clipper program is making a lot of people nervous because it's
revolutionary technology," says Glenn Reynolds, NSS Executive Vice President.
"If it works, everything else is obsolete: the French Ariane vehicle, the
Japanese H-2and, of course, the fleet of converted ballistic missiles that 
the US. uses. So everyone who's threatened -- both foreign and American --
is trying to shoot it down."
 
It isn't just the technology, but the management structure that's threatening 
a lot of people," adds Reynolds. "They've produced a flying prototype, 
literally for the cost of a couple of Space Shuttle toilets. It's dangerous to 
be that successful in Washington, because it makes everyone else look bad. 
This program may turn out to be a victim of its own success." 
 
Some cynics in the space community have joked that the program must be killed
because lower costs and higher efficiency mean less responsibility for 
government bureaucrats and lower profits for aerospace contractors. "They're 
probably righter than they know," says Reynolds. "I am reminded of that scene 
in the movie 'Blazing Saddles' where the Governor says, 'Gentlemen, we've got 
to protect our phoney-baloney jobs.' There's a lot of that going on right now: 
the current space program may not work very well, but it represents a lot of 
government spending, and a lot of jobs. If this program is ultimately 
successful, putting things into space will be a lot easier and a lot cheaper. 
That would be great for America and the world, but some people don't want to 
face the changes that it will bring." 
 
 
- more -
 
922 Pennsylvania AVE., SE
WASHINGTON. DC 20003
202/543 1900
FAX 202-546-4189
 

 
NSS\DC-X\2                                                              page 2
 
 
As the Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission has proven successful, and we
are now able to see the ends of the universe, government bureaucrats are 
blind to a cheap and effective program. While a threat to vested interests, the
revolutionary low-cost program has kindled excitement among space enthusiasts
like nothing before. "Our members are very optimistic about this program," says
Garvar. "Hundreds of them have gone to the New Mexico desert to watch test
flights. The amount of interest and grassroots activism on behalf of it exceeds
anything else l've seen. Many of our members think it's the last best hope to
become a spacefaring nation."
 
A broad-based coalition of grassroots space groups has supported the program,
from the National Space Society, to the California Space Development Council, to
the Space Frontier Foundation. "These are all grassroots groups, funded by
individuals, not corporations," says Garvar. "They support the program because
they think it's good for the country, and for the future of humanity. It's 
just too bad that something that has inspired so many people is in danger of 
being killed off by bureaucrats for obscure reasons -- when the money has 
already been appropriated by Congress. We hope that President Clinton and Vice 
President Gore will put a stop to this insanity" 
 
The National Space Society is an educational nonprofit membership organization
promoting space exploration, development, research and human habitation.
Nineteen ninety-four will be the Society's twentieth anniversary. NSS is more
than 25,000 members and 100 chapters throughout the world.
 
NSS and its many chapters are sponsors of regional meetings, educational
symposia, and the annual international Space Development Conference. NSS is
the publisher of 'Ad Astra' magazine.
 
Member benefits also include private shuttle launch tours, a computer bulletin
board service and a recorded telephone hotline. A volunteer board of directors
governs the NSS: education, publication and policy committees offer guidance.
 
#end

Article: 78559
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!caen!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!dld
From: [email protected] (Don L Doughty)
Subject: Why Support DC-X
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Keywords: SSRT SSTO Delta Clipper DC-X
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 09:35:07 GMT
Lines: 113
 
	If you intested in detailed Ref. list send mail to [email protected].
#start
 
"Why Support  the DC-X Project"					     15-Jan-94
by Dr. Charles Lurio							page 1
 
We should support continuation of the McDonnell-Douglas Delta Clipper
design and their engineering team because this best fits our goals of
minimizing development and operations costs:
 
Two stages means two Separate development programs, about 2 times the 
development cost for the same mass of each stage. Two stages adds ground 
support crew requirements. About 70% of reduction in ground crew advantage for 
single stage vehicle over expendable is due to elimination of stage and shroud 
assembly, etc. Two stages means we still are trying to optimize payload 
fraction at cost of higher operations penalties, appropriate to 1960 
competition with Russians but not 1994 to open frontier. How many two stage 
airliners do you see? (It was tried and rejected about 60 years ago.) 
 
Delta Clipper vs. winged fly back (e.g. Lockheed): 
 
Lockheed design depends on linear plug nozzle: BMDO studies found negligible
advantage and higher technical complexity compared to flight proven 
extendible nozzles. 
 
Clipper shape based on extensive classified testing of maneuverable missile
RVs, provides comparable crossrange to horizontal landing vehicles that also
carry penalty of wings, landing gear and need for runway.  Very large data
base for Clipper shape aerodynamics down to Mach 1. DC-X was designed to test
regime below Mach 1: tests showed skeptics wrong on stability and practicality
of vertical landing.  For small additional cost should complete critical
sub-Mach 1 testing with DC-X.
 
Apollo 12 Astronaut Pete Conrad stated that the Delta Clipper design
can be refueled in orbit and can easily adaptable as lunar lander, with
built in landing gear. How many runways are there on the moon?
 
Management questions:
 
Douglas has established team with hardware experience that put together the
Delta Clipper in 10 months (European space officials thought it would take
10 years Co build DC-X rocket.)
 
Douglas relied on large contingent of people from commercial aircraft
division to design in maintainability. Lockheed Skunk Works knows how
to efficiently build high tech but still relatively expensive aircraft
for specialized military use: where is the commercial version of the SR-71?
 
Technical Need for Sx-2 vehicle (cost, about $300m):
 
Extend proven experience and validation of models for minimal ground support
for vehicle with more extensive flight regime (to about Mach 6: could put a
few 100lb in orbit with upper stage). 

									page 2
 
Provide tracking of dry mass growth during development using same composite
materials for structure and tankage as for orbital version.  This is absolutely
key, since those (Such as NASA) who prefer long, expensive technology
development programs base it on projected need for these technologies to allow
for very large mass growths. We should not invest in maintenance nightmare of
version of shuttle engine (SSME) or tripropellant engine unless absolutely
necessary.  Douglas studies indicate we can use version of simple expander 
cycle based on proven components (i.e. the RL-10). 
 
SX-2 allows us to learn from experience rather than from paper projections
prejudiced by desire of bureaucracies to support design centers. Hands-on
experience with DC-X provided more progress on reducing ground operations
costs in a few months than all of NASA's paper studies over 20 years. SX-2
would prove 90% of SSTO requirements. 
 
Financing an SSTO:
 
We must face certain facts, at the same time we should not give up on
hope of substantial private investment eventually.
 
Contrary to perception, airplane industry is extremely conservative
at this point in history.  They have to go though enormous hoops to
finance an airliner even with proven technology and pledged
customers. Contrast this with SSTO that has enormous (perceived) risk
and no proven market beyond a few satellite launches per year. All
other markets are pure speculation from point of view of banking
industry.   Yet would be asking banks to invest amount comparable to
that for modern airliner (Douglas estimate).
 
They won't do it, and if an aerospace company tried to bet its core
markets that have clear profit margins (whether commercial or government)
to get the cash they'd probably be sued into oblivion by stockholders who
hold management responsible for reasonable investments not to mention the
thousands dependent on company profitability for their pensions.
 
Put another way, the most risk-prone entrepreneurs wouldn't look at
the scale of investment required for an SSTO now unless they weren't
afraid of losing their ability borrow any money for years to some.
 
Note, when presented with SSTO concept, a billionaire reputably said, "But how
would I know if I'd get my money back? What will it look to the financial
community?"
 
The upshot is that risk reduction is required before substantial private
investment can be expected, The most effective thing we can do in that
direction now is to get the DC-X testing completed and the SX-2 funded on
another fast track program.
 
In parallel, but not in substitute. there need to be other ways to
lower the barrier for private investment, such as serious forums with
business and technical professionals to reduce the part of the risk
perception that is artificially high due to 35 years of US space
socialism keeping costs high. Note Contrast with useful industry/goverment 
partnership that developed aviation. Contrast same number years from Lindburgh 
to Glenn as from Glenn to 1995, and compare the progress. 
 
# end #
    

RE: <<< Note 819.136 >>>

>"They've produced a flying prototype, literally for the cost of a couple of
>Space Shuttle toilets. 

Does each Shuttle toilet cost tens of millions of dollars each (by any means of
accounting)? I think not. 
						-- Tom

RE the great conspiracy in the military to kill SSTO projects. 

  It is not the case that the Pentagon kills cheaper projects to protect
existing power structures. That, if anything, is a paranoid point of view. 

  What the author of that article is missing is the fact that if the SSTO
projects were really that cheap, they would be built by the private sector and
operated for profit. 

  Either they really are that cheap and they will be built and flown in time or
the estimates are overly optimistic in which case they will be yet another step
in the price range of the existing Shuttle. 

  George

    Regardless of the details of the DC-X program,
    
    If it is killed by some burecrat(s) after congressional approval
    and funding... It means something is VERY WRONG with the governament
    burecracy. Just who makes the decisions !!!
    
    I would approve if everyone involved in this holding/killing
    action be fired or even prosecuted for criminal obstruction.
    
    Gil 

  Before we start erecting the gallows, I'd take everything the guy in that
note wrote with a grain of salt. It's the most paranoid thing I've read in this
file. Talk about a "big brother" note. 

  The fact is that the executive branch does have certain leeway in how they
spend the money and that is often spelled out in detail. If they don't spend
money that Congress says should be spent and if they exceed their authority to
not spend the money, all the offended party has to do is go to federal court
and get an order to release the money. 

  If the courts refuse, then 2 branches have over ruled Congress and they've
been checked and balanced out of luck. That's the way the 3 branch system was
designed to work. 

  George 

Article: 514
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!nntp.crl.com!mindlink.bc.ca!a752
From: [email protected] (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Making Orbit 94: DC-X and DC-1
Date: 23 Jan 94 16:26:21 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 59
Approved: [email protected]
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl.crl.com
Return-Path: news%[email protected]
To: [email protected]
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: mindlink.bc.ca
Content-Length: 3949
 
        At the Making Orbit convention a week ago, we saw videos of all three
DC-X flights, brought by Bill Gaubatz, the head of the DC-X program at
MacDonnell Douglas.  In the first two flights, the vehicle takes off smoothly
and rapidly, and rises quickly into the air.  Several hundred feet high it
stops.  The effect is quite startling:  the exhaust is essentially invisible,
and the vehicle is so stable that it doesn't appear to so much be hovering,
but simply to have been parked at a particular spot in the sky.  Someone in
the audience yelled out "where are the wires", as the hovering vehicle looked
like a prop in a stage play.  The vehicle then transitioned sideways, and
backed down on its exhaust for a landing.
 
        On the third flight, the vehicle barely lifted off the pad, then
staggered briefly sizeways before straightening up and ascending.  One of the
engines did not throttle up correctly, due to gas in a propellant line.  The
flight control software compensated correctly.  Gaubatz indicated that this
amounted to an inadvertant test of the flight contro system more severe than
anything that the engineers would have programmed.  The vehicle goes
vertically right out of the frame of the camera, only to reappear after half
a minute or so.  When it reappears, some orange flame can be seen around the
base and the voice-over commentary mentions something to the effect that "we
have a fire on the vehicle".  This was apparently paint on the bottom of the
vehicle which caught fire briefly, but caused no damage other than sooting up
the vehicle after it landed.
 
        Close-up shots of the vehicle prior to launch are interesting.  About
10 seconds before launch, the vehicle starts to emit huge clouds of white
vapor from propellants run through the engines for precooling.  Fairly faint
clouds of vapor appear to come from the bottom of the vehicle, and the vapor
hugs the ground like dry ice clouds.  This is presumably LOX being run
through the LOX turbopump.  Much bigger clouds of vapor come from 4 ports in
the vehicle sides. This vapor, presumably hydrogen being run through the
pump, the engine cooling passages and the turbine, is slightly lighter than
air and is blown away at an angle slightly above the horizontal by prevailing
winds (note:  hydrogen is normally much lighter than air, but this is very
cold hydrogen which will have a considerably higher density).  When the
engines ignite, there is a bright flash in the vicinity of the launch pad as
the vented hydrogen is touched off. My guess is that the gas venting
arrangements for hydrogen (ports in the vehicle side) have been made so that
the vented hydrogen never gets a chance to mix with the vented oxygen.
 
        Gaubatz gave a couple of slick presentations on how wonderful the
DC-1 will be, and how well MacDonnell Douglas had done in producing and
flying the DC-X.  There was little discussion howver of technical issues, and
no discussion of program costs.  While one of the videos was running, I took
Gaubatz aside and asked him how much the DC-1 development program was going
to cost (including any precursor vehicles to the final product).  His answer
was that both MacDonnell Douglas and other companies who had looked at the
issue thought that the appropriate number was "about the cost of fully
developing a new airliner", or "5 to 6 billion dollars".  These numbers are
lower than pessimist estimates of 10 billion or more, but are considerably
more than optimist estimates of 1 billion or so.  These lower estimates,
provided by people such as Henry Vanderbilt, are however for development
program which is not burdened with the costs of operating with government
financing.  An undercurrent in Gaubatz's presentation was that MacDonnell
Douglas has no intention of trying to develop the DC-1 with its own money -
they want an "industry government partnership".
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [email protected]
    

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" 23-JAN-1994 17:32:23.45
CC:	
Subj:	Fwd: Subscription information

I think some of you may be interested in this:

Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) News List
-----------------------------------------------

This list is intended to bring information regarding the Delta
Clipper/SSRT project to interested parties in a timely fashion.
Messages will either contain the news itself, or will refer readers to
relevant files on the Delta Clipper archive site (see below). 

Typically, anything sent to this list could also be retrieved from the
news directory of the archive site, but one would have to check that
directory on a daily basis in order to get some of the most
time-critical information quickly enough for it to be useful. This
list, hopefully, will offer a more practical alternative. 

Note: this list is moderated and is *not* intended to provide a forum
for discussion. (After all, we have sci.space and talk.politics.space
for that already.) 

Delta Clipper Archive Site
--------------------------

The Delta Clipper/SSRT archive site is located on ftp.cc.utexas.edu in 
the pub/delta-clipper directory. It can be accessed via anonymous ftp,
gopher and, on an experimental basis, WWW (see the read-me.txt file on
the site for more information).

If You're Tired of This List
----------------------------

In order to unsubscribe from this list, send email to:

    [email protected]
    
The subject line of the message is ignored; simply place the command:

    unsubscribe ssrt-news
    
in the first line of the body of your message. Then send the message.
Everything will happen automatically from there.

Getting Help
------------

To get general information on using this list, send email to:

    [email protected]
    
The subject line of the message is ignored; simply place the command:

    help
    
in the first line of the body of your message. Then send the message.
Everything will happen automatically from there.

If the help information you receive isn't helpful enough, send your
questions or problem reports to Chris Johnson ([email protected]).

------ Message Header Follows ------
Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu
[128.83.135.32]) by mbs.telesys.utexas.edu (8.6.4/8.6.4) with SMTP id
DAA15302 for <[email protected]>; Sun, 23 Jan 1994 03:13:53-0600
Received: from ZIMBAZI/SMTP-OUT by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.1);
    Sun, 23 Jan 94 3:12:12 CDT
To: [email protected] (Jay Thomas)
>From: Mail Server <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 3:12:04 CDT
Subject: Subscription information
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

-----Princeton Regional Schools takes no responsibility for the
    accuracy or content of the above message.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 16:32:44 EST
% Errors-To: [email protected]
% Originator: [email protected]
% Sender: [email protected]
% From: [email protected] (Jay Thomas)
% Subject: Fwd: Subscription information
% X-Comment: SSI Members email Discussion Group

Article: 79342
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:79342 sci.space.policy:582
Path:
ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl!decwrl!olivea!
spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!noc.near
.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.policy
Subject: DC-X Gets Reprieve
Date: 31 Jan 94 23:11:02 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
 
 
TITLE: It's official now.  DC-X has won a stay of execution - NASA is sending
one million dollars of discretionary funding over to BMDO to keep the DC-X
contract from being shut down on February 1st, tomorrow.
 
This is not exactly a victory, but it's certainly the avoidance of a defeat.
DC-X remains grounded indefinitely, but this money from NASA will allow BMDO
to keep the contract alive another month or two, and thus allow McDonnell-
Douglas to keep the DC-X test site intact and the flight team together.
 
More on this in the next Space Access Update, later this week.
 
                                Henry Vanderbilt  [email protected]
                                Executive Director, Space Access Society

Article: 79505
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:79505 sci.space.policy:594
Path:
ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl!decwrl!koriel!
cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!hvande
rbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.policy
Subject: Space Access Update #30  2/2/94
Date: 3 Feb 94 00:39:00 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 282
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
 
 
                      Space Access Update #30  2/2/94
                  Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's semi-weekly publication. 
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all,
period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever point
looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting the government's "SSRT"
(Single Stage Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its recently funded
followon, SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely
about the technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2.  
 
We anticipate a change of focus in a couple of months, if all goes well. 
Once SX-2 startup is (with your help!) assured, we plan to begin working on
establishment of a healthy second X-rocket development track at NASA, and on
getting development of suitable engines started for the fully reusable orbital
ships that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see one or more fully reusable SSTO
testbeds flying to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production
prototypes underway shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society, on our upcoming affordable access
engineering/politics/economics conference "Space Access '94" (March 11-13 in
Scottsdale, Arizona) or on the DC-X/SSTO video we have for sale, write us at
4855 E Warner Rd #24- 150, Phoenix AZ 85044, or email [email protected].]
 
[Editors note -- For those of you seeing this for the first time who need a
bit more context, look for our post entitled "DC-X Background".  Honest, we'll
be updating and reposting it Real Soon Now.]
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
                            Oops... Department
 
We start out this issue with a retraction and an apology:  In SAU #29, we
stated that layoff notices were going out to the DC-X crew the next day.  This
was incorrect.  (We applaud the courage of whoever at McDonnell-Douglas
refused to do the easy thing and send out layoff notices two weeks before the
apparently inevitable February 1st contract termination date.)
 
Incorrect or not, reporting this was insensitive as hell as regards the
feelings of the DC-X crew.  Their lives have likely been aggravating enough
lately without our adding to it.  Sorry, guys.  We've been there ourselves,
working in the middle of a sea of layoff rumors, and it's not fun.
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
          DC-X Gets Stay Of Execution - Full Pardon Still Needed
 
 - Monday 31 January SAS bulletin - 
 
TITLE: It's official now.  DC-X has won a stay of execution - NASA is sending
one million dollars of discretionary funding over to BMDO to keep the DC-X
contract from being shut down on February 1st, tomorrow.
 
This is not exactly a victory, but it's certainly the avoidance of a defeat.
DC-X remains grounded indefinitely, but this money from NASA will allow BMDO
to keep the contract alive another month or two, and thus allow McDonnell-
Douglas to keep the DC-X test site intact and the flight team together.
 
More on this in the next Space Access Update, later this week.
 
 - end bulletin - 
 
 
Well, it's later this week.  We still don't have many new facts on NASA's
last-second rescue of the DC-X, but there is a lot of background to this event
that needs explaining, judging by the mail our bulletin generated.  [Yes, we
read our email; we just can't always answer it right away.  Ditto paper mail;
there we're *really* backed up.  A catch-up blitz is due Real Soon Now.]
 
First, the new facts:  This money came straight from the top at NASA;
Administrator Goldin is behind it.  DC-X does seem to be a good example of the
better-faster-cheaper philosophy Goldin is pushing in NASA, and Goldin has gone
on record over the past year as favoring such flight demonstrator programs.
 
The amount NASA sent to BMDO is just under one million dollars, which
apparently is enough to pay for keeping DC-X and its crew on standby for
another two months.  It's not at all clear what NASA is to get out of this,
though apparently their level of involvement will increase.  To quote the MDA
press release, "During the next 60 days, NASA and DOD will study options and
lay out a plan to complete the original flight envelope testing of the
experimental vertical-takeoff and vertical-landing launch vehicle."  Now you
know as much as we do.
 
Some of the questions we've received, in no particular order:
 
 - Why is NASA rescuing DC-X when we hear all the time how NASA hates DC-X?
 
Well, this is a complicated one.  For starters, NASA is not a single monlithic
agency with a single coordinated policy on all things.  Look at them as a
gaggle of field centers flying in extremely loose formation, occasionally even
taking their lead from NASA headquarters in Washington, and you won't be far
off the mark.  Some groups within NASA have vehemently opposed the SSRT DC-X
program, either because they saw it as a threat to their own pet solutions to
the space launch problem, or more charitably because they honestly believed it
wouldn't work.  (It's amazing how unworkable someone else's idea can look when
it's radically different from the way you've been doing things for your whole
career - especially when it might reduce your status if it did work.)
 
NASA as a whole is gradually coming to acknowledge the merits of reusable SSTO
launchers.  Some parts of the formation are turning faster than others, but
they are turning, especially since the pro-SSTO Bekey report began circulating
in draft form last year.  There is still a strong tendency to try to fit SSTO
into standard NASA agendas.  
 
For instance, a lot of the NASA centers would like funding for technology
developments in support of SSTO - lighter structures and better engines being
prime goals.  This is OK with us at SAS, indeed we support such, as long as
they aren't allowed to delay interim experience-building reusable rocket
flight test projects such as SX-2.  We in particular support NASA sponsored
development of SSTO-suitable engines, so when the time comes later this decade
to build the first fully reusable orbital vehicles, the engines will be there.
 
There is also a tendency within NASA to try to redefine SSTO as another all-
things-to-all-launch-customers National Space Transportation System, AKA
"Shuttle II".  SAS vehemently opposes any such project as being likely to
repeat all the problems we've seen with Shuttle - massive overhead,
overcomplexity, fragility, and suppression of alternative launcher projects.  
 
There's an important distinction to make here: SAS does not oppose continued
Shuttle operations.  NASA's Shuttle program provides the nation with a useful
mix of space capabilities, several of these Shuttle-unique.  We support
continued operation of Shuttle until such time as its tasks can be taken over
by a number of simpler, cheaper, more specialized fully-reusable vehicles,
built by commercial vendors, and flown by commercial transport companies where
the NASA mission doesn't require specialized in-house operation.  
 
 - Why doesn't McDonnell-Douglas spend their own money on DC-X if it's such a
 hot idea?
 
This one's easier to answer: Because while McDonnell-Douglas could easily
afford to finish DC-X flight test out of pocket, finishing DC-X flight test
would still leave them somewhere between the high hundreds of millions to low
billions of dollars away from having a commercially salable space transport in
production.  McDonnell-Douglas is only a couple years past being given up for
dead by the finacial world.  Things are looking up, but it's by no means clear
they could raise the money for a wildcat commercial SSTO venture right now even
if they were to put the entire company in hock.  
 
The perceived risk of a commercial SSTO venture is still too high.  SAS's
position is that further reduction of both technical and perceived risk, via
the SX-2 suborbital reusable rocket testbed, via other similar projects, and
via SSTO-enabling technology developments, is needed to bring us to the point
where bankers could reasonably consider a commercial SSTO development to be a
prudent investment of the sums required.  We note in passing that such risk-
reduction work will also both reduce and better define the sums required.  
 
 - What happens next?  Did we win?  Can we go home now?
 
No, we haven't won.  We've succeeded in holding our ground for another two
months; we've bought more time to fight the battle over freeing up the $40
million ARPA is supposed to be spending on DC-X/SX-2.
 
On the other hand, holding our ground is pretty significant.  To continue the
military metaphor, DC-X was a flanking movement, an end-run past the
opposition's main forces.  Now we're deep into their territory, and the reason
we're seeing such a stiff fight lately is that they've brought up all their
reserves.  They still haven't managed to toss us out of their territory.  If we
can win this one, they'll have expended a lot of their resources, and things
should go a bit easier for a while.
 
 
                        SX-2 Still Faces Defunding
 
As we mentioned last issue, on December 31st 1993 the Comptroller's office at
the Department of Defense released a list of proposed "recissions" for FY'94,
a list of programs which DOD would be willing to shut down, returning their
funding to the Treasury.  
 
The SSRT project (DC-X/SX-2) was on this list in the guise of "ARPA Space
Program", a fact we found out about in early January.  A week's worth of quiet
behind-the-scenes attempts to get this fixed later, it became obvious that
"ARPA Space Program" didn't get on the kill list by accident or oversight, and
that it wouldn't come off the list without a fight.  
 
We have since gotten a little better handle on the nature of the holdup, while
at the same time the situation has evolved.  The latest scuttlebutt is that
Dr. Gary Denman, the head of ARPA, is now in favor of proceeding with SSRT.
 
Denman's boss is Dr. John Deutch, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition. 
At the moment Deutch seems to be the chief obstacle to removing DC-X/SX-2
money from the rescission list.  There are some indications his opposition is
a matter of caution over letting the camel's nose into the tent on any major
new space launch projects, rather than opposition to reusable SSTO per se.  It
would seem that the nature of, need for, and the limited overall cost of 
DC-X/SX-2 need further authoritative explanation at this level.  
 
Deutch in turn reports to Deputy Secretary of Defense Dr. William J. Perry. 
Perry, of course, is the Administration's nominee to replace Les Aspin as
Secretary of Defense, and a safe bet for quick confirmation, possibly as early
as tomorrow - the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on Perry were over
in three hours earlier today.  Word is that Deutch is likely to move up into
Perry's old job when Perry is confirmed.  
 
DOD is supposed to be sending its rescissions list to Congress this coming
Monday, February 7th.  Things will go a lot easier if this problem is fixed
within DOD by taking "ARPA Space Program" off the list before that happens -
after that, it'll be back in the Congress for discussion and vote, a whole new
ballgame.
 
 
                After Rescinding The Rescission, Then What?
 
Assuming we get DC-X/SX-2 off the rescissions list, there's still the problem
of getting the money released.  The $5 million for DC-X flight test completion
looks like it shouldn't be too much trouble at this point, what with the
amount of publicity DC-X has gotten lately.  See the February issue of Popular
Science for a good overview of reusable launchers (that's a cutaway of DC-X on
the cover), and the Boston Globe of Saturday 1/22/94 and New York Times of
Monday 1/31/94 for stories on the funding problems.  CBS News also ran a short
piece on DC-X's funding problems Monday evening.  
 
The $35 million for the SX-2 reusable rocket followon could be tougher, though. 
SX-2 startup is still subject to the results of the White House OSTP (Office
of Science & Technology Policy) future space launch study, as well as the
similar study USAF General Moorman is currently running for DOD.  It's still
anybody's guess what recommendations these studies will come up with, or for
that matter when they'll come up with them.
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
Our recommendations are basically the same as two weeks ago.
 
Please don't contact any of the above-mentioned officials directly, unless you
happen to be a drinking buddy of theirs.  Members of the general public
calling them about policy differences will only annoy them and make them even
less likely to do what we want.  The people to talk to are your elected
representatives in Congress - it's part of their job to act as intermediary
between the public and the bureaucracy.  
 
We recommend that you call or fax your local Representative and/or Senators if
you have any reason to believe that they're already pro-SSTO.  The message to
deliver is that unelected officials are attempting to thwart the will of the
Congress and kill the "SSRT" Single-Stage-To-Orbit program, and that Secretary
of Defense William J. Perry should be told to have his people:  
 
  1. Remove the "ARPA Space Program" money from the Defense rescission list.
 
  2. Have ARPA release funds to resume DC-X flight test immediately.
  
  3. Have ARPA release funds to USAF to begin work on the SX-2 reusable rocket
     demonstrator vehicle.  
 
Two specific congressmen who need contacting:
 
 - Ron Dellums of California, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.  
 
 Representative Ron Dellums, 2136 RHOB, Washington DC 20515
 phone 202 225-2661  fax 202 225-9817  
 
 - Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, Chairman of the House
 Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee.
 
 Representative John Murtha, 2423 RHOB, Washington DC 20515      
 phone 202 225-2065  fax 202 225-5709
 
 
Whew.  Wotta coupla weeks it's been.
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
       "SSTO?  C'mon, the only people who support that are Trekkies
                and right-wingers."  - The Unknown Staffer
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 79766
Xref: ryn.mro.dec.com sci.space:79766 sci.space.policy:631
Path:
ryn.mro.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl!ames!sgiblab!sw
rinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!
hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.policy
Subject: Space Access Update #31  2/7/94
Date: 8 Feb 94 04:46:58 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 246
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
 
 
                      Space Access Update #31  2/7/94
                  Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication. 
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all,
period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever point
looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting the government's "SSRT"
(Single Stage Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its recently funded
followon, SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely
about the technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2.  
 
We anticipate a change of focus in a couple of months, if all goes well. 
Once SX-2 startup is (with your help!) assured, we plan to begin working on
establishment of a healthy second X-rocket development track at NASA, and on
getting development of suitable engines started for the fully reusable orbital
ships that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see one or more fully reusable SSTO
testbeds flying to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production
prototypes underway shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society, on our upcoming affordable access
engineering/politics/economics conference "Space Access '94" (March 11-13 in
Scottsdale, Arizona) or on the DC-X/SSTO video we have for sale, write us at
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044, or email [email protected].]
 
[Editors note -- For those of you seeing this for the first time who need a
bit more context, look for our post entitled "DC-X Background".  Honest, we'll
be updating and reposting it Real Soon Now.]
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
      DOD Officially Requests Rescission Of FY'94 DC-X/SX-2 Funding
 
The Department of Defense "Rescission Proposals", the list of projects DOD
would rather return funding for than do, was sent to Congress on schedule
today, and this year's DC-X/SX-2 funding that we fought so hard for is still
on it.  The people at DOD who control RDT&E have now officially said they
don't want to do DC-X or SX-2.  
 
The text of the rescission request is as follows.  
 
 
<begin excerpt, page 1013>
 
        Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
 
                          (Rescission Proposal)
 
       [several lines of bookkeeping info omitted for brevity - HV]
 
                  Budget Plan (in thousands of dollars)
 
   (amount for research, development, test, and evaluation programmed)
______________________________________________________________________________
 
07.03 Advanced technology development..................   -50,000  ...........
______________________________________________________________________________
 
      This proposal would rescind appropriations for development of medium
      launch vehicles.  The Bottom-Up Review did not approve development of
      an SSTO vehicle.  No funds are budgeted for 1995 through 1999.
 
<end excerpt>
 
This description of the item being cut is, uh, misleading?  Incorrect?  We
hesitate to characterize this as a damnable lie; it's at least possible that
whoever decided it is sincerely mistaken, as a lot of misinformation has been
circulating about SX-2 in recent months.  
 
This appropriation is NOT for development of medium launch vehicles, it's for
continued test of the DC-X reusable rocket experimental testbed ($5 million
of this $50 million rescission is supposed to be used for finishing DC-X
test) and for initiation of design, construction and flight test of the SX-2
suborbital experimental reusable rocket testbed ($35 million for FY'94).  The
remaining $10 million also has nothing to do with "development of medium
launch vehicles", being for some sort of parasail development.
 
Neither DC-X nor SX-2 is in any conceivable way mistakeable for a "medium
launch vehicle".  They both are experimental testbeds, intended to develop
reusable rocket technologies and provide flight experience that can at some
point in the future be factors in making sensible decisions about new
reduced-cost medium launch vehicles.  
 
The DOD Bottom Up Review, for that matter, specifically called for work to go
forward on advanced technologies that could be of future use.  The BUR's lack
of support for immediate development of an operational SSTO is a red herring;
none such is proposed with this money.  
 
There have been repeated accusations that SX-2 is the front end of a multi-
billion dollar full-scale launcher development project.  It is true that
various contractors with a shot at winning the SX-2 competition would love to
sell the government such a multi-billion project as an SX-2 followon -- but
the government is under no obligation to buy any such.  
 
What SX-2 actually is is a standalone experimental reusable rocket testbed. 
SX-2 will be similar in scope and in cost to recent X-aircraft programs -
a couple of flight vehicles plus test program, costing about $300 million
over three to four years.  For purposes of comparison, the X-29 forward-
swept-wing demonstrator cost $340 million total, while the X-31 vectored-
thrust demonstrator has cost $170 million to date.  (We note in passing that
the X-31 is being run by the same person at ARPA who will likely be in charge
of SX-2, if it ever gets past this rescission.)
 
The implication has been that SX-2 is the camel's nose of a fullscale multi-
billion launcher project poking into the tent, and that the rest of the camel
would inevitably follow.  
 
This is simply not true.  SX-2 is a standalone project to develop experience
with reusable single-stage rockets.  There is a clear breakpoint at the end of
the SX-2 project.  The lessons learned can then be applied to the decision on
what (if anything) to do next.  
 
If in fact SX-2 works out as well as hoped, the main decision the US
government then would face might well be how much to encourage commercially
funded SSTO development based on the SX-2 technology.  The data from SX-2
would lower the cost of SSTO development, while the repeated flight demos
would increase investor confidence.  The combination might well mean the
government would not have to foot the bill by itself when the time comes to
build affordable new space transports.  
 
The motivation behind these lies about SX-2 we'll leave as an exercise for the
reader, but we suggest considering as a factor the ongoing campaign for a
massive contractors-in-every-district consortium to build and operate a new
"National Launch System" expendable booster.  Such a multi-billion dollar
decade-long aerospace porkbarrel would be in grave danger of being shown up as
obsolete before its first test-flight, if SSTO technology development is
allowed to continue.  "Spacelifter" and its kin are an idea whose time has
passed.  Cheap reusable SSTO space transports will ultimately produce far more
hi-tech white collar employment than "Porklifter", and they'll do it while
producing new tax revenue rather than consuming current tax dollars.  
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
                       Klingons Infiltrate Congress
 
On the lighter side, "Roll Call" reports that late last month, someone snuck
into the House Science, Space & Technology Committee's hearing room, removed
a (now obsolete) model of Space Station Freedom from its display case, and
replaced it with a model of a Klingon battlecruiser.  At least one Committee
briefing was held with the Klingon ship on display before Freedom was
restored to its rightful place.  
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Meanwhile, a letter of ours to Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine has
been printed in the 2/7/94 issue.  AWST devoted half the letters page to
SSTO issues; we note in regard to Mr. Escher's letter that payload as a
percentage of gross liftoff weight is far from the sole measure of reusable
launcher "goodness", and indeed can be quite misleading when used to compare
air-breathing to pure rocket designs - hypersonic airframe costs thousands
of dollars per pound, while a pound of LOX goes for pennies.  
 
We are quite grateful to AvWeek for airing our views, but feel we should
mention that the published version was edited for brevity, and while our main
points about the DC-X/SX-2 rescission danger got through intact, the letter as
printed could leave the casual reader with the impression that SAS supports
going forward with the NLS/"Spacelifter" project.  We don't; we believe that
there's near-zero chance it would be set up and managed sensibly, but we soft-
pedalled this as not being the main point of the letter.  The full text as
sent follows.  Note that we've since heard that ARPA itself now supports SX-2;
the opposition seems to be above ARPA, near the top levels of DOD.  Also note
that the DC-X program shutdown has been postponed temporarily due to the
$990,000 NASA donated to the program last week; thanks are due to Dan Goldin.  
 
 
  Dear sirs,
 
  This is in response to Jerry Grey's Forum piece in your 1/10/94 issue,
  "Engineering Reality Must Guide SSTO".  
 
  On the whole we agree with his ideal national launch policy:  Have DOD
  build NLS quickly and (relatively) cheaply under sensible management
  practices, have NASA work on specific SSTO-enabling technologies, and
  build and fly the suborbital SX-2 SSTO technology demonstrator to gain
  experience with/build confidence in reusable rockets.  
 
  That's an ideal, though; in the real world we see two problems with this.
 
  One is the current budget climate.  Congress is unlikely to fund NLS even
  if they are persuaded that it in fact would be done faster and cheaper. 
  The Pentagon Bottom-Up Review alternative of evolutionary upgrades to
  existing launchers fits the budgetary constraints of the next few years
  much better.  
 
  The other problem is immediate:  The BMDO SSTO initiative that led to DC-X
  and the proposed SX-2 is in imminent danger of dying.  Not from lack of
  funds; Congress appropriated $40 million in FY'94, to complete DC-X's
  interrupted flight test program and to get the SX-2 project underway.
 
  BMDO's recent narrowing of focus caused the SSTO project to be moved to
  ARPA in this year's budget.  Unfortunately, ARPA seems unimpressed with
  SSTO's potential and with the rapid progress to date.  After spending the
  last two months sitting on the project's FY'94 funding, ARPA has now 
  offered up the money for rescission, for return to the Treasury unspent.  
 
  The opportunity to finish flying DC-X is rapidly slipping away; the layoff
  notices are even now going out to the test crew.  USAF, meanwhile, stands
  ready to get the SX-2 project rolling, using the same management team
  that built DC-X in less than three years for less than $70 million - just
  as soon as the money arrives from ARPA.  
 
  Japan and the Europeans are both showing interest in SSTO.  We have perhaps
  a three-year lead over them in this field.  Time's a-wasting.
 
                                   sincerely,
 
                                   Henry Vanderbilt
                                   Executive Director,
                                   Space Access Society
                              "Promoting Affordable Reliable
                                  Access to Space For All"
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
We have no action to recommend at the moment, beyond informing any Congressmen
or Congressional staffers you may be talking to that the DC-X/SX-2 rescission
request has occurred.  Stand by while we find out just what is supposed to
happen next, now that the rescission is in Congress's hands.
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
       "SSTO?  C'mon, the only people who support that are Trekkies
                and right-wingers."  - The Unknown Staffer
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 720
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: A Technical Anaylsis of SSTO Vehicles
Date: 7 Feb 94 13:54:25 +1030
Organization: University of South Australia
 
Here is a little paper I've written on SSTO (Single Stage to Orbit)
vehicles. I've tried to be careful with my numbers and assumptions and
its very likely I've made some mistakes somewhere. In any case I think
my conclusions are valid and would like to hear from anyone who
disagrees (please provide your calculations and sources, otherwise I
won't waste my time with you). The paper has lots of equations that
are easy to use for those who want to plug in their favourite mass
ratios, exhaust speeds, etc. I'll also appreciate any "reviewer" type
cpmments. This paper is not meant to be the be all and end all of
SSTO. It's just there to give a better idea of what is possible with
SSTO. I'm just crunching some numbers to see what we get. 
 
Steven S. Pietrobon,  Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
Signal Processing Research Institute, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.     [email protected]
 
                   A  TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF SSTO VEHICLES
 
                                     by
 
                             Steven S. Pietrobon
                 Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
                        University of South Australia
                            The Levels  SA  5095
                                 Australia
 
                              7 February 1994
 
 
                                  ABSTRACT
 
A technical analysis of rocket based Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) vehicles is 
described. We show that liquid Hydrogen/liquid Oxygen (H2/O2) appear to be the 
best propellant combination in comparison to lesser performing but denser 
propellants. Also, we show that there is considerable cost advantages in having
the SSTO place its payload into a trajectory just short of reaching orbit. A
very small second stage then places its payload into the required low Earth
orbit (LEO) or a larger second stage places its payload into geosynchronous
transfer orbit (GTO). The SSTO vehicle makes a single near-orbit around the 
Earth, landing at the original launch site after deploying the payload.
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION
 
There has been much discussion about SSTO launch vehicles as the next stage
beyond the current expendable and partly reusable launch vehicles. Their
advantages have been listed as:
 
Fully reusable
No assembly required
Low infrastructure required for launch
 
All these factors are expected to lead to lower launch cost per kilogram of
payload into orbit.
 
In order to develop SSTO several technical factors need to be overcome, namely
low weight structures and high performance and reliable engines that can be
used many times before having to be refurbished.
 
In this paper we make a simple technical analysis of SSTO. All data that is
used comes from existing published data. In the first section we analyse the
traditional SSTO concept where the SSTO vehicle places its payload into orbit
and then returns to Earth. We do this for a number of propellant combinations.
 
In the second section we analyse the concept of the SSTO vehicle going into
an orbit with an apogee of 200 km and a perigee close to sea level, a near
Earth orbit (NEO). The SSTO vehicle releases its payload in NEO, re-entering at
the completion of its orbit and landing at the original launch site. A very 
small second stage then places its payload into LEO. It is shown that the SSTO 
vehicle dry mass is reduced by nearly 44% over a traditional design. We also
study the requirements for placing a payload into GTO with non-high performance
H2/O2 engines. A 30% reduction in SSTO vehicle dry mass was found to be achieved
if extenable nozzles are used.
 
 
2  TRADITIONAL SSTO ANAYLSES
 
We have the standard rocket equation
 
v_d = v_e ln (m_i / m_f)
 
where
 
v_d = change in speed (m/s)
v_e = effective exhaust speed (m/s). This is the specific impulse in seconds 
      times the standard acceleration of gravity at the Earth's surface 
      (9.80665 m/s). We prefer to use v_e instead of specific impulse as it 
      gives a better feeling of the performance of a rocket engine (it also is 
      independent of Earth). v_e is very close to the actual exhaust speed of a 
      rocket engine. 
m_i = initial mass (kg or t (1 t = 1000 kg))
m_f = final mass (kg or t)
 
We can break m_i and m_f into
 
m_i = m_p + m_s + m_c
m_f = m_s + m_c
 
where
 
m_p = propellant mass
m_s = structural mass (engines, structure, and tanks)
m_c = cargo or payload mass
 
For each stage i let
 
r_i = exp[v_d_i / v_e_i]
 
where
 
v_d_i = change in speed for stage i
v_e_i = exhaust speed for stage i
 
There are four stages that we are considering. Launch, orbital maneuvers before
and after cargo release, and a powered landing. For launch we assume that 9300
m/s is required (this includes both gravity and drag losses). For orbital 
maneuvers we use 100 m/s before cargo release and 150 m/s after cargo release 
(including the deorbit burn). Note that the U.S. space shuttle has a 365 m/s 
capability (our 250 m/s is more modest). We have assumed full vacuum exhaust
speeds for orbital operations.
 
For landing, the terminal speed for a Delta-Clipper style SSTO is about 100 
m/s. Deceleration will require a v_d of 150 m/s to kill this speed at 30 m/s^2 
(100 m/s for braking and 50 m/s gravity losses). An additional 200 m/s is 
required to allow 20 s of hover time. This gives the total landing v_d = 350 
m/s. We have assumed sea level exhaust speeds for landing.
 
The following table summarises these values and gives the r_i's for three types
of propellant combinations
 
                               H2/O2            Kero/O2         UDMH/N204
i  profile  v_d_i (m/s)  v_e_i (m/s)  r_i  v_e_i (m/s)  r_i  v_e_i (m/s)  r_i
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1  launch       9300       4286     8.7570   3180    18.6254   2991    22.4060
2  orbital       100       4441     1.0228   3295     1.0303   3099     1.0328
3  deorbit       150       4441     1.0344   3295     1.0466   3099     1.0496
4  landing       350       3677     1.0999   3020     1.1159   2795     1.1334
 
The vacuum exhaust speeds are taken from [1]. For H2/02 the Space Shuttle Main
Engine (SSME) values are used. For Kero/O2 the RD-170 (from the Zenit first
stage and Energia strap-ons) values are used. For UDMH/N2O4 the RD-253 (from
the Proton first stage) values are used. Each of these engines are the current
highest performing engines known for sea level to vacuum operation. The launch 
exhaust speeds are 3.5% less than the vacuum exhaust speeds to take into 
account the reduction of exhaust speed at sea level.
 
It can be shown that
 
m_c/m_s = (1/gamma - beta_s) / beta_c
 
where
 
gamma = m_s/m_p (mass ratio)
beta_c = r_1*r_2 - 1 
beta_s = r_1*r_2*r_3*r_4 - 1
 
The following table gives the final performance figures.
 
Propellant   beta_c  beta_s  gamma (%)  m_c/m_s
-----------------------------------------------
H2/O2         7.957   9.190    7.9      0.436
Kero/O2      18.190  21.412    4.5      0.045
UDMH/N2O4    22.141  26.529    5.1        -
 
The values for gamma are taken from [2] and are the lowest mass ratios known
for each of the propellant combinations. The value for H2/O2 is for the SII,
the second stage of the Saturn V. The value for kero/O2 is for the Atlas 
missile. The value for UDMH/N2O4 is for Commercial Titan III. As can be seen,
H2/O2 is clearly superior to other propellant combinations. Despite its low 
density, the high exhaust speed more than makes up for this disadvantage.
 
Let us now say that 7.9% is a bit low, how high can we go? Let us assume that
gamma = 0.1. This is a 26.6% increase over the gamma used above, which should
allow for the increase in mass due to the engines and thermal protection 
system as well as provide additional margin for any weight increases (note that
modern materials will compensate for some of these mass increases). We have 
that m_c/m_s = 0.1018. For m_c = 10 t, this gives an m_s = 98.2 t and an m_p =
982.3 t. The amount of propellant used in each stage is
 
m_p_4 = m_s (r_4 - 1) 		      =   9.8 t (v_d_4 =  350 m/s check)
m_p_3 = m_s (r_3 - 1) r_4	      =   3.7 t (v_d_3 =  150 m/s check)
m_p_2 = (r_2 - 1) (m_c + m_s r_3 r_4) =   2.8 t (v_d_2 =  101 m/s check)
m_p_1 = m_p - m_p_2 - m_p_3 - m_p_4   = 966.0 t (v_d_1 = 9301 m/s check)
 
 
3  NEAR EARTH ORBIT SSTO ANALYSIS
 
The basic idea behind NEO SSTO is that we try to minimise the delta-v to get
a payload to orbit, while still maintaining the philosophy of SSTO. To do this
the main SSTO vehicle is placed into a NEO of perigee close to sea level and
an apogee of 200 km. The SSTO vehicle does one orbit around the Earth before
re-entering and landing back at the launch site. No orbital maneuvers are 
required. This immediately saves us 250 m/s (and as shown in the previous
section about 6.5 t of orbital propellants that need to be lifted).
 
We can also reduce the required delta-v of the first stage by about 50 m/s
since the SSTO vehicle can go into a lower initial orbit. Appendix 1 gives the 
derivation of this. There are now only three stages to be considered (the
wasteful re-entry maneuver not being needed):
 
i  profile  v_d_i (m/s)  v_e_i (m/s)  r_i  
-------------------------------------------
1  launch       9250       4286     8.6555
2  orbital       160       3060     1.0537
4  landing       350       3677     1.0999
 
We increase the required orbital velocity by 60 m/s to make up the shortfall
of the first stage with a 10 m/s margin (100+50+10 = 160 m/s). We will assume 
that the Marquardt R-4D with a thrust of 490 N (MMH/N2O4 as prpellants) is used 
in the second stage [1]. We have that
 
m_c/m_s = (1/gamma - beta_s) / beta_c
 
where
 
gamma = m_s/m_p (mass ratio of SSTO)
 
m_s = structural mass of SSTO vehicle
m_p = m_p_1 + m_p_4 (propellant mass of SSTO vehicle)
 
            r_2 (r_1 - 1)
beta_c = ---------------------
         1 - (r_2 - 1) gamma_2
 
beta_s = r_1*r_4 - 1
 
gamma_2 = m_s_2/m_p_2 (mass ratio of second stage)
 
We shall assume that gamma_2 = 0.16 (a fairly large value for MMH/N2O4 since
the required amount of propellant is small). We will let gamma = 0.1 for the 
SSTO. We thus have beta_c = 8.1365 and beta_s = 8.5202. Therefore m_c/m_s = 
0.1819. This indicates that the structural mass of the SSTO vehicle can be 
reduced by 44%! The propellant and structural masses are for an m_c = 10 t, m_s 
= 55 t, and m_p = 549.8 t are
 
m_p_4 = m_s (r_4 - 1)         =   5.5 t (v_d_4 =  350 m/s check)
 
           m_c (r_2 - 1)
m_p_2 = --------------------- =   0.6 t (v_d_2 =  177 m/s check)
        1 - (r_2 - 1) gamma_2
 
m_s_2 = gamma_2 m_p_2         =   0.1 t
 
m_p_1 = m_p - m_p_2           = 544.3 t (v_d_1 = 9245 m/c check)
 
As can be seen, the second stage is very small and gives much greater 
flexibility in reaching higher orbits than a traditional SSTO vehicle can.
 
The total vehicle mass is 615.5 t (with weight of 6036 kN at sea level). This
requires at least five SSME's (1668 kN thust at 100% at sea level) for a
thrust to weight ratio of 1.38 (single engine out capability at sea level).
For landing the minimum thust required is 539 kN which is 32% of maximum
thrust of a single engine. The current minimum thrust for an SSME is 65%. Thus,
the SSME would need to be modified to operate at the smaller thrust level.
The mass of the five SSME's is 15.9 t, 29% of the mass of the SSTO dry mass!
 
 
3.1  Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit
 
If the second stage is used to put a satellite into geosynchronous transfer
orbit (GTO) then v_d_2 = 2500 m/s (see Appendix). For m = m_c + m_s_2 + m_p_2
= 10.7 t we have
 
m_p_2 = m (1 - 1/r_2)
 
For the RL-10 H2/O2 engine we have v_e_2 = 4358 m/s and gamma_2 = 0.2 (say).
Then r_2 = 1.7747, m_p_2 = 4.7 t, m_s_2 = 0.9 t, and m_c = 5.1 t. This is more
than Ariane 4 (4.4 t), but less than Ariane 5 (6.8 t).
 
 
3.2  SSTO using Ariane 4 and 5 engines.
 
The above has assumed the use of SSME's which currently require refurbishment
after every flight. Less stressful engines are required to reduce the amount
of maintenance that needs to be performed after every flight. However, these
engines have a smaller exhaust velocity. To compensate for this, the mass
ratio mass has to be reduced (otherwise m_c/m_s becomes too small). If we 
approximately halve the increase from 26.6% to 13.9% the required gamma is
reduced to 9%. We have
 
i  profile  v_d_i (m/s)  v_e_i (m/s)  r_i
-------------------------------------------
1  launch       9250       4090     9.5986
2  orbital      2500       4372     1.7715
4  landing       350       3184     1.1162
 
The SSTO uses the HM-60 H2/O2 Vulcain engine (v_e = 4238 m/s reduced by 3.5%) 
and the second stage uses the HM-7B H2/O2 third stage Ariane 4 engine. We assume
gamma_2 = 0.2. Thus beta_c = 18.0116, beta_s = 9.7140, m_c/m_s = 0.0776. For
m_c = 5 t, m_s = 64.5 t, and m_p = 716.2 t. We have 
 
m_p_4 =   7.5 t (v_d_4 =  350 m/s check)
m_p_2 =   4.6 t (v_d_2 = 2520 m/s check)
m_s_2 =   0.9 t
m_p_1 = 708.7 t (v_d_1 = 9246 m/s check)
 
For 4.6 t of H2/O2 propellant (320 kg/m^3 density), a volume of 14.4 m^3 is 
required which needs to be accounted for if the payload is placed between the 
propellant tanks. Denser propellants could be used using the L7 MMH/N2O4 engine 
from the second stage of Ariane V. This engine has a thrust of 27.5 kN, a mass
of 110 kg, and an exhaust speed of 3138 m/s (tests in 1988 indicate a potential
of 3246 m/s). The total mass into NEO is m = 10.5 t. The lower value gives r_2
= 2.218. From the previous section equation we have m_p_2 = 5.8 t. Assuming 
gamma_2 = 0.15 (the same as for Ariane V), we have m_s_2 = 0.9 t and m_c = 3.8 
t. This payload mass is probably not large enough for commercial operations. If 
the better exhaust speed is used then r_2 = 2.1602, m_p_2 = 5.6 t, m_s_2 = 0.9 t
and m_c = 4.0 t. Again, this is probably not satisfactory. The alternative is
to increase the SSTO vehicle mass by 25% to have m_c = 5 t. The volume for the
propellants is about 4.7 m^3 (1200 kg/m^3 density). This is over three times
less than for H2/O2.
 
For a LEO payload the required delta-v is 150 m/s. We assume that the Leros 1 
from Royal Ordnance is used. This motor has a thrust of 500 N, a dry mass of 
3.8 kg, uses MON3 and hydrazine propellants, and has an exhaust speed of 3040 
m/s. Thus r_2 = 1.0506 and from the previous section we have m_p_2 = 0.5 t. 
Assuming gamma_2 = 0.16 we have m_s_2 = 0.1 t and m_c = 9.9 t.
 
The vehicle lift-off mass is 791.2 t. This would require 12 HM-60's (sea level 
thrust of 770 kN) for a lift-off thrust of 9240 kN (a thrust to weight ratio of 
1.19 with single engine out capability at sea level). The mass for 12 engines 
is 15.6 t which is a significant fraction (24%) of the SSTO dry mass. The 
minimum landing thrust is 633 kN, which is 82% of the thrust of a single HM-60 
(which would have to be made variable in thrust).
 
 
3.3 SSTO with extendable nozzles
 
A way of improving the performance of SSTO vehicles is to use engines that have
extendable nozzles. For sea-level operations the engines have the skirts lifted.
For vacuum operations, the skirts are lowered, increasing the expansion ratio
of the engines and therefore the effective exhaust speed of the engine. Let
the vacuum response be the same as the HM-7B (v_e = 4372 m/s). We reduce this
by 4.5% to take into effect atmosphere operations. This reduction value was
calculated by assuming that atmosphere operations occur within the first 2500
m/s of flight and then vacuum operations for the remaining 6750 m/s. This gave
an exhaust speed of 3738 m/s for atmosphere operations (17% greater than sea
level exhaust speed). The effective exhaust speed for the whole flight was then
calculated using the new vacuum exhaust speed, which was found to be about 4.5%
less. Thus, v_e_1 = 4175 m/s, a 2% increase over the previous value used.
 
The new value of r_1 = 9.1666. This gives beta_c = 17.1067 and beta_s = 9.2318.
Thus for gamma = 0.09 we have m_c/m_s = 0.1099, a 30% decrease of the previous
design. The new mass numbers for m_c = 5 t to GTO (with m = 10.5 t) are
 
m_s   =  45.5 t
m_p   = 505.5 t
m_p_4 =   5.3 t (v_d_4 =  351 m/s check)
m_p_1 = 500.2 t (v_d_1 = 9247 m/s check)
 
Total lift-off mass is 551.5 t which implies that 9 HM-60 engines are required
for single engine out capability. This gives a thrust to weight ratio of 1.28. 
Total engine mass is at least 11.7 t (more would actually be required due to the
extendable nozzles), about 26% of the dry SSTO vehicle mass. The minimum landing
thrust required is 446 kN, 58% of the maximum value of 770 kN for a single
engine.
 
 
4  CONCLUSIONS
 
SSTO is possible, but low weight structures are definitely required. H2/O2
appears to be the best propellant combination. It appears to be unwise to have 
the SSTO vehicle perform orbital operations. Mass savings of the vehicle by up 
to 44% can be achieved with a NEO trajectory. The final insertion of the payload
into LEO is achieved with a very small second stage. For GTO a larger second 
stage is required. If lower performance but more reliable engines are used, 
the restraint on obtaining low weight structures is even more important 
(especially as the engine mass may be from 25% to 30% of the SSTO dry mass).
A further 30% decrease in vehicle dry mass could be achieved if extandable 
nozzles are used.
 
If the payload is placed between the propellant tanks, the payload must be
deployed before apogee is reached (about a 30 minute window). This will require
relatively quick deploy mechanisms to open the payload doors and then release
the payload.
 
To minimise the vehicle mass, a single bulkhead may need to be used between the
propellant tanks (as in the SII). This implies that the payload will need to be
placed at the top of the vehicle with an expendable shroud. This has the 
advantage that bulky payloads can be carried (especially if H2/O2 second stage 
is used). Also, the payload can be immediately deployed at the end of the
SSTO burn. A disadvantage is that ground operations are increased, increasing 
the cost of launching the payload. Also, if the vehicle cannot make orbit, the 
payload may be lost during re-entry.
 
 
APPENDIX
 
For a circular orbit of altitude h above the Earth's surface the orbital 
velocity is
 
v_o = R sqrt(g/(R+h))
 
where
 
g = 9.80665 m/s (the acceleration of gravity at the Earth's surface)
R = 6,367.5 km (the radius of the Earth)
 
For an altitude h = 200 km, we obtain v_o = 7781 m/s. For an eliptical orbit
we have
 
                2g    r_p                      2g    r_a 
v_a = R sqrt(------------),    v_p = R sqrt(------------)
             (r_a+r_p)r_a                   (r_a+r_p)r_p
 
where
 
v_a = velocity at apogee
v_p = velocity at perigee
r_a = R + h_a = apogee radius at apogee altitude h_a
r_p = R + h_p = perigee radius at perigee altitude h_p
 
For perigee of h_p = 0 and and an apogee of h_a = 200 km we have v_a = 7721 m/s.
Therefore the required delta-v to go from the eliptical to circular orbit is
delta-v = 7781-7721 = 60 m/s. We reduce this to 50 m/s so that the perigee 
altitude will be non-zero, giving some extra leeway for the SSTO vehicle to 
reach the landing site.
 
To reach geo-synchronous transfer orbit with an apogee altitude of h_a = 
35,762 km and a perigee altitude of h_p = 200 km the perigee velocity is
v_p = 10,114 m/s. Therefore, the required delta-v at 200 km is 10,114-7721 =
2393 m/s. We increase this to 2500 m/s to ensure there is sufficient margin to
reach GTO (assuming an equatorial launch site).
 
 
5  REFERENCES
 
[1] A. Wilson, "Interavia space directory," 1989-90.
 
[2] M. Pouliquen, "Space transportation systems," International Space 
    University Space Engineering Core Lectures, Summer 1990.

    The paper in the previous reply concludes that
    
    "Its easier" to have the SSTO only go into Near Earth Orbit (0 x 200 Km)
    going up and down in a single orbit ... "and that is true", however that
    isn't an SSTO its a Two Stages To Orbit proposal.
    
    It may be usefull for cargo delivery but not for manned operations, you
    cannot use it to go up repair the Hubble and come back.  Or to transfer
    Space Station crews, etc...
    
    If you go for 2 stages, then you should also take a look at what the
    trade offs are when using smaller first stages !!!
    
    Gil

Article: 79879
Xref: ryn.mro.dec.com sci.space:79879 sci.space.policy:650
Path:
ryn.mro.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl!ames!tulane!wup
ost!gumby!yale!yale.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.policy
Subject: SAS Maximum Alert - Final SX-2 Defunding Imminent
Date: 10 Feb 94 00:54:54 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 162
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
 
 
            Space Access Society ** MAXIMUM ALERT ** 02/09/94
 
We have a BIG problem.
 
The SX-2 Startup funding rescission (funding giveback) is in acute danger of
final Congressional approval in the next 24-48 hours, as part of a larger
package being fast-tracked through into law.  We have one remaining chance to
stop this, and we have to go for it all-out.  If we lose this, we might still
get the $5 million for DC-X, but the SX-2 money will be gone, gone, gone. 
This has to be a maximum effort, starting immediately.  
 
In brief, the Administration's entire government-wide list of proposed
rescissions, including the DOD rescission list with SX-2 startup funding on
it, has been attached to the Senate version of the California earthquake
relief bill.  (Mind, this wasn't done to ensure killing SX-2 or any other
specific project; the overall rescission list was attached because the
California earthquake aid has to be paid for somehow.)
 
Senator Domenici's attempt to amend this bill to drop the SX-2 rescission
have been turned back; the bill will go to House-Senate conference committee
in the next day or two.
 
Once it's out of conference, the vote is up-or-down for the whole California
earthquake relief bill, no amendments.  Either we get this fixed in the
conference or we've lost our $40 million for this year, period.  
 
The Conference Committee will consist of the membership of the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees, with members of the respective Defense
Subcommittees especially important to avoiding SX-2 defunding.
 
 
Recommended Action:
 
Please contact all five of the following Senators and Representatives via
phone or fax, plus any of your local Senators or Representatives on the
Appropriations Committee lists that follow.
 
The general message is: Please remove at least $40 million of "ARPA Space
Program" money from the DOD RDT&E (Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation) rescission proposal.  ($50 million of space technology money for
ARPA is the sum total of DOD RDT&E money up for rescission.)
 
If you're faxing a letter (or Fedexing - Postal Service would be too slow for
this) or if you're asked for more details during a phone call, this money is
to pay for startup of SX-2, Space Experimental 2, an SSTO technology
development testbed, a reusable experimental rocket designed to answer most
of the remaining questions about building SSTO space transports.  SX-2 would
take about three years and cost about $300 million.  SX-2 is the next step
after DC-X, the reusable rocket recently mentioned in the New York Times, on
the CBS Evening News, and on the cover of this month's Popular Science.  
 
SX-2 would NOT be a full-scale SSTO space transport development project
costing billions, as opponents have accused, anymore than the X-29 ($340
million) or X-31 ($170 million to date) were multi-billion full-scale fighter
development projects.  SX-2 would be a standalone project aimed at developing
SSTO technology and reusable rocket flight experience to the point where a
sensible decision on SSTO could be made, toward the end of this decade.  
 
 
Contact List
 
 - Senator Robert Byrd, D WV, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee
 and member of its Defense Subcommittee.  
 
Committee phone 202 224-3954  fax 202 224-1689
Committee office address SH311, Washington DC 20510
(Separate from his personal Senatorial office)
 
(Senator Byrd is extremely powerful in these matters but normally wouldn't pay
attention to an item this small.  Be especially polite; annoying him would be
a very, very bad idea.  Mention if you get the chance that a couple of his
staffers are up to speed on this SSTO stuff and can fill him in - no need to
mention them by name even if you do happen to know who they are; he'll find
them if he wants to.  Publicity is for the elected types.)
 
 - Senator Daniel Inouye, D HI, Chairman of the SAC Defense Subcommittee.
 
phone 202 224-3934  fax 202 224-6747
office address SH722, Washington DC 20510
 
 - Senator Ted Stevens, R AK, Ranking Republican Member (RRM) of the SAC
 Defense Subcommittee.
 
phone 202 224-3004  fax 202 224-2354
office address SH522, Washington DC 20510
 
 - Representative John Murtha, D PA, Chairman of the House Appropriations
 Committee's Defense Subcommittee.
 
phone 202 225-2065  fax 202 225-5709
office address 2423 RHOB, Washington DC 20515
 
 - Representative Joseph McDade, R PA, RRM of the HAC and of its Defense
Subcommittee.
 
phone 202 225-3731  fax 202 225-9594
office address 2370 RHOB, Washington DC 20515
 
 
 -- full Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) list --
 ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
 (Senators on the Defense Subcommittee marked with a *)
 
  SENATOR              STATE   FAX       PHONE      Office#
  -----------------------------------------------------------
 *Bond, Christopher     R  MO  224-7491  224-5721   SR293
 *Bumpers, Dale         D  AR  224-6435  224-4843   SD229
  Burns, Conrad         R  MT  224-8594  224-2644   SD183
  Byrd, Robert          D  WV  224-4025  224-3954   SH311
 *Cochran, Thad         R  MS  224-9450  224-5054   SR326
 *D'Amato, Alfonse      R  NY  224-5871  224-6542   SH520
 *DeConcini, Dennis     D  AZ  224-2302  224-4521   SH328
 *Domenici, Pete        R  NM  224-7371  224-6621   SD434
  Feinstein, Dianne     D  CA  228-3954  224-3841   SH331
  Gorton, Slade         R  WA  224-9393  224-3441   SH730
  Gramm, Phil           R  TX  228-2856  224-2934   SR370
 *Harkin, Tom           D  IA  224-9369  224-3254   SH351
  Hatfield, Mark        R  OR  224-0276  224-3753   SH711
 *Hollings, Ernest      D  SC  224-3573  224-6121   SR125
 *Inouye, Daniel        D  HI  224-6747  224-3934   SH722
 *Johnston, J.Bennett   D  LA  224-2952  224-5824   SH136
  Kerrey, Robert        D  NE  224-7645  224-6551   SH316
  Kohl, Herbert         D  WI  224-9787  224-5653   SH330
 *Lautenberg, Frank     D  NJ  224-9707  224-4744   SH506
 *Leahy, Patrick        D  VT  224-3595  224-4242   SR433
  Mack, Connie          R  FL  224-9365  224-5274   SH517
  McConnell, Mitch      R  KY  224-2499  224-2541   SR120
  Mikulski, Barbara     D  MD  224-8858  224-4654   SH320
  Murray, Patty         D  WA  224-0238  224-2621   SDB34
 *Nickles, Don          R  OK  224-6008  224-5754   SH713
  Reid, Harry           D  NV  224-7327  224-3542   SH324
 *Sasser, Jim           D  TN  224-8062  224-3344   SR363
 *Specter, Arlen        R  PA  224-1893  224-4254   SH303
 *Stevens, Ted          R  AK  224-2354  224-3004   SH522
 
 
        House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee List
 ("Representative XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20515" will get mail to them)
 
 Name                              office#        phone     fax  (AC 202)
 John Murtha, chair    (D-PA12)    2423 RHOB      225-2065  225-5709
 Joseph McDade, RRM    (R-PA10)    2370 RHOB      225-3731  225-9594
 Jerry Lewis           (R-CA40)    2312 RHOB      225-5861  225-6498
 Charles Wilson        (D-TX2)     2256 RHOB      225-2401  225-1764
 Norm Dicks            (D-WA6)     2467 RHOB      225-5916  226-1176
 Martin Olav Sabo      (D-MN5)     2336 RHOB      225-4755  225-4886
 Julian Dixon          (D-CA32)    2400 RHOB      225-7084  225-4091
 W.G. Hefner           (D-NC8)     2470 RHOB      225-3715  225-4036
 Peter Visclosky       (D-IN1)     2464 RHOB      225-2461  225-2493
 Buddy Darden          (D-GA7)     2308 RHOB      225-2931  225-0473
 C.W. Bill Young       (R-FL10)    2407 RHOB      225-5961  225-9764
 Bob Livingston        (R-LA1)     2368 RHOB      225-3015  225-0739
 Joe Skeen             (R-NM2)     2367 RHOB      225-2365  225-9599
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous

Article: 79970
Xref: ryn.mro.dec.com sci.space:79970 sci.space.policy:671
Path:
ryn.mro.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!jac.zko.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl
!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!noc.near.
net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: SAS Maximum Alert - Final SX-2 Defunding Imminent
Date: 11 Feb 94 19:35:50 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
 
 
This just in - we won this one.  It ain't official, it ain't law yet,
but the early word is that the $40 million for SX-2 has been removed
from the rescission list in the Conference Committee.
 
Thanks to everyone who put the time, effort, and money into letting
the key Congressmen know what needed fixing in this bill.  The war may
not be over, we might well face a new roadblock a week from now (boy I
hope not!) but we've just won a major, major battle.
 
It's still a long way to orbit - but we've taken one more step forward,
and it's a big one.  Thanks again, all.
 
				Henry Vanderbilt  [email protected]
				Executive Director, Space Access Society

Article: 79971
Xref: ryn.mro.dec.com sci.space:79971 sci.space.policy:672
Path:
ryn.mro.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!agat
e!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!z
ip.eecs.umich.edu!destroyer!gumby!yale!yale.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!BIX
.com!hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: SAS Maximum Alert - Final SX-2 Defunding Imminent
Date: 11 Feb 94 20:10:00 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com
 
 
Addendum:  It *is* official now; the Conference Committee is done.  Chances
are good it'll be law tonight.
 
We hear some of the Congressmen who actively helped are John Murtha and
Joseph McDade of Pennsylvania, Joe Skeen of New Mexico, Jerry Lewis of
California, Jim Kolbe of Arizona, Bob Livingston of Louisiana, and of
course Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico.  There are undoubtedly other
we don't know about.  Be sure to drop a note of thanks to anyone you
contacted, and especially to the above-named gentlemen - they did good.
 
				Henry Vanderbilt  [email protected]

Article: 1131
Path:
ryn.mro.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!gatekeeper.us.or
acle.com!sgiblab!barrnet.net!nntp.crl.com!henry
From: [email protected] (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: Powered Vertical Landings
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 03:14:02 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 25
Approved: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl.com
Return-Path: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Content-Length: 1508
 
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Josh
Hopkins) writes:
>>If I remember properly the shuttle uses cryogenic fuel in the main engines, 
>>and cryogenic engines are hard to restart especially in atmosphere. 
>
>... true of the SSME's, but not of cryogenic engines in general.  The RL-10
>runs on hydrogen and oxygen.  I believe it is rated for something on the
>order of 10 restarts without maintainance.  During the DC-X program they did
>just that, and they were inside the atmosphere.
 
The RL10 is rated for 10 restarts and up to 4000s firing time on a single
mission, in fact.  Those are probably conservative numbers.  The DC-X folks
have fired DC-X more than that, including the static tests, without doing
any engine maintenance... and according to the P&W people who did a borescope
inspection of the engines when DC-X was mothballed, the engines look fine
and there is no sign of problems.  (This is from the DC-X people themselves;
a bunch of them talked at Space Access 94 last weekend.)
 
(Oh yes, speaking of which, they powered DC-X up [electrically] about a
a month ago, and everything looked fine.  They're currently sorting out
long-lead items for resumption of flight tests circa the beginning of
May, assuming that the long-lost $5M does indeed get released, which they
consider fairly likely.)
-- 
Belief is no substitute                 | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for arithmetic.                         |  [email protected]  utzoo!henry

Article: 1210
Path:
ryn.mro.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!gatekeeper.us.or
acle.com!sgiblab!barrnet.net!nntp.crl.com!henry
From: [email protected] (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: DCX
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 17:35:42 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 29
Approved: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl.com
Return-Path: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Content-Length: 1699
 
In article <[email protected]> Chris W. Johnson
<[email protected]> writes:
>Best estimates on how long from receipt of check to reflight is 8-10 weeks.
>There's some equipment which needs servicing/replacing and a full system
>checkout on the vehicle and ground support system needs to be done. Be
>assured, this will be accomplished as fast as is prudently possible.
>
>By the way, reports that sand/dust could have crept into DC-X while it's
>been in storage at White Sands are inaccurate. The rocket has been kept
>pretty well buttoned up and a positive gas flow on the vehicle has been
>maintained, so sand can't seep in. The ground support equipment may be a
>different story, however.
>
>I should add that I have no means of verifying any of this, but I think the
>sources are trustworthy.
 
I can verify most of it, having heard presentations by several of the DC-X
crew at Space Access 94.  They did an electrical power-up about a month ago,
and nothing appeared to be wrong.  The helium purge appears to have kept the
insides clean.  They're currently ordering long-lead items (like batteries)
that need replacing.  They are working toward resuming flight tests -- on
the assumption that the $5M will come through -- circa early May.
 
My impression, from other sources, is that the money probably will get
released.  So long as the money is there, nobody seems to be willing to
come out and openly say "no, you can't finish the flight tests", and all
attempts to quietly get rid of the money have failed.
-- 
Critics have long said "NASA specializes| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
in pork"; now that's White House policy.|  [email protected]  utzoo!henry

Article: 5444
Path: ryn.mro.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #33  04/05/94
Date: 6 Apr 1994 00:46:41 -0700
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 594
Sender: [email protected]
Approved: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.arc.nasa.gov
 
                      Space Access Update #33  4/5/94
                  Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication. 
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all,
period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever point
looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting the government's "SSRT"
(Single Stage Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its recently funded
followon, SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely about
the technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2, though we're increasingly
covering the subject of SSTO policy in general.  
 
We anticipate a change of focus soon if all goes well.  Once SX-2 startup
is (with your help!) assured, we plan to begin working on establishment of
a healthy second X-rocket development track at NASA, and on getting
development of suitable engines started for the fully reusable orbital
transports that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying
to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production prototypes a-
building shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society or on the DC-X/SSTO video we have for
sale, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044, or email
[email protected].  
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Well, it's been three weeks since the Space Access '94 conference and four
since the last Update, and things just keep on happening with no respect at
all for our massive case of post-conference burnout.  Grumble grumble.  
 
 
                              DC-X Doings
 
Y'all remember DC-X, the little forty-foot rocket that started all this
fuss, sitting under a tent out in the desert since last October, waiting
for enough funding to finish its planned flight tests?  
 
The good news is that DC-X should be checked out and ready to resume flight
test sometime in May; NASA Administrator Goldin's $990,000 has kept the
program alive and gotten it moving forward again these last two months.  
 
The bad news, of course, is that the $5 million needed for actual flight
test still hasn't arrived, and if it doesn't show up before the end of
April, DC-X will once again be out of money and in danger of shutdown.  
 
Chances are the money will show up; DC-X has gotten far too much good
publicity to let die now.  It's not at all clear yet, though, whether the
funding will be from DOD or NASA.  
 
We do know that a deal has been cut to let NASA take over the DC-X flight
vehicle after the current flight test series is done -- NASA will then use
DC-X as a "flying test stand" for various new bits of rocket hardware, for
example lightweight aluminum-lithium propellant tanks.  At least part of
the purpose is to get NASA more experience with actually flight-testing
experimental hardware, as opposed to running computer simulations and
ground-test rigs, all that a lot of NASA researchers have had available to
them in recent years.  
 
This looks like a far better use for DC-X than sending it to a museum
after a dozen or so flights.  There has even been some talk of building a
second copy of DC-X for backup; apparently NASA is quite serious about
getting a lot of flight test mileage out of the bird.
 
 
                          SSTO At DOD Or NASA?  
                               (At Both!)
                          
The confusion over who will fund the rest of DC-X's current flight program
stems from the larger question:  Will DOD, NASA, or both get the job of
continuing the SSTO development path begun with DC-X?  
 
The good news is that at this point, just about everyone wants to continue
toward reusable Single Stage To Orbit space transports.  The question now
is, who gets to do them and how?
 
The faction at NASA that wants to do an SSTO Shuttle II for a mere forty
billion dollars or so is pretty much out of the running, barring some really
bizarre political lightning striking.  At a time when OMB is seriously
proposing killing both Station and Shuttle as options to save money at
NASA, a massive new Shuttle II project seems rather unlikely to be funded. 
Those sectors of NASA are likely to have their hands full just keeping
Shuttle funded and flying, something we at SAS support, by the way.
 
We understand that NASA Administrator Goldin has a considerably more
realistic SSTO plan, one that calls for spending $900 million over the rest
of the decade on SSTO technology, culminating in the "X-2000", a flight
demonstrator roughly equivalent to DOD's proposed SX-2 -- a no-payload test
vehicle that would fly as high and fast as possible with available
technology, possibly upgradable to the point where it could reach orbit.  
 
The first two years under this plan would be spent working on component
technologies, with an actual flight vehicle start in FY'97.  This is slower
than a lot of people would like, but probably realistic given NASA's lack of
recent experience with experimental flight vehicle ("X-vehicle") development.
 
DOD, of course, wants to build SX-2 to fly as high and fast as possible
within the available budget, starting almost immediately -- a lot of the
advance work is already done, and the SX-2 design competition could be well
underway before the summer is over.
 
 - Moorman Report
 
In this connection, we hear that General Moorman delivered his report last
week to Deputy Secretary of Defense Deutch and Secretary of the Air Force
Widnall, and that Moorman included as part of every one of the options
listed in the report (see SAU #32 for details) significant ongoing USAF
funding for SX-2 and for SSTO technology in general.  This proposed USAF
SSTO funding is said to have Secretary Widnall's support.  
 
If Deutch and Secretary of Defense Perry go along with this, SX-2 has a
home.  For what it's worth, 34 Congressmen from both parties recently signed
a letter urging Secretary Perry to release funds for SX-2 immediately,
including Representatives Schroeder and Gingrich.
 
 - False Choices
 
A lot of people seem to be assuming that NASA X-2000 versus DOD SX-2 is an
either/or question and taking sides, which muddies the waters no end. 
Given the complementary abilities present in DOD and NASA, given that peak
funding for SX-2 would occur a couple years before peak funding for X-2000
so both could be done within an overall funding level on the order of $150
million per year, and given that SX-2 and X-2000 are aimed at exploring
different but complementary approaches to SSTO (SX-2 will emphasize
lightweight structures and X-2000 improved engines) we at SAS believe it is
both advantageous and fiscally prudent to proceed with both, rather than
putting all our launch eggs in one basket again.
 
Unfortunately, a couple of influential parties don't agree with us.
 
 - OSTP Draft Report Says Give SSTO To NASA
 
A draft version of the upcoming White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) space transportation strategy report is making the
rounds.  This OSTP report does say a lot of the right things about what's
wrong with US space launch policy and how to fix it.  
 
Unfortunately, this prerelease draft has a major problem: it recommends
giving SSTO tech demonstrator work exclusively to NASA, leaving DOD nothing
to do but tinker with existing expendables.  We think SSTO work at NASA is
wonderful - as long as it's in parallel with and complementary to the
existing proven successful effort at DOD.  Giving NASA an SSTO monopoly
would be a mistake.
 
We're appending a copy of this OSTP draft paper - it's about six pages long.
 
 - NSS Chimes In
 
Meanwhile, we hear the National Space Society (NSS) has sent out a letter to
all their members asking for donations for an effort to promote SSTO.  They
too are now saying a lot of the right things about what's wrong with US
space launch policy, and are proposing to do some fairly useful things in
the way of advancing SSTO.
 
Unfortunately, the immediate action NSS is calling on their members for
(aside from sending money, of course) is to sign and send on to VP Gore an
NSS-provided form letter that calls for transfer of "the Delta Clipper
program" to "a suitable agency", and freeing up the $40 million in SSRT
funding "for DC-Y".
 
So what's wrong with this picture?  Well, "Delta Clipper" and "DC-Y" are
proprietary projects of one particular aerospace company.  "SSRT" is the
actual current project name, "SSTO" is the generic name for the technology,
and "SX-2", the consensus next step in the SSRT program, is by law to be an
open-to-bid design competition.  NSS, intentionally or not, is calling for
their members to support one particular contractor here rather than a fair
and open competition.
 
NSS is also calling for support for a more ambitious SSTO project than is
likely to be funded anytime soon -- DC-Y as last we saw it defined (a 1.4
million lb gross liftoff-weight orbital vehicle with a 20,000 lb payload)
is too expensive for the current budget climate.  SX-2 is far more
realistic; a representative of the company proposing DC-Y has in fact
acknowledged this, in Aerospace Daily for 3/21/93, page 433.  
 
Finally, NSS is implicitly calling for SSTO to be transferred to NASA --
the only possible "suitable agency" other than DOD where SSTO now resides
is NASA.  They make this explicit in the postscript of their fundraising
letter; they want SSTO moved to NASA, lock, stock and barrel.
 
We welcome NSS's formal entry into support of SSTO.  However, we would feel
much more comfortable with NSS's support if they demonstrated more knowledge
of the subtleties involved.  Talk to us, guys.
 
 
                            Space Access '94
 
Space Access '94 went extremely well programmatically, and moderately well
attendance-wise at around a hundred and ten people on site.  Ask someone
who was there about the programming.  
 
We're looking at a date in April next year, likely either the first or
third weekend, in order to avoid the Phoenix "spring training" hotel
space/air travel crunch we hit this year.  We'd be interested in your
comments on possible conflicts in those two weekends; drop us a note.  
 
We'll be posting a list of SA'94 talks with capsule reviews in the next
month or so, when we get the videotapes organized.  We will be offering
tapes of some or all of the talks, details to be announced.  Meanwhile, if
you want your name on a list to be sent SA'94 videotape info once we get
things organized, drop us a note, email or snailmail.  
 
 
                       SAS Action Recommendations
 
We have a bunch of things you can do this week.  None of them are life-or-
death, but all of them would be useful.
 
You can write OSTP and tell them that in regard to the draft report on
national space transportation strategy that has been circulating, you think
it would be a mistake to transfer all SSTO responsibility to NASA.  Ask
them to support SSTO work in both DOD and NASA.  Keep letters polite and
concise.  The address to write is:
 
Mr Richard Dalbello
Assistant Director, OSTP
Old Executive Office Building Rm 423
17th and Penn NW
Washington DC 20550
 
If you're an NSS member and received their fundraiser, you might let them
know where you think they're off the mark, assuming you do think so.  Given
that they're asking for your money, it's a good opportunity to let them know
how you might actually be interested in having your money spent and what it
might take to get you to send some.
 
And NSS member or not, you might write VP Gore and let him know you think
he should support immediate release of the $40 million in DOD SSTO funding,
and support future SSTO work in both DOD and NASA, as being important to
the nation's future competitiveness, both economic and military.  The
address is:  
 
The Vice President of the United States
The White House
Washington DC 20500
 
                                  ***
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
 
 
          **********************************************
 
 
Draft 3-25-94
 
National Space Transportation Strategy
 
Introduction
 
     This policy directive defines a National Space 
Transportation Strategy and provides guidance to U.S. government 
agencies responsible for implementing U.S. space transportation 
policy and programs.  This directive supersedes previous 
directive regarding space transportation.
 
     Assuring dependable and affordable access to space is a
fundamental goal of the U.S. space program.  In support of this 
fundamental goal, the U.S. government will:
 
     o    Maintain and improve the systems required to ensure safe 
          and reliable access to, transportation in, and return 
          from, space to meet U.S. civil and national security 
          objectives;
     o    Reduce significantly the costs of space transportation 
          through cost-effective improvements;
     o    Support R&D critical to the development of future space 
          transportation systems;
     o    Encourage the growth of a competitive U.S. commercial  
          launch industry, and;
     o    Maintain a strong launch-related technology base.
 
Space Transportation Strategy
 
          The National Space Transportation Strategy is to:
 
(1)  Ensure that existing U.S. space launch capabilities, 
     including support facilities, are sufficient to meet the 
     national needs for transport of personnel and payloads to 
     and from space;
 
(2)  Pursue cost-effective improvements in the cost of current 
     launch systems while protecting their reliability and 
     safety;
 
(3)  Implement an advanced technology program to support future 
     decisions on the development of next generation reusable 
     space launch capabilities that greatly reduce the cost of 
     access to space;
 
(4)  Utilize commercially provided products and services when 
     available and cost-effective, and encourage the growth of 
     the U.S. commercial space launch industry.
 
This strategy will be implemented within the overall resource and 
policy guidance provided by the President.
 
Strategy Implementation Guidelines
 
     This strategy shall be implemented as follows:
 
(1)  The Department of Defense will be responsible for 
     modernization of the current U.S. expendable space launch 
     fleet.  The DoD shall develop a detailed modernization plan 
     that reduces the cost of space launch through cost-effective 
     improvements, building upon investments made in existing 
     space launch vehicles, facilities, and infrastructure.
 
(2)  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration will 
     pursue an advanced technology program to prepare the 
     technologies required to develop a cost-effective next 
     generation reusable launch system, such as the single-stage-
     to-orbit concept.  NASA will also reduce the cost of 
     operating the Space Shuttle while protecting system safety.
 
(3)  DoD and NASA will encourage private sector partnerships, 
     consortia, and other arrangements for investments in 
     existing and future launch capabilities, including advanced 
     technologies.  These agencies will actively consider 
     innovative government-industry partnerships in pursuing dual 
     use technologies.
 
     In pursuit of their individual responsibilities, NASA and 
DoD will cooperate to take advantage of the unique skills of each 
agency to ensure successful implementation of this strategy.
 
General Guidelines
 
(1)  A mixed fleet, comprised of the Space Shuttle and existing 
     expendable launch vehicles, will continue to be the primary 
     U.S. Government means to transport personnel and payloads to 
     and from space for the foreseeable future.
 
(2)  The Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration will plan for the transition of space 
     programs to future launch systems in a manner which ensures 
     mission continuity and fully funds transition costs.
 
Civil Space Transportation Guidelines
 
(1)  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration will 
     maintain the capability to conduct human space flight, 
     including the capability to operate the Space Shuttle fleet 
     and space launch facilities (launch and recovery, payload 
     processing, tracking and data acquisition and mission 
     control) necessary to support the Space Shuttle program.
 
     (a)  The Space Shuttle will used only for missions that 
          require human presence or other unique Shuttle 
          capabilities, or for which use of the Shuttle is 
          determined to be important for national security, 
          foreign policy, or other compelling purposes;
 
     (b)  The Space Shuttle will continue to be managed and 
          operated in an institutional arrangement consistent 
          with the current NASA/DoD Memorandum of Understanding.  
          Responsibility will remain in NASA for operational 
          control of the Shuttle for civil missions, and in the 
          DoD for operational control of the Shuttle for national 
          security missions.  Mission management is the 
          responsibility of the mission agency;
 
     (c)  Pending a decision on a next-generation launch system, 
          the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will 
          maintain the Space Shuttle system and pursue 
          appropriate upgrades to ensure its viability, 
          reliability, safety, and cost effectiveness.  For 
          planning purposes, NASA should assume that Space 
          Shuttle operation continue until the end of the Space 
          Station's planned lifetime.
 
     (d)  Construction of additional Space Shuttle orbiters is 
          not planned.
 
(2)  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration will be 
     the lead agency for technology for advanced next generation 
     reusable launch systems.
 
     (a)  Technology efforts will focus on earth-to-orbit launch 
          and re-entry systems;
 
     (b)  Technology and development efforts, including 
          operational concepts, will be coordinated with the 
          Department of Defense;
 
     (c)  NASA will encourage private sector partnerships, 
          consortia, and other arrangements which facilitate the 
          effective implementation of next generation reusable 
          launch systems;
 
     (d)  Research shall be focused to support an FY'97 budget 
          decision to proceed with a sub-scale flight 
          demonstration program.
 
National Security Related Space Transportation Guidelines
 
(1)  The Department of Defense will maintain the capability to 
     operate those launch systems and facilities necessary to 
     meet national security requirements;
 
(2)  The Department of Defense is responsible for modernization 
     of the existing expendable launch vehicle fleet.  DoD will 
     focus on measures that can reduce total costs while 
     improving reliability and responsiveness.  As part of this 
     effort, the DoD will develop guidelines for standardization 
     of payload interfaces and integration processes.
 
     (a)  Modernization plans will be coordinated with the 
          National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the 
          Department of Transportation/
 
     (b)  The Department of Defense will encourage private sector 
          partnerships, consortia, and other arrangements which 
          facilitate the effective implementation of approved 
          modernization activities.
 
     (c)  The Department of Defense will develop plans to 
          maintain the Titan launch system pending a decision on 
          a follow on launch system
 
     (d)  DoD and NASA will combine their procurement of 
          expendable launch vehicles and related services when 
          this would reduce total cost to the government.
 
(3)  DoD, in coordination with NASA, will pursue dual use 
     technologies, including those applicable to private sector 
     space activities.
 
Commercial Space Transportation Guidelines
 
(1)  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the 
     Department of Defense will utilize commercial space launch 
     systems and facilities where feasible;
 
(2)  The United States Government is committed to encouraging a 
     viable commercial U.S. space launch industry.
 
     (a)  The Department of Transportation will license and 
          promote commercial launch operations as set forth in the 
          Commercial Space Launch Act and Executive Order 12455;
 
     (b)  Commercial space transportation objectives will be met 
          without the use of direct Federal subsidies;
 
     (c)  The U.S. Government will provide for the timely 
          transfer to the private sector of unclassified 
          Government-developed space transportation technologies 
          in such a manner as to protect their commercial value;
 
(3)  U.S. Government agencies, in acquiring space launch-related 
     capabilities, will:
 
     (a)  Emphasize procurement strategies which are based on the 
          use of commercially offered space products and 
          services;
 
     (b)  Provide for private sector retention of technical data 
          rights, except those necessary to comply with statutory 
          responsibilities;
 
     (c)  Encourage private sector and State and local government 
          investment and participation in the development and 
          improvement of U.S. launch systems and facilities;
 
     (d)  Incentivize private sector investments, as is feasible,
          through "anchor tenancy" or "first-buyer" commitments for
          innovative, lower-cost commercial space launch services;
 
(4)  The U.S. Government will seek to negotiate and maintain 
     multilateral agreements with other nations which define 
     principles of free and fair trade and limit certain 
     government supports and unfair practices in the 
     international market for commercial space launch services.
 
     (a)  International space launch trade agreements must 
          support an effective means of enforcement with a range 
          of options to deter, and if necessary respond to, non-
          compliance;
 
     (b)  The United States Government will not enter into a 
          space launch trade agreement with any nation that has 
          not committed to observe the guidelines and Annex of 
          the Missile Technology Control Regime;
 
     (c)  International space launch trade agreements must be 
          consistent with United States technology transfer 
          policies and with obligations under arms control 
          agreements.
 
Use of Foreign Launch Systems or Hardware
 
(1)  The United States Government will not purchase space launch 
     services from foreign launch providers if comparable U.S. 
     capabilities are available, except for reasons of national 
     security and foreign policy as approved by the President.
 
     (a)  Foreign launch systems may be used on a non-
          reimbursable basis to support the space station, 
          international scientific programs, or other cooperative 
          government-to-government programs.
 
(2)  The U.S. Government will not inhibit the use of foreign 
     components or technologies in upgrading U.S. space launch 
     systems or developing next-generation space transportation 
     systems except as required by national security, foreign 
     policy, public safety, or law.
 
Excess Ballistic Missiles
 
(1)  U.S. excess ballistic missiles will either be retained for 
     government use or destroyed.  Requests from within the DoD or 
     from other government agencies for use of excess ballistic 
     missiles assets will be considered on a case-by-case basis 
     by DoD.  Use of these assets will permitted for orbital 
     launch when each of the following conditions are met:
 
     (a)  The payload supports the sponsoring agency's mission, 
          for example, for government authorized or sponsored 
          research, technology development and test, 
          experimentation or education and training for U.S. 
          government authorized or sponsored research, technology 
          development, experimentation, or education and 
          training;
 
     (b)  The use of excess ballistic missile assets is 
          consistent with U.S. international obligations, 
          including MTCR guidelines and the START treaty; and,
 
     (d)  The U.S. commercial launch industry is given an 
          opportunity to provide launch services that meet the 
          performance, schedule, and risk requirements of the 
          mission, and the price for such services is determined 
          to clearly exceed to comparable cost of using an excess 
          ballistic missile asset.
 
(2)  Private sector bidders should also have the opportunity to 
     utilize excess ballistic missiles in support of a government 
     contract which meets the above requirements.  DoD will 
     retain ownership and accountability and maintain control and 
     supervision of all assets and related government furnished 
     equipment and negotiate and monitor all launch operations.
 
(3)  National Security Council and the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy will initiate a review the issue of 
     domestic use of foreign excess ballistic missiles.
 
Implementing Actions
 
     United States Government agencies are directed to undertake 
the following actions to implement this policy:
 
(1)  The Secretary of Defense, with the support of other agencies 
     as required, will provide an implementation plan to the 
     Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and 
     the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs 
     by July 1 1994.  This plan will include schedule and funding 
     requirements for implementation of this strategy as well as 
     plans to develop government-industry partnership to pursue 
     dual use technologies.  As part of this effort, the DoD in 
     concert with NASA and the commercial sector, will develop 
     guidelines for standardization of payload interfaces and 
     integration processes.  The goal of this modernization 
     program will be to significantly reduce the government's 
     cost of using the current expendable space transportation 
     fleet.
 
(2)  The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, with the support of other agencies as 
     required, will provide an implementation plan to the 
     Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and 
     the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs 
     by July 1, 1994.  This plan will include schedule, and 
     funding requirements for implementation of this strategy, 
     including plans to develop government-industry partnerships 
     to pursue dual use technologies.
 
 
                                 -30-
    

Article: 5614
Path:
ryn.mro.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!purdue!am
es!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: DC-X Test Flight Funding Released (At Last!)
Date: 29 Apr 1994 16:23:46 -0700
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 8
Sender: [email protected]
Approved: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.arc.nasa.gov
 
It gives me great pleasure to report that $5 million in funding for DC-X
flight test resumption actually arrived this morning, Friday April 29th.
 
Details on that and on a number of other cheap space access related
developments in the next Space Access Update, sometime this weekend.
 
				Henry Vanderbilt  [email protected]
				Executive Director, Space Access Society

Article: 5623
Path: ryn.mro.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!caen!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #34  05/04/94
Date: 4 May 1994 23:13:01 -0700
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 386
Sender: [email protected]
Approved: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.arc.nasa.gov
 
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
 
                      Space Access Update #34  5/4/94
                  Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication. 
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all,
period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever point
looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting the government's "SSRT"
(Single Stage Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its recently funded
followon, SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely about
the technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2, though we're increasingly
covering the subject of SSTO policy in general.  
 
We anticipate a change of focus soon if all goes well.  Once SX-2 startup
is (with your help!) assured, we plan to begin working on establishment of
a healthy second X-rocket development track at NASA, and on getting
development of suitable engines started for the fully reusable orbital
transports that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying
to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production prototypes a-
building shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society or on the DC-X/SSTO video we have for
sale, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044, or email
[email protected].  
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
                    DC-X Flight Test Resumption Funded!
 
Well, the good news is that after six months of footdragging and
obstructionism, the DC-X subscale reusable rocket project finally has gotten
the $5 million needed to finish basic flight test.  The ARPA comptroller
released the funding last Thursday and it actually arrived at BMDO the next
day, ending several weeks of rumors about DC-X's check being "in the mail"
Real Soon Now.  
 
The following Tuesday, May 3rd, McDonnell-Douglas put out a press release
announcing that they in turn received $3.5 million, and that they would
immediately begin preparations to get DC-X flying again.  McDonnell-Douglas
says "by early summer"; we hear that if things go reasonably well, the next
flight could take place during June.  DC-X has however been stored wrapped in
plastic for six months now.  There could be surprises, although the craft did
pass an electrical function test with flying colors a couple months back. 
(G.Harry Stine says that White Sands gypsum dust exhibits quantum tunnelling
on a macro scale -- it mysteriously migrates across supposedly gastight
barriers.)
 
Part of the preparations will be the detailed planning for the new test
series, currently expected to consist of between three and five flights.  At
some point they plan to demonstrate a high angle-of-attack "rotation maneuver"
of some sort.  You may recall from last summer that there were several
possible methods of transitioning from nose-first reentry to tail-first
landing under consideration.  Apparently flight experience from last fall and
additional analysis has narrowed down the options somewhat -- the colorfully
named "death swoop", alas, is right out.  
 
 
                 SX-2 "DC-X Followon" Funds Still In Limbo
 
The bad news is that from the time Congress appropriated $40 million to
continue this SSTO research project, it took six months to pry loose just $5
million of the total, and as those of you who've been following this know, the
process made pulling teeth look easy.  The rest of the $40 million, intended
to get DC-X's followon underway (the SX-2 almost-orbital reusable rocket) is
still in limbo.  
 
[Begin editorial rant]
 
Now, it seems fairly obvious that building a few X-vehicles to check out
reusable Single-Stage-To-Orbit feasibility fast and on the cheap makes sense,
right?  If SSTO checks out, the upside is enormous: vastly cheaper/quicker/
more reliable space launch, plus a commanding lead for US industry in a whole
new international aerospace vehicle market.  
 
The downside risk meanwhile is miniscule: Three to four hundred million over
four years.  We spend that much on our current launchers in a month.  
 
So why have we been seeing such a virtuoso display of footdragging,
obstructionism, and outright bureaucratic sabotage attempts?  
 
Alas, we are not mindreaders, but the most likely reason is the main motive of
every "mature" (IE entrenched and stagnant) bureaucracy: Self-preservation via
defense of the status quo.  
 
Make no mistake, cheap convenient decentralized space access will make
revolutionary changes in the status quo.  The massive organizations, military
and civilian, that have grown up around expensive centralized space access
over the last thirty years will be stood on their heads if we get cheap
reusable SSTO space transports flying.  
 
Apparently they know this.  The opposition to SSTO has, over the last year,
largely dropped the claim that it won't work, switching instead to the
position that it could work, but only after being handed over to whatever
organization is speaking, for a massive decades-long billions-per-year
development project, a project that purely coincidentally would provide
decades of job security for the bureaucrats involved.  
 
NASA's recent "Access To Space" report is one example of this, coming out in
support of reusable SSTO, but with the assumption that the only way to build
one is by giving the usual suspects nearly $40 billion over the next fifteen
years.  At that point the product may cost, gosh wow, only half as much as
Shuttle does to operate!  Fortunately we have reason to believe Administrator
Goldin doesn't subscribe to this approach, but it looks like he's going to
have his hands full bringing his bureaucrats around.  
 
There was another outbreak of SSTO elephantiasis last month, when Edward "Pete"
Aldridge, former Air Force Secretary and longtime Spacelifter advocate, told an
audience at the US Space Foundation in Colorado Springs that we couldn't
possibly afford to have NASA build an SSTO, so we should bring in countries
like Russia, China, Japan and France in a multinational SSTO development.  
 
This would be an improvement?  Words fail us; we are left guessing that either 
Aldridge, having finally accepted that Spacelifter is dead as a doornail, is
indulging in black humor, or that he simply wants to muddy the waters for SSTO
even further.  The record of large international space project consortiums is
not one of saving money for anyone involved...  
 
Multinational or US only, this is the sort of aerospace porkbarrel we know all
too well from recent decades.  Aside from the fact that the US simply doesn't
have the bucks for such a project right now, chances are that the ships
resulting would be captives of the bureaucracy that built them, neither cheap
nor convenient nor decentralized.  Preserving bureaucratic white-collar jobs
by strangling in its cradle an industry that could employ many times more is
short-sightedness the US can no longer afford.  
 
There are other motives behind the slow going for SSTO done right.  One of the
less rational ones seems to be knee-jerk opposition by some to anything that
came out of "Star Wars" -- BMDO, the former Strategic Defense Initiative
Organization, DC-X's original sponsor.
 
DC-X and SX-2 apparently bear the taint of SDIO origins and get less White
House support than they might.  (Another space project out of "Star Wars" also
seems to suffer from this, also despite its spectacular better-faster-cheaper
success.  Support for a followon to, or even for continued operation of the
Clementine Lunar/asteroid probe is lackluster at best.)
 
If Apollo went to the Moon with a rocket team that learned its trade building
missiles for the Nazis, surely we can tolerate making space exploration
affordable with engineers who learned their trade building missile defenses
for the United States?  
 
Development teams that actually produce results are rare and precious.  Don't
punish success by scattering these teams and handing their projects over to
unproven unknowns -- reward success by giving them bigger tougher projects to
tackle.  
 
[End editorial rant.  We feel much better now...]
 
Back to the practical problems of getting SX-2 underway.  
 
There's a good chance that the intent behind finally releasing the $5
million for DC-X was was to hand a lollipop to all of us noisy build-SSTO-
before-we-die-of-old-age types, to shut us up while the powers that be get
back to business as usual.  Our proper response, of course, is to take the
lollipop and keep right on after the rest of what we want.  
 
Go-ahead for SX-2 is still in theory waiting on release of two
Congressionally-mandated future US space launch studies: The Defense
Department's "Moorman Report", and the White House OSTP's (Office of Science
and Technology Policy) "National Space Transportation Strategy".  Both
documents are considerably overdue.  
 
We understand the Moorman Report is in the process of circulating at the
Pentagon to see if everyone can live with it.  We hear it is on the whole SSTO
friendly, providing a reasonable level of funding for SSTO demonstrator
testbeds under all its options.  The last hurdle is a final review by Deputy
Secretary of Defense John Deutch (less than supportive of SSTO to date) who
will then deliver the (hopefully still SSTO friendly) report to Congress.  
 
The OSTP launch policy paper is something else again.  The early draft we
got hold of a month ago had two unacceptable clauses: 
 
 - One mandates that NASA take the sole lead on advanced SSTO work.  Our only
 experienced fast-turnaround reusable rocket team is in DOD, and the sensible
 approach here would be for the DOD team to continue flight demonstrator
 development while NASA assists with individual technologies needed.  This was
 in fact the deal cut by the working level people last winter.  A policy of
 giving NASA the sole lead means scrapping much of what has been accomplished
 so far and starting over, entailing risk and delay.  
 
 - The other clause mandates that no decision be made on going ahead with any
 sort of flight demonstrator until the FY'97 budget is put together, two years
 from now.  The Congress already settled this last fall, and the SSRT crew has
 been ready to get started on SX-2 for six months now.  Wasting two more years
 doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  
 
You may recall we asked you to raise a fuss about these points last month.  We
understand the fuss was heard at OSTP -- but the new draft policy we just
got hold of still contains both unacceptable clauses.  It's beginning to look
like someone in the Administration really means it:  No new SSTO flight
demonstrator start for at least two years, and then only with NASA in charge.  
 
The practical effect of this would be to disperse the DC-X team, to diffuse
the current momentum down a practical SSTO development path (allowing the
existing bureaucracies time to capture and neuter SSTO), all while avoiding
any commitment to do anything at all until after the '96 elections.  
 
It is still not clear how high up in the Administration this originates;
there might well be an interesting story for someone here, if any members of
the print media are interested in digging.
 
 
    Representative Rohrabacher Plans To Sue For Release Of SX-2 Funding
 
Meanwhile, waiting for the Moorman and OSTP reports may soon become moot.  You
probably remember that a couple months back, there was an unsuccessful attempt
to rescind the $40 million Congress appropriated for SSTO development.  In
effect, the Administration said they don't want to spend that $40 million, but
Congress came back and said they have to.
 
It seems that when an Administration keeps on refusing to spend money
appropriated by Congress even after Congress turns down a rescission request,
there's a law that says once 45 legislative days pass, that Administration is
committing "impoundment" and can be sued to force release of the funds.  
 
We understand that if all else fails, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R CA)
has a suit charging impoundment ready to go.  45 legislative days since
Congress disapproved the SSTO funding rescission comes to roughly the end of
next week, Friday May 13th.
 
(Impoundment, by the way, was one of the charges in the Articles of Impeachment
drawn up against Richard Nixon just before he resigned back in '74.  That's
probably a historical parallel worth avoiding.)
 
Among other considerations, an anti-impoundment suit would render the SSTO-
related clauses of the OSTP draft policy moot, as they would then be clearly
in violation of the law.  We can hope that everyone concerned will quietly get
together to arrange release of SX-2 startup funding in the next couple of
weeks, rather than end up in a messy court fight.  
 
Theoretically, of course, the funds could be released but misallocated in a
way that would derail further SSTO tech development from the track the
Congress has mandated.  This would probably be a mistake - the text of a
letter we've obtained (attached to the end of this Update) makes it clear
Congress knows what they want here, and the 31 signatures make it clear this
has broad bipartisan support.  (We hear that John Murtha in his capacity as
Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee has also
written Secretary of Defense Perry, urging him to avoid further delay in
release of the FY'94 SSTO funding.)
 
Of course, the main reason all this Congressional firepower is being brought
to bear is that the policy makes sense in the first place.  With luck, any
misunderstandings about just what Congress wants will soon be cleared up
and we'll see SX-2 finally get underway.
 
 
                   $100m For SX-2 Into FY'95 DOD Budget?
 
Meanwhile, the Fiscal Year '95 SSTO funding process is due to get underway
tomorrow morning at 9 am, when the House Armed Services Committee Research and
Technology Subcommittee (HASC R&T) meets to mark up the R&T portion of the
Administration's FY'95 DOD funding request.  If all goes well, $100 million
for SSTO will be inserted as part of this early stage of next year's DOD
funding process.  
 
In theory, the key Congresspersons involved already support SSTO and are aware
of the need to insert this funding, so we haven't called for any major effort
to let them know we all still care about this.  It'd be wonderful if next
year's SSTO funding sails through without a single constituent fax or letter
being needed, wouldn't it?  We'll see.  
 
 
                Space Access Society Action Recommendations
 
For the moment, public pressure doesn't seem to be what we need, either in
Congress or at OSTP.  On the other hand, we have a list of 31 SSTO supporters
in Congress, the signers of the letter appended to this Update.  Brief notes
of thanks for their support for the SX-2 SSTO experimental flight vehicle
program, via mail, would be a good way to reinforce their support.  Everyone
should thank John Murtha, Pat Schroeder, and George Brown, as well as any
other signers whose district is in your state.  
 
If you don't have the actual office number and building handy, an address that
should work is:
 
Representative [name]
US House Of Representatives
Washington DC 20515
 
 
                                Wrapping Up
 
Odds are we will get the cheap reusable space transports we're looking for, in
large part because there's still nobody else offering a practical way out of
the current launch mess.  It will nevertheless be a long time before there's
any shortage of people ready to rain on our parade, because our practical way
out of the current launch mess depends for its practicality on bypassing 
the massive existing space launch establishment.  Hey, we knew the job was
dangerous when we took it.
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
 
 
<begin letter text>
 
The Honorable William J. Perry
Secretary of Defense
[Pentagon, Washington DC]
 
Dear Dr. Perry;
 
We are writing to strongly urge the Department of Defense to finally
initiate development of the SX-2 Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD)
vehicle, as provided for by Congress in its FY'94 DoD appropriation.  This
program, which has wide bipartisan Congressional support, was placed on the
President's proposed list of FY'94 program recisions.  Then on February 11,
Congress rejected the proposed recision of the SX-2 when it adopted the
conference report on H.R. 3759, after removing this recision from the Senate
version.  With fully a third of the fiscal year having elapsed already we
think it is more than time for DoD to finally get started.  DoD should,
therefore, proceed immediately with the next competitive phase to develop
SSTO technology; a suborbital ATD - the SX-2.
 
We would like to emphasize that we are not interested in initiating an
expensive acquisition program, but rather a low cost technology
demonstration that can eventually attract private investment.  The best way
to keep the cost low is to manage the SX-2 in the same way as the highly
successful DC-X1 - as a small fast-track program.  We have found strong
interest within the Air force to do just that.
 
With the Congress' clarification of the question of FY'94 funding, the
current program monies are to be made available to the Advanced research
projects Agency (ARPA).  We encourage you and ARPA to provide early funding
stability and to execute this program through the Air Force laboratory
structure.  As the primary end user of systems developed from these
technologies, the Air Force must be involved in both their development and
eventual funding.  The air Force is the logical executing agent both because
of their interest in the program and because they have the necessary
technical expertise to effectively manage such an effort.
 
Thank you for your leadership and assistance concerning the continuation of
the development of this valuable and revolutionary space launch technology.
 
[signatures]
 
Dave McCurdy D OK
Patricia Schroeder D CO
George S. Brown D CA
Ralph Hall D TX
Tom Lewis R FL
Steven Schiff R NM
Bill Baker R CA
Ed Royce R CA
Jim Kolbe R AZ
Jerrold Nadler D NY
Jane Harman D CA
Norman Dicks D WA
Joe McDade R PA
Floyd Spence R SC
Sam Johnson R TX
Ken Calvert R CA
Bud Cramer D AL
Tom DeLay R TX
Jim Bacchus D FL
Roscoe Bartlett D FL
Joe Skeen R NM
Lamar Smith R TX
Newt Gingrich R GA
Ron Packard R CA
Bill Richardson D NM
Charles Wilson D TX
Michael Andrews D TX
Jan Meyers R KS
James Traficant D OH
Dana Rohrabacher R CA
Robert Dornan R CA
 
<end letter text>
    

Article: 1962
Path: ryn.mro.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl!nntp.crl.com!henry
From: [email protected] (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: SSTO presentation
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 04:45:48 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 501
Approved: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl.com
Return-Path: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Content-Length: 24907
 
Well, well...  A little bird just flew in my window (well, actually, it
was two weeks ago, half a day before I left for vacation, but never mind
that...) clutching a very interesting stack of paper in its beak.  In
the belief that others might also be interested, here's a summary.
 
Things enclosed in [] are my own comments.  This isn't proofread as
thoroughly as I usually like -- it's taken long enough to write as it
is! -- so there may be a few typos.
 
(I fear I must make the usual disclaimer:  the little bird doesn't
take requests, so I have no idea how you could get a copy of this.)
 
BMDO's presentation on Single Stage Rocket Technology to the USAF
Scientific Advisory Board, dated 8 April 1994.
 
Single stage rockets operate like aircraft.  Vertical takeoff, all-
altitude abort, unmanned or manned operation, suborbital or orbital
mission, capability for once-around missions, precision landings.
 
Multiple SSTO concepts exist:  Rockwell's HTHL SSTO ("SSTO technologies
are more mature than Shuttle, circa 1971" -- Jim Berry of Rockwell),
McDD's Delta Clipper, Lockheed's Aeroballistic Rocket.
 
Stepping stone development approach applicable to any SSTO concept:
concept demonstrator (DC-X), technology demonstrator (SX-2), full
prototype (DC-Y aka YS-3), operational craft (DC-1 aka S-3).  The
approach rapidly reduces risk while demonstrating most key aspects
early in the program.
 
SSRT DC-X Demonstrator Program
 
DC-X key objective:  demonstrate aircraft-like operations and support
in a reusable rocket with cryogenic fuels.  41ft vehicle with metal
tanks and structure, composite shell, RL10A5 engines.  Currently in
test, within budget.  Demonstrates aircraft-like envelope expansion,
rapid turnaround, low flight cost, key technologies.
 
Pictures of DC-X hardware, facilities.
 
Goahead to first flight:  24 months.  Rollout Apr 93, static tests
May-Jun, hover flight 18 Aug.
 
DC-X focused on common needs of all launchers:
	Need				DC-X
	----				----
minimal infrastructure cost		<$7M
responsive flight		3day turnaround, <3day callup
low operating cost		25-35man crew, 3man launch team
high reliability		high reusability and durability
 
Key SSTO risk areas:  mass fraction, cryo tanks, thermal protection,
primary structure, aerodynamics (DC-X), avionics and software (DC-X),
propulsion (DC-X), support facilities (DC-X), control center (DC-X),
reliability and related (DC-X), containerized payloads.
 
Some DC-X conditions are representative of full-scale SSTO.  Internal
temperatures, pressures, base heating, aerodynamics, environmental factors.
Software, acoustics close.  Flight loads less.
 
Support facilities.  Permanent pad facilities only cost $600k.  Another
$6.4M in mobile support equipment:  tank trucks, control trailer, rollback
hangar.  Design for low support infrastructure is crucial -- it is not an
add-on, most of the support costs are fixed by the time detailed design
starts.  Automation reduces processing time and shrinks support team.
 
Design for easy access, replacement of small units, rapid repair.  GO2/GH2
vented direct to the atmosphere from the tanks.
 
DC-X has demonstrated aircraft-like operations.  Routinely went from cold
start to hot firing in 2-3 hours.  Ground-test turnaround averaged 2.3days,
early flight tests 2 weeks.  Operations crew about 25 total, flight crew 3.
Flight under mildly adverse conditions.  Selected SSTO technologies, but
not materials and mass fraction.
 
SSTO Background
 
Considerable past history.  Boeing's RASV proposal wasn't funded, but led
to Science Dawn, Science Realm, and Have Region projects.
 
USAF requirements dictated wings, horizontal takeoff, manned operation,
flight by 1990.  Boeing used a takeoff sled, Lockheed a zero-length rocket
assist, McDonnell a "horizontal attitude launch" [details of which are
not clear, but it looks like it might have been rear engines plus lift
engines in the bottom of the nose].
 
Have Region built near-full-scale structures, with weights within 3% of
weight budgets.  All were tested to destruction; all had problems, but
all looked fixable.  Conclusion:  SSTO is feasible.
 
Phase I SSTO program.  20klb payload with easterly launch, 600ft/s delta-V
in orbit, LOX/LH2.  (Goal:  capture 80% of payloads, clean exhaust.)  Fully
reusable, 50 crew/vehicle, 7-day turnaround.  (Goal:  $5M/flight.)  Engine
out capability, intact abort, substantial weight margins, unmanned with
manned option.  (Goal:  0.995 relability.)
 
Final Phase I concepts:  GD VTVL base-first reentry, McDD VTVL nose-first,
Rockwell VTHL winged.  All deemed feasible.
 
Phase I findings.  Multiple concepts are valid, basic concepts confirmed
by independent assessment.  Existing technologies are enough:  existing
structures and materials, new engine with SSME-class performance.  Key
risk areas are design for low cost, meeting mass fraction, low-maintenance
main propulsion, lightweight cryo tanks, durable thermal protection.
 
SX-2 advanced technology demonstrator.
 
Stepping-stone approach again.  SX-2 suborbital vehicle, 3 key goals:
demonstrate mass fraction, show low cost/flight, show high reliability.
 
Half-scale SSTO.  Reaches 100nmi altitude, Mach 5+, 50mi downrange, and
return, in suborbital mission with 4min free fall.  90klbs, eight RL10A5s.
Composite airframe and LH2 tank, AlLi LOX tank, titanium-honeycomb heatshield.
Direct scaling to SSTO mass fraction.  Engine-out capability at all times.
 
With start in mid-94, key decision -- how many contractors get to build
flight versions of their concepts -- is in June 95, with flights starting
around the end of 96.
 
SSTO Feasibility
 
Much misinformation about mass fractions.  The claim is that if the MF
increases by 0.006, gross weight doubles for the same payload.  The
reality (NASA analysis) is that in modern designs, such an MF increase
is well within the design margins and causes *no* gross weight increase.
 
Some past boosters have had quite impressive mass fractions, e.g. Atlas
at mass ratio of 25.
 
Progress has made SSTO feasible.  1960s designs were large because of
inadequate Isp and heavy structure.  Have Region did better on structures.
Modern composites still better, plus lighter avionics, better optimization
(faster computers), higher Isp.
 
Modern engines have brought SSTO performance into a range where the
penalty of unexpectedly-heavier structure is much reduced:  substantial,
but nowhere near the disaster it used to be.
 
Current McDD design includes aircraft-like design factors and margins.
With an expander engine (Isp 425), weight margin is 5%; with an augmented
expander (Isp 438), 20%.
 
Propulsion options.  200klb thrust (sea level) expander cycle, 1400psi
chamber pressure, two-position nozzle on sustainer, avg Isp=425, T/W=77.
Augmentation option:  add a bit of LOX in a preburner for running the
pumps, giving better Isp and better control (but higher chamber pressure).
Tradeoff is lifetime and supportability vs. performance.
 
200k expander can use various items of existing technology, reducing
uncertainty somewhat.
 
Structural materials needed are already mature, including extensive use
on aircraft (Beech Starship, Northrop B-2, Bell/Boeing Osprey, Scaled
Composites ARES are all-composite, and major composite components are
now standard on airliners).  NASP built and tested graphite/epoxy LH2
tanks.  NLS built and tested AlLi LOX tanks.  AlLi is already used in
some aircraft and in large-rocket payload adapters.
 
Passively-cooled thermal protection.  Variety of materials, C/SiC for
the nose, hot metals for most of the body.  Weight and durability are
crucial here, but many adequate materials exist.
 
Dry-weight uncertainties.  An attempt to quantify gives a 16.2% uncertainty
overall.  Have Region, spacecraft, advanced-aircraft experience concur that
about a 15% margin is adequate.
 
Margins can be increased, if necessary.  A "pop-up" trajectory, taking
payload nearly into orbit and then releasing it with an upper stage,
increases dry-weight margins 20%+.  Even bigger increases can probably
be had by more ambitious technology:  GrEp LOX tank, load-bearing LH2
tank, augmented-expander engine, composite plumbing, etc.
 
NASA Access To Space review supported feasibility of SSTO rockets.
Their component weights were similar to DC-Y's when scaled to the same
payload.  They specced for 45klb payload, provided a 31% dry-weight
margin and 1100ft/s orbital delta-V, and seem to need 10x the ground
manpower that the USAF and industry think necessary... so their concept
looks expensive.  They also seem to think that ground research is a
better way to mature technology than flying X-rockets.
 
BMDO evaluates a number of key technologies as more mature than NASA did.
Notably, BMDO thinks that existing experience (including NASA's AlLi ET
program) is enough to be fairly confident in cryo-tank materials, that
an expander-cycle engine will be less cranky than an SSME development,
and that DC-X clearly shows that flight and ground control systems are
nearly off-the-shelf if you use commercial procurement rules.
 
SSTO Operations Concept
 
Must address today's problems:  slow response, poor reliability, and high
recurring cost make maintenance of satellite constellations very expensive.
Existing [US] launch systems support only 68% of the required launches, with
a steadily-growing backlog mitigated by delayed or cancelled programs and
abandoned requirements.
 
The cost of unreliability (both slips and losses) is seldom quantified.
1988 OTA study says 40-50% of US launcher operating cost is failures,
investigations, changes, replacements, downtime.
 
80%+ of US launcher failures in last ten years have been propulsion
malfunctions.  Lesson:  need engine-out capability.
 
Operations concept modelled on military aircraft.  One main operating
base (perhaps Holloman AFB in NM:  high altitude and low latitude boost
payload, militarily secure, local population small, environment friendly).
Possibly multiple operating locations, given transportable support gear
and minimal fixed facilities.  Two-level maintenance (some on-site and
some at factory).  Designed for "Blue-Suit" ops&maint [that is, technicians
rather than engineers], possibly using some contractor support like SR-71.
 
Containerized payload allows all payload processing to be done off the
vehicle.  The container is part of the vehicle for weight purposes, but
is removable and is provided to customer well in advance.  The container
interfaces are absolutely standard, no changes allowed.  Customer can
do whatever he wants (including passengers) in the container.  Extra
weight needed to add an on-board crew is charged against payload.
 
Reusable and reliable design drives costs down.  LOX costs 5c/lb, and
is most of the fuel mass.  Rapid fueling/draining.  No solid fuel, no
poisons, no corrosives.  Built-in diagnostics, automation, design for
low maintenance.  Short dedicated flights, off-vehicle payload processing.
 
You pay for the dry weight:  development, production, much of operations.
SSTO dry/payload weight ratio better than shuttle or Titan IV even for
first flight, improves rapidly thereafter due to reuse.
 
Shuttle launch processing timeline totals 180 8hr shifts.  Getting rid
of ferrying, ET, SRBs, hypergolics, and tiles would cut that to 86.
More accessible vehicle, standardized interfaces, bigger margins, more
automation, elimination of hydraulics, etc. etc. take this down to 17.
 
Delta has demonstrated 432hr turnaround.  Just changing to a one-piece
vehicle (no solids, upper stages, fairings, etc.) cuts that to 184.
Standard interfaces, on-board health monitoring and testing, automation,
etc. etc. cut that to 48.
 
Expendable reliability now is maybe 96%.  That can probably go to 98%
with all engines firing before commitment to liftoff, and to 99% with
either engine-out capability or only a single engine.  This is about
the best you can hope for with a new expendable.  Intact abort, better
margins, incremental flight test, and flight-tested vehicles take that
to 99.98% for reusable.  Should be able to do even better -- commercial
aircraft get 99.9995%+.
 
SSTO needs low recurring cost, high reliability, fast turnaround.  These
drive launch, failure, and stand-down costs.  SX-2 addresses all of these,
with component scaling to a full SSTO.
 
Mission Assessment
 
US is losing commercial market.  Steady slide starting in 1976, overall
trend of losing about 4%/yr.
 
A reusable launcher can capture much of the market even if it's too small
to replace Titan IV.  Cuts US launch costs $4G/yr.  That's without including
failure costs, in which case it looks even better.  Provided it replaces the
shuttle, the cost savings are not very sensitive to small changes in flight
cost and reliability.
 
With conservative financial assumptions and a $6G program, US government
break-even is about 7 years down the road (in then-year, FY94, or discounted
dollars) provided cost/flight no worse than $10-20M and reliability 0.996.
Cumulative return large if shuttle replaced, substantial even if not.
 
If you can support Titan IV payloads -- by orbital assembly, "pop-up" mission
using suborbital trajectory and upper stage, or improved/enlarged vehicle --
the payback period is still about 7 years, but the cumulative return heads
for the ionosphere very quickly thereafter.
 
However, you may not want to plan on that.  The operations would be more
complex, the payload-bay size is a limiting factor, and the "all eggs in
one basket" problem would be back.  Suggest planning for SSTO + Titan IV,
at least as the first step.
 
New transportation systems historically open new markets quickly.
 
Commercial Space Transportation Study by major aerospace companies.
The activity curves skyrocket when costs get down to about $500/lb;
growth is modest before then.
 
Commercial use is especially attractive with government as anchor tenant,
so commercial users only pay marginal costs of greater capacity.
 
"Civil Reserve Space Fleet" can support unique military missions.  Global
response.  One hour to anywhere:  unpredictable ground and space surveillance,
XXX, XXX.  [Those XXXs stand for items that are completely blacked out on
the chart.  Weapons delivery?  Special-forces insertion?]  Inland basing
within continental US:  no foreign bases, facilities, or treaties.  No
in-flight refuelling needed.  No requirements for overflight rights.
But would need new payloads.
 
"Best" launch architecture depends on perspective.  Intelligence community
is not excited about new missions but does need "better Titan IV" eventually.
USAF and commercial would see replacement of existing launchers plus new
capabilities:  captures most DoD payloads, cuts operating costs, adds new
missions and approaches.  NASA would see that plus shuttle replacement:
big cost savings regardless of exact SSTO numbers.  USA sees all that,
support for national space policy, economic benefits, encouraging private
investment in space:  potential cornerstone of national policy.
 
Summary:  Uncertainties in rocket SSTOs centered on dry weight, durability,
reliability, response time, operating costs.  SX-2 or something similar
would demonstrate dry weight (defining the margins needed for an SSTO),
demonstrate low operating costs and high reliability (defining costs of
an SSTO-based launch system).  An X-rocket of some kind is the cheapest
and fastest way to resolve the remaining risks.
 
 
Let's see, next we have "White Paper on SSTO Feasibility", by Jess
Sponable [major, USAF], 8 April 1994.
 
1960s SSTO designs looked overly risky:  very high mass ratios looked hard.
Many expendables of that era had comparable or higher mass ratios, but the
requirement for reusability (reentry, recovery, durability, etc.) did drive
weights up.
 
In Dec 1982, Boeing sent the USAF a proposal to spend $1.4G building an
experimental HTHL SSTO, using one SSME and carrying 4klbs to polar orbit:
a subscale demonstrator of Boeing's RASV.  Instead the USAF spent a smaller
sum on multiple research contracts on SSTO designs and structures.  The
Have Region structural articles turned out well, but had some problems, and
the program was terminated when NASP got going.
 
Development of SDIO's SSTO/SSRT program.  DC-Y, using aircraft materials
to build a 20klb-payload SSTO slightly smaller and lighter (empty!) than
a DC-8 airliner.
 
Argument that SSTO is impractical:  Assume dry weight (without payload)
to be a constant fraction of gross liftoff weight.  At constant specific
impulse, growth of dry/liftoff ratio from 7.5% to 9.5% quintuples the
liftoff weight for constant payload.  That's for the DC-Y design point;
a less optimistic design is even worse, leading to the conclusion that
even small weight growth would take the project beyond practicality.
 
First, the percentages are deceiving.  A 2% change in dry/liftoff ratio is
nearly a 30% increase in dry weight!
 
Second, the argument assumes that the design has no dry-weight margins.
Modern designs have quite substantial margins, even if you don't resort
to reducing the payload.
 
Third, gross liftoff weight has very little to do with practicality for
VTVL rocket SSTOs.  Gross-weight limits on conventional aircraft are due
to wing loading, a non-problem here.  Dry weight is a much better measure
of feasibility and cost.
 
More fundamentally, rockets do not scale at constant dry/liftoff weight.
Thrust:weight ratios of engines are high and engine weight does not
dominate the vehicle.  Most other components of dry weight scale with
surface area or enclosed volume, not liftoff weight.  Simple scaling
models drawing bounds based on volume (worst case) and area (best case)
confirm McDD's more sophisticated scaling model for DC-Y:  with modern
engines and structures, rocket SSTOs are much less sensitive to small
weight or Isp problems than naive analysis indicates.
 
SSRT Fast Track Acquisitions presentation, April 1993.
 
Purpose:  compile lessons learned in past, recommend DC-X followon
acquisition strategies.  Key conclusion:  X-rockets first.
 
SDIO programs using fast-track methods:  Delta 180 (14 months from
approval to launch), Delta 181 (18mo), Delta Star (13mo), LOSAT (13mo),
LOSAT X (12mo + 18mo externally-imposed delay), MSTI-1 (12mo), DC-X
(22mo to first flight, projected) [note that this presentation slightly
pre-dates the start of DC-X tests], Clementine 1 (23mo).
 
Fast-track management principles:
1. Agree to clearly defined program objectives in advance.
2. Single manager under one agency.
3. Small program offices.
4. Hardware, not paper.
5. Key demos, not everything.
6. Streamline documentation and reviews.
7. Contractor integrates and tests prototype.
8. Minimum realistic funding profiles.
9. Track cost and schedule situation in near real-time.
10. Mutual trust.
*. Incentives for results.
 
1. Agree to clearly defined program objectives in advance.  Push the
limits to get people excited, don't settle for incremental advances.
Set cost, schedule, functional specs, not detailed requirements (which
are required by DoD regulation but *not* by law).  Program manager,
program customer, contractor must all see eye-to-eye.  No unnecessary
changes once underway.
 
2. Single manager under one agency.  One program manager should have
authority to make all decisions that can be legally made, and he should
report to one boss.  Joint funding works, joint reporting and management
do not.  Program manager must understand technology, be more interested
in program success than his next promotion, and be willing to make some
mistakes in the interests of quick decisions.  Contractor counterpart
must have similar freedom.
 
3. Small program offices.  F-117, X-31, DC-X all done by a total of a
few hundred people, only a few of them management.  Rockwell estimates
X-31 cost half of what it would have under Business As Usual, using
small highly-experienced team with considerable freedom.
 
4. Hardware, not paper.  Don't forget software:  rapid prototyping to
get software semi-operational early is important.
 
5. Key demos, not everything.  A small demonstrator that is allowed to
fail and doesn't have to do everything can answer major questions cheaply
and quickly.  Build a little, test a little.
 
6. Streamline documentation and reviews.  Keep documents short and simple.
Management should have authority to manage.  Must conform with law, need
not conform to DoD regulations.  Reviews and meetings should occur only
in presence of decision makers, and should emphasize resolving open
issues quickly.  Bring the shop-floor people into the loop rather than
trying to pin down everything via drawings first.
 
7. Contractor integrates and tests prototype.  Contractor knows what
needs testing and how.  Having only one set of tests saves money and
time.  Contractor retains stake in results.  Avoid building test empire:
retire the demonstrator as soon as you have the data you need.
 
8. Minimum realistic funding profiles.  Emphasis on stable funding.
Track life-cycle-costs, not just development costs.  Document impacts
of funding cuts on l-c-c and schedule.
 
9. Track cost and schedule situation in near real-time.  Essential to
have earliest possible warning of problems.
 
10. Mutual trust.  Government and contractor managers should make major
decisions and accept major risks jointly.  Govt. must trust co. to do
the job, by not second-guessing all their decisions.  Co. must trust
govt. to keep program stable and demands feasible.  Emphasize teamwork,
minimize personnel turnover.
 
*. Incentives for results.  Make sure everyone is rewarded for success,
including subcontractors (especially key ones).  Reward results, not
staff buildup.  Building and flying hardware is itself a reward if the
folks doing feel they "own" it (see #7).
 
Recommendations for SSRT followon:
1. Pick SDIO (suborbital) or national (once around) flight objective.
	$1-10M/flight, <7day turnaround, program complete in 3-5 years.
2. USAF lead agency for "national" version.  Pick program manager carefully.
3. Govt. program office about 6 people, contractor under 30.
4. Flight prototype, not paper analysis.  Competitive flyoff if affordable.
5. No commitment to operational followon before demonstrator flight.
6. Eliminate most documentation.
7. Hire prime contractor to do integration and test too.  Buy facilities
	and equipment through them.
8. Do credible cost estimate.  Hold reserves where possible.
9. Use contractor's cost-reporting system, share data.
10. "Pick a contractor (and government) you can trust."
*. Contract must have significant cost, schedule, and performance incentives.
 
Presentation on Traceability to follow-on reusable launchers, June 1993.
 
[Quite a bit of this repeats earlier material, so I'm leaving much out.]
 
Reusable SSTOs require today's technologies.  Tomorrow's will help but
are not necessary.
 
Structural materials needed have been demonstrated (although not
by DC-X).  DC-X does show need for rigorous weight management.
 
Tank technology is fairly mature.  Could build either of an SSTO's tanks
from aluminum, at some weight penalty.  DC-X:  try it on subscale components
before building full-scale tanks; reusability is feasible.
 
Thermal protection is in good shape except perhaps for easy removal and
replacement.  Shuttle technology would suffice, at some weight penalty.
DC-X base heat shield:  reusability and low mass/area important; need
to look at combination of cold-structure and hot-structure approaches;
landing environments need attention in design.
 
Primary structure technology is mature except for durability issues.
DC-X trusses and aeroshell have some relevance:  truss joints are a
key design issue; stochastic load modelling can help define margins.
 
Aerodynamics, stability, control technology advanced considerably by
DC-X, in good shape except for fuel-slosh issues.  DC-X:  stable
subsonic flight needs exploration early; the best way to do the flip
maneuver needs investigation.
 
Avionics and flight control needs work, although DC-X will help.
DC-X:  rapid prototyping of software works (order of magnitude savings);
independent verification/validation of software and control laws reduces
risk appreciably.
 
Propulsion will be in good shape, with DC-X demonstrating deep throttling
and durability.  DC-X:  operability and support are as important as
performance.
 
Most operations issues resolved by DC-X program.  Reliable abort modes
and containerized payloads are the major exceptions.
 
Conclusions:
- Suborbital reusable rocket now a low-risk project.
- SSTO technologies advanced well by DC-X, especially considering $70M cost.
- SSTO program now reasonable.
- SX-2 or equivalent demonstrator is next step.
- It can be done quickly.
- It should precede a decision on an operational system.
-- 
"...the Russians are coming, and the    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
launch cartel is worried." - P.Fuhrman  |  [email protected]  utzoo!henry

    This weeks New Scientist has an article on the Delta Clipper.
    
    Peter

Article: 5797
Path:
ryn.mro.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!caen!nigel.msen.com!sd
d.hp.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #36  6/2/94
Date: 4 Jun 1994 22:32:53 -0700
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 319
Sender: [email protected]
Approved: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.arc.nasa.gov
 
                     Space Access Update #36  6/4/94
                 Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting the government's "SSRT"
(Single Stage Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its recently funded
followon, SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely about
the technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2, though we also cover the
subject of reusable SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit) policy in general.  
 
We anticipate a change of focus soon if all goes well.  Once SX-2 startup is
(with your help!) assured, we plan to begin working on establishment of a
healthy second X-rocket development track at NASA, and on getting
development of suitable engines started for the fully reusable orbital
transports that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying
to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production ships a-building
shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society or on the DC-X/SSTO video we have for
sale, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044, or email
[email protected].  Please forgive any delay in our reply; we're a couple
weeks behind in answering non life-or-death email right now.]
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
              FY'95 SX-2 Funding Now Needs Senate Approval
 
You probably recall from SAU #35 that the US House of Representatives has
approved $100 million for USAF's proposed SX-2 high-speed reusable rocket
testbed, in their version of next year's Defense Department (DOD) funding
Authorization bill.  
 
The next major hurdle for FY'95 SX-2 funding is the Senate Armed Services
Committee (SASC) DOD Authorization markup, taking place this coming week. 
The key event for SX-2 will be next Tuesday afternoon, June 7th, when
Senator Jeff Bingaman's Defense Technology subcommittee does a preliminary
mark of its sections of the Senate FY'95 DOD Authorization bill.  
 
SX-2 funding is a relatively small item in the DOD Authorization.  If it is
added by Senator Bingaman's subcommittee, it will likely sail through
intact.  Conversely, if it isn't added at the subcommittee level, it's much
less likely to be added by the full SASC, and extremely unlikely to be added
by amendment when the full Senate considers the bill.  
 
The full SASC is scheduled to mark up (modify) the FY'95 DOD Authorization
two days later, Thursday June 9th.  Debate, amendment, and approval by the
full Senate should follow in the next couple of weeks.  
 
While there are some strong SSTO supporters on SASC, last year support for
SSTO was much weaker in the Senate than in the House.  If the Senate can be
persuaded to match the House SX-2 funding language, inclusion in the final
FY'95 DOD budget is very likely, subject to agreement of the Appropriations
committees.  If the Senate leaves SSTO out of their DOD Authorization,
however, things will be dicey, at best going down to the wire again as they
did last year.  
 
 
                  DC-X Scheduled To Fly Again June 11th
 
The headline is the story -- things have been hopping on the SX-2 and NASA
SSTO fronts, and we've had very little time to ferret out details on DC-X
reflight progress.  The scheduled date for DC-X's first flight since funding
ran out last October is Saturday, June 11th, and we hear things are on
track, pending the ground engine test firing scheduled this coming Tuesday. 
More on this when we know more.  
 
 
      US Launch Policy Narrowing To Reusable SSTO -- But Done How?
 
There is a consensus emerging that reusable SSTO is the long-term answer to
current US problems with slow, expensive, unreliable space launch.  But
there are huge differences of approach among the various SSTO supporters,
and there are of course anti-SSTO holdouts still in positions where they can
block progress.  
 
Bear with us while we lay out in detail the course of action we advocate as
the best way to get our nation affordable space access as fast and cheap as
possible.  It'll help you understand the policy background that follows.
 
 -- SAS SSTO Strategy
 
Space Access Society's overall strategy is to push government experimental
SSTO testbeds, while avoiding like the plague any government built-and-
flown "Shuttle II" operational SSTO projects.  Government transportation
monopolies do not have a good historical record.  
 
The idea behind pushing flight testbeds is to increase our experience with
practical, fieldable SSTO technology, thus reducing development costs for
future operational SSTO transports.  At the same time, the flight demos will
increase private investor confidence in SSTO technology, thus increasing the
amount of money they'd be willing to risk on it.
 
When dropping development costs and rising investor confidence meet, we
should start seeing commercial SSTO developments.  We're already
surprisingly close -- a recent pan-aerospace-industry launch market survey
based on very conservative assumptions found that a small SSTO fleet would
make money if it could be built for $2 billion.  Meanwhile, Boeing,
Lockheed, and McDonnell-Douglas all have said more or less officially that
each could develop such a fleet for about $6 billion.  The private SSTO
investment gap is down to a factor of three, even without discounting for
conservative numbers.  More important, the gap is narrowing steadily.
 
SAS is of the opinion that developing and flying an SX-2 class demonstrator
will narrow that gap a lot more, and that a fully-orbital followon X-ship
will almost certainly close it, enabling a commercial SSTO market explosion
starting around the year 2000 that could rival the jet airliner boom of the
sixties.  
 
This depends, of course, on there being no major government disincentives to
investment in commercial SSTO's, one example of such being a major
government project to build and fly their own one-size-fits-all SSTO fleet. 
No investor in his right mind would go up against competition like that, and
absent a pressing national emergency, SAS would oppose any such government
SSTO monopoly project.  
 
 -- SAS Tactics
 
SAS's preferred option is pretty well known; we'd like to see the people
that put together DC-X given a chance to follow it up immediately with the
SX-2.  "Space Experimental 2" would have as its sole purpose learning how to
fly as high as possible and as fast as possible on the available money,
"scaring the hell out of orbit" as someone put it last fall, with a fully
reusable vehicle.
 
The people that managed DC-X, alas, are US Air Force officers and were
working for SDIO at the time DC-X got underway.  This is causing political
problems.  
 
We're persisting despite these problems, because we still think that DOD
offers the best near-term prospects of getting a followon to DC-X done fast
and cheap.  The experienced management is ready to mave at the Air Force's
Phillips Lab, the USAF already has a proven organizational setup called an
ATD (Advanced Technology Demonstrator) project, the SX-2 RFP (Request For
Proposals) has been ready for months, and we've built considerable support
for funding in Congress's DOD oversight committees.  DC-X was built for less
than $70 million over less than two years, giving some confidence in
estimates of $300 million over three years for SX-2.  
 
Military R&D is supposed to be focusing more on "dual use" military/civilian
technologies in the post Cold War era, and SSTO is about as dual use as they
come.  SX-2 is a completely legitimate use of DOD resources to advance both
the military and economic security of the country.
 
 -- Policy Background
 
We mentioned political problems earlier.  Our largest single problem seems
to be a gentleman named John Deutch, the Assistant Secretary of Defense who
runs research and acquisitions for the Pentagon.  Release of the existing
$35 million appropriated for SX-2 startup last year has repeatedly hit a
stone wall in his office.  We see no point in speculating on the reasons for
his opposition -- no man is ever the villain of his own story, and Mr.
Deutch undoubtedly believes he's serving his country best by opposing DOD
SX-2.  We, of course, disagree on that point.  
 
Judging purely by the persistance (and often downright ingenuity) of his
opposition over the last year, it seems unlikely to us that he's going
to change his mind on his own.  We expect that what's needed is a political
decision at a higher level to go ahead with DOD SX-2, from Secretary of
Defense Perry or from the White House.  Our working assumption is that at
some point the Administration will take note of the level of Congressional
support for this project, and make such a decision.  
 
 -- Interesting Times...
 
On another front, we're faced with a significant new opportunity.  Alas,
this is an opportunity that comes with significant dangers.  NASA has
officially decided that SSTO is practical, and they want to do it too.
 
Now in the larger scheme of things, it is a major step forward that NASA,
which is after all by law the nations's space agency, is now interested in
SSTO.  We applaud their conversion, and we stand ready to work in support of
funding for any project they initiate that advances cheap space access.
 
The problem with all this, of course, is that in space matters, NASA is the
proverbial 800-pound gorrilla.  With the best of intentions, they can end up
crowding others out of the cage, and frankly, NASA's past reputation is not
good in these matters.  We understand that Administrator Goldin is making
changes, and we hear that he is not opposed to SX-2 going ahead in DOD while
NASA gets its own SSTO efforts underway.  Indeed we hear that he will have
NASA cooperate with DOD on SSTO where it makes sense to do so.  
 
Nevertheless, we get nervous when we read quotes from people a couple levels
under Goldin to the effect that DOD SX-2 funding is somehow a declaration of
war on NASA.  (Space News, May 23-29, page 25, "Congress, NASA Dueling Over
Reusable Rocket Management")  That sounds far too much like an attack on a
perceived rival's funding from NASA's bad old days.  It may be a while before
Administrator Goldin's views on SSTO cooperation filter down to all levels.
 
 -- If We Had A Wish, Now...
 
In the best of all possible worlds, what we at SAS would like to see is for
SX-2 to get an immediate go-ahead so suborbital flights can begin in 1997. 
This will yield a wealth of practical experience, faster and cheaper than
any alternative, as the DC-X team is proven, in place and ready to go now.  
 
Meanwhile, NASA would take over (as already planned, see SAU #35) DC-X when
this summer's tests are over, embarking on a program of progressive upgrades
and flight tests over the next few years.  This would let NASA do useful
field testing of potential SSTO components, while also building up their
experience base with small-crew fast-turnaround reusable rocket flight ops.  
 
NASA would also begin gearing up now for a '97 go-ahead decision on a fully
orbital X-2000 SSTO demonstrator, the natural followon to the SX-2, with
first flight to orbit right around the turn of the century.  There are a lot
of potential SSTO subsystems that NASA could usefully look into over the
next few years, improved engines in particular, with the ongoing results fed
cooperatively into NASA's DC-X-A program, into the SX-2 effort, and into the
X-2000 preliminary design process.  SX-2 experience would also feed back
into NASA, with the result being an extremely solid foundation for a
decision on orbital X-2000 come '97.  
 
One benefit of this approach is that overall SSTO funding will never be that
high, since SX-2 will likely peak in '96, while X-2000 will begin ramping up
the year after.  The overall DC-X-A/SX-2/X-2000 package offers the US an
outstanding technological return, for a relatively low ongoing cost, with
risk broken up into a series of small, easily monitorable three-year steps.  
 
We'd really like to see it happen this way.  With goodwill and cooperation
from DOD and NASA, we think it is politically feasible, and there's very
little doubt it would be good for the country.
 
 -- Wild Cards
 
Meanwhile, there's the Administration to ponder.  They will, after all, have
a lot to say about what does and doesn't happen next.  The draft OSTP report
of a month back is far from their final word on launch policy -- there
apparently is a lot more internal give-and-take to go before Clinton and/or
Gore announce the new overall national space policy in a speech this coming
July 20th, the 25th anniversary of the first Moon landing.  
 
About all we know at this point is that the new policy is unlikely to
include any big-budget new project starts.  We can hope that it will take
account of Congressional support for DOD SX-2; as we pointed out in previous
weeks, if Apollo could get to the Moon with the help of people who learned
their trade building missiles for Nazi Germany, surely we can stand to get
cheap space access with the help of people who learned their trade trying to
defend the United States of America.  
 
 
                Space Access Society Action Recommendations
 
Persuading the Senate to match the House's $100 million for SX-2 would
immensely improve our chances of actually getting SX-2 when the dust settles.
Senator Bingaman's SASC DT Subcommittee markup this coming Tuesday afternoon
(June 7th) is key, as is support in the full SASC to preserve any pro SX-2
language that makes it in during the subcommittee mark.
 
Call or fax any of these Senators from your state, especially any of them
marked as being on Bingaman's Defense Technology Subcommittee.  If there's no
Senator on the list from your state, call or fax Nunn and Thurmond, chairman
of the full SASC and senior Republican member respectively.
 
The deadline is pretty much Tuesday morning east coast time, as the markup
begins in the afternoon.  Try to get to them Monday if you can.
 
If you call, tell whoever answers that you're calling about the Defense
Authorization markup.  They may pass you on to someone else at that point, or
they may take the call themselves.  Tell them you support matching the
House's $100 million funding for the SSRT (Single Stage Rocket technology)
project.  If they want to know more, fill them in as best you can; otherwise
thank them for their time and ring off.  
 
If you fax, state your basic point (you support matching the House's $100
million for SSRT "SX-2" in the FY'95 DOD Authorization) at the start.  Go on
to tell them a bit about the project and why you think it's important,
if you feel like writing more.  Keep it under a page, though, and above all
keep it polite.
 
              -- Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) --
 ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
       (Senators marked with a "*" are on Bingaman's subcommittee)
  Name                               office#        phone      fax (AC 202)
  Sam Nunn (D-GA)   SASC Chair       SD-303          224-3521     224-0072
  Strom Thurmond (R-SC) RRM          SR-217          224-5972     224-1300
  James Exon (D-NE)                  SH-528          224-4224     224-5213
  John McCain (R-AZ)                 SR-111          224-2235     224-8938
  Richard C. Shelby (D-AL)           SH-509          224-5744     224-3416
* William S. Cohen (R-ME)            SH-322          224-2523     224-2693
* Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)           SR-315          224-4543     224-2417
* Carl Levin (D-MI)                  SR-459          224-6221     224-1388
* Dan Coats (R-IN)                   SR-404          224-5623     224-1966
* Trent Lott (R-MS)                  SR-487          224-6253     224-2262
* Bob Smith (R-NH)                   SD-332          224-2841     224-1353
* Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)               SH-110          224-5521     224-1810
  John Glenn (D-OH)                  SH-503          224-3353     224-7983
  John Warner (R-VA)                 SR-225          224-2023     224-6295
* Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT)         SH-316          224-4041     224-9750
* Bob Graham (D-FL)                  SH-524          224-3041     224-6843
* Dirk Kempthorne (D-ID)             SD-367          224-6142     224-5893
* Lauch Faircloth (R-NC)             SH-702          224-3154     224-7406
* Charles S. Robb (D-VA)             SR-493          224-4024     224-8689
* Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)              SH-311          224-3954     224-8070
  Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)        SH-703          224-5922     224-0776
 
 We would appreciate feedback, both on the above fax numbers (not all are
 current) and on any indications you may get as to which Senators already
 support SSTO.  Thanks!
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 2569
From: Chris W. Johnson <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: DC-X Schedule Change, Flight Objectives, Bingaman Clarification
Date: 7 Jun 1994 21:52:56 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Computation Center
 
DC-X Flight 4 Schedule
----------------------
 
Reliable sources confirm that there has been a change in the DC-X test
schedule. The system/engine test scheduled for today has been moved to
Saturday, June 11. The next flight (Flight Test #4) has been
rescheduled for Wednesday, June 15. The reason is simple: it took more
time to get all the work done than was allowed for by the DC team's
extremely aggressive schedule. There were no problems per se; some
things simply took longer than planned. 
 
DC-X Flight 4 Objectives
------------------------
 
There are several objective for flight 4: an angle of attack sweep
from 0-70 degrees to verify aerodynamics, a climb to a maximum altitude 
of 2,850 ft, and the near doubling of flight time to 135 seconds. 
 
Clarification on Contacting Sen. Bingaman
-----------------------------------------
 
I've checked with Allen Sherzer about his latest message regarding the
need for New Mexico residents to contact Senator Bingaman via email to
secure his support for SX-2 funding. Depending on how you read that
message, it may have appeared that Allen was suggesting that people
outside New Mexico should contact the Senator by FAX. This is *NOT*
what Allen meant. People outside New Mexico shouldn't contact the
Senator at all. Instead, they should (as suggested in all his previous
postings) be sending FAXs to any Senators from their own states who
sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, or - if there are no such
Senators - FAXs should be sent to Senators Bob Smith, Sam Nunn, and
Strom Thurmond. 
 
Details can be found in Allen's previous postings or:
 
    ftp://ftp.cc.utexas.edu/pub/delta-clipper/news/940602-vote-alert.txt
 
----Chris
 
Chris W. Johnson
 
Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj
URL:      http://gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu/
 
 After nine months of government infighting, the Delta Clipper-Experimental 
 rocket returns to the skies of White Sands on Wednesday, June 15.

Article: 5833
Path: ryn.mro.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!lll-winken.llnl.gov!ames!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #37  6/12/94
Date: 13 Jun 1994 01:00:36 -0700
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 153
Sender: [email protected]
Approved: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.arc.nasa.gov
 
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
                     Space Access Update #37  6/12/94
                 Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting the government's "SSRT"
(Single Stage Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its recently funded
followon, SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely about
the technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2, though we also cover the
subject of reusable SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit) policy in general.  
 
We anticipate a change of focus soon if all goes well.  Once SX-2 startup is
(with your help!) assured, we plan to begin working on establishment of a
healthy second X-rocket development track at NASA, and on getting
development of suitable engines started for the fully reusable orbital
transports that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying
to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production ships a-building
shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society or on the DC-X/SSTO video we have for
sale, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044, or email
[email protected].  Please forgive any delay in our reply; we're a couple
weeks behind in answering non life-or-death email right now.]
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
          Early Shutdown For First DC-X Engine Firing Since 1993
 
DC-X's de-mothballing reached the point of the first try at a brief launch-
stand engine test Saturday June 11th.  The vehicle's systems overall worked
well despite its six months in storage, but there was one significant glitch:
one of DC-X's four RL-10A5 rocket engines shut down earlier than planned,
presumably because the computer engine monitoring system detected some sort of
out-of-limit condition from the sensors on that engine.
 
Data from the test run are being analyzed to pin down the precise reason for
the shutdown.  More when we know more.
 
Presumably the first re-flight won't be taking place this Wednesday after
all.  It seems likely the Wednesday timeslot (White Sands Missile Range hosts
dozens of test programs and time is tightly scheduled) will be used for
another ground test firing, if the DC-X crew can be reasonably sure they've
identified and fixed the problem by then.  
 
Assuming this glitch doesn't eat a lot of time, the main pacing factor for
the first re-flight will likely be WSMR timeslot availability.  We'll report
any new schedule information as soon as we get hold of it.  
 
 
              HAC Defense Subcommittee Due To Mark This Week
 
The House Appropriations Committee is due to mark up the House FY'95 Defense
Appropriations bill during this coming week.  You'll recall the House FY'95
Defense Authorization already calls for $100 million for the SX-2 high-speed
reusable rocket testbed.  
 
(Roughly speaking, Authorizations bills are Congress's official shopping list,
while Appropriations bills are where Congress actually writes checks.  The two
don't necessarily match on all points.)
 
The House Defense Appropriations markup will start Monday in the HAC Defense
Subcommittee (John Murtha, D PA, Chairman).  Representative Murtha has
provided important support to the SSRT project already over the past year. 
We're cautiously optimistic about favorable treatment in this week's markup.  
 
 
           SASC DOD Authorizations Markup Results Still Unclear
 
The Senate Armed Services Committee did mark up their FY'95 DOD Authorization
last week, but that's about the only thing that went as expected.
 
For starters, SSTO research was assigned to Senator Exon's "Nuke"
subcommittee (Subcommittee on Nuclear Deterrence, Arms Control and Defense
Intelligence, chaired by James Exon, D NE) rather than Senator Bingaman's
Defense Technology subcommittee as we'd expected.  This may have been
intentional on someone's part or it may have been simply out of habit, since
SSRT did start in the old SDIO.  
 
The effect of this change was to kill any chance of getting SX-2 funding in
during the subcommittee mark; Senator Exon doesn't support SSTO (so far) and
the "Nuke" subcommittee's overall slice of the budget was tight this year. 
In the language that came out of Exon's subcommittee, DOD SX-2 was zeroed
out, and the existing money and management team were designated for transfer
to NASA.  
 
Then in the full SASC, Senator Trent Lott (R MS) proposed an amendment that
would restore $100 million for SX-2 in USAF.  The vote ended up an 11-11 tie,
meaning the amendment had failed and the zero-out language stood.  
 
Or did it?  We heard a report Friday that an influential SASC member who had
recently come around to supporting DOD SX-2 had worked out a way to assure the
funding, with the implication that it was already taken care of.
 
The SASC's Friday press release, however, listed the zero-out/transfer to NASA
as what the SASC had done.  At that point, everyone left town for the weekend
and we were left to puzzle over what might be going on.
 
We'll know more in the next couple of days.  Meanwhile, we're in pretty good
shape even if the SASC markup does contain the zero-out/transfer to NASA
language.  A tie vote in the full SASC is a lot better than we could manage
last year; it indicates we have a resonable chance of getting the funding
back in, either in the full Senate consideration of the FY'95 DOD
Authorization, or later on during the House-Senate conference, when the SASC
will provide the Senate conferees.  
 
 
                        SAS Action Recommendations
 
If you're in contact already with the office of anyone on the House
Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, and you haven't already done
so, remind them why DOD SX-2 is a good idea and ask them for their support in
this week's FY'95 DOD Appropriations markup.  This is more a matter of working
existing contacts than trying for large volumes of mail, and chances are those
of you this is aimed at have already gotten the word from Allen Sherzer's
alert last week.
 
For the rest of you who want something useful to do, it can't hurt to write
both your Senators, ask them to support SSTO research in both DOD and NASA,
and give them a brief explanation of why we need to fly fast-turnaround,
small-crew reusable rocket X-demonstrators -- it's an inexpensive way for the
government to leverage private development of vastly cheaper space
transportation, of course.  This is not immediately urgent, but it is good
groundwork for the future.  
 
Check your local phone book blue pages under "US Government", "Senators" for
the names if you don't have 'em handy.  Then write to Senator <Name>, United
States Senate, Washington DC 20510, and it'll get there.  You can also phone
their local offices for the exact DC office address, or for that matter for
their DC office fax number.
 
And to all of you out there working on this, thanks.  
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 18:08:35 -0400
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
>#Subject: SSRT Budget & Test Flight Status (15-Jun-94)
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Apparently-To: [email protected]


Latest Flight Test Status (15-Jun-94)

There was an early engine shutdown on the June 11th engine test firing.
The subspected cause was N2 ice forming in the H2 tank and blocking a
H2 feed line.

The fueling procedure has been changed back to the one used for the first
two flights.  Both the third and the June 11th engine test used the
same fueling procedure and had the same failure mode.

The June 15th engine test was successful!

A target date of 18-jun for the first flight test, providing the Range
time is available.



SSRT Budget Status. (15-Jun-94)

0) DC-X - $5.1M Released to start Flight Tests.

1) HASC markup - we won! there's $100M for SX-2 and RPT Lang.to support it!

2) OSTP Report - It has been rumored, the '97 decision date for start of
                 SSTO follow-on work has been removed. However, NO 'active'
                 language is in the report pushing any thing new. There will
                 White House meeting on 27-Jun-94 to finalize the report.

3) SACS Mark-up - SSRT was assigned to Senator Exon's 'Nuke' Subcommittee
                  instead of Sen. Bigaman's Defense Tech. Subcommittee,
                  where it was ZERO'ed and moved to NASA (where there is
                  no FY '95 SX-2 funding). If anyone thinks there is any
                  money at NASA see Space News p.4 & 22.

4) House Defense Approations - SSRT did well during last years Markup --
                 Chairman Murtha (D-PA) came through with FY '94 funding,
                 fought for it during the confreance, and sent a letter to
                 Perry asking the $5.1M be released to resume the test flights.
                 (The FY '95 Defense Markup is underway -- lots of inside
                  maneuvering -- Results Fri.)

5) The $35M ARPA has not released. Action is be taken to release it this year.
                 ( more Fri)

6) Senate -- Needs to be poled. We need a know what each Senator postion is on
             the SSRT Program (We're planning some sort of contest.

7) Senate -- Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
             We need the following info.: what's his current position on SSRT,
             which personal & committee staff handle this program, and what
             impact will SSRT have on HI, ie., Venders, furture Spaceport,
             and University of HI particpation? Has anyone breifed on the
             SSRT program? If anyone has answers to these questions send
             mail to [email protected].


                Cheap Access to Space (CATS)

                Don Doughty - SFF CATS Project.
                [email protected]

From:	US4RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson" 20-JUN-1994 
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: DC-X Flight no. 4 Successful

McDonnell Douglas Aerospace

Contact:        Keith Takahashi or Anne Toulouse
                (714) 896-1302 or 896-6211

DELTA CLIPPER TEST PROGRAM OFF TO FLYING START

LAS CRUCES, N.M., June 20, 1994 -- Flight tests of the Delta
Clipper-Experimental (DC-X) resumed today as the single-stage vehicle
lifted off the flight stand here at White Sands Missile Range. The 8:42
a.m. MDT liftoff began the experimental flight vehicle's fourth consecutive
successful flight.

DC-X is being developed by McDonnell Douglas for the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO) Single Stage Rocket Technology Program to prove
the practicality, reliability, operability and cost efficiency of a
reusable, single-stage-to-orbit flight vehicle. Flight tests were halted
late last year when funds were exhausted. In April of this year, the NASA
and the Advanced Research Projects Agency provided funds to complete
testing in 1994.

The DC-X reached an altitude of 1,500 feet, and then followed a curved
ascent to a height of 2,600 feet, traveling laterally 1,050 feet from the
take-off point. Then flight controls commanded the DC-X to reverse its
direction of flight and climb to an altitude of 2,850 feet. Once over its
landing pad the vehicle descended vertically and touched down 136 seconds
after liftoff. During this flight profile, the vehicle went through an
angle of attack range of zero to 70 degrees.

"We're extremely pleased to be back in the air again. Today's flight
further expands the DC-X's flight envelope," said Paul Klevatt, McDonnell
Douglas program manager. "The flight was the fourth in a series of
sub-orbital flights designed to demonstrate vertical takeoff and landing,
subsonic maneuverability," he added.

After completion of the planned flight tests series this summer, the DC-X
will be turned over to NASA. NASA is planning to upgrade systems and
subsytems, incorporating advanced technologies for reflight of the vehicle
in 1996.

The McDonnell Douglas team comprises an international group of aerospace
companies: Douglas Aircraft Co., Long Beach, Calif.; McDonnell Douglas
Aerospace at Huntington Beach, Calif., St. Louis, and Kennedy Space Center;
Aerojet Propulsion Division, Sacramento, Calif.; Allied Signal Aerospace
Co., Torrance, Calif.; Chicago Bridge and Iron Services, Inc., Oak Brook,
Ill.; Deutsche Aerospace, Munich, Germany; General Connector, San Fernando,
Calif.; Harris Corp., Rockledge, Fla.; Honeywell, Clearwater, Fla.;
Integrated Systems, Santa Clara, Calif.; Martin Marietta, Denver, Colo.;
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, N.M.; Pratt & Whitney Government
Engines and Space Division, West Palm Beach, Fla.; Process Fabrication,
Inc., Santa Fe Springs, Calif.; Scaled Composites, Mojave, Calif.; and
SpaceGuild, San Carlos, Calif.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: DC-X Flight no. 4 Successful
% Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 13:26:54 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>

Sorry for the late posting but this just showed up on the internet.

-----

Article: 5850
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #38  6/17/94
Date: 17 Jun 1994 22:58:52 -0700
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Sender: [email protected]
 
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
                     Space Access Update #38  6/17/94
                 Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting the government's "SSRT"
(Single Stage Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its recently funded
followon, SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely about
the technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2, though we also cover the
subject of reusable SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit) policy in general.  
 
We anticipate a change of focus soon if all goes well.  Once SX-2 startup is
(with your help!) assured, we plan to begin working on establishment of a
healthy second X-rocket development track at NASA, and on getting
development of suitable engines started for the fully reusable orbital
transports that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying
to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production ships a-building
shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society or on the DC-X/SSTO video we have for
sale, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044, or email
[email protected].  Please forgive any delay in our reply; we're a couple
weeks behind in answering non life-or-death email right now.]
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
                 DC-X 2nd Engine Test Attempt Successful
 
On Wednesday, June 15th, DC-X was run through a full systems check ground
test, culminating in a 4.8 second firing of all four Pratt & Whitney RL-10-A5
engines.  The peak throttle setting of 30% thrust was held for just over one
second.  All of DC-X's systems performed to requirements, and the next test
should be the first flight of DC-X since funding ran out last October.
 
The previous (Saturday June 11th) ground test attempt saw the engine
monitoring system shut down one engine, similar to what happened last fall in
the (pad-aborted) last attempt to fly before funds ran out.  Analysis of
Saturday's engine shutdown led to a couple of fixes being made.  The fueling
sequence was altered to avoid any chance of nitrogen ice building up in a
valve mechanism, and the engine start sequence was modified to get a more
positive start.  The fixes seem to have done the job.
 
 
                  First Three DC-X Reflights Recheduled
 
DC-X was tentatively scheduled to fly at 9 am local time, Saturday June 18th,
but that has been cancelled, as best we can tell due to a combination of a
test range scheduling conflict and the test crew wanting a little more time to
get ready to fly.
 
The new schedule, still not carved in stone, calls for the first reflight at 9
am local (Mountain) time on Monday June 20th.  The next two flights are still
planned as a three-day turnaround test; tentative dates for them are now
Monday June 27th and Thursday June 30th.
 
The first reflight is likely to be closed to just about everyone, we suspect
because the test crew will have enough to worry about without visitors
getting in their hair.  The second reflight we hear will have some media
types in attendance, though still a very limited number -- the project simply
doesn't have the funds to take care of anything like the numbers who attended
the second flight last September.  We'd guess though that there will be TV
coverage, more likely clips on the evening news than live.
 
 
           HAC Defense Subcommittee Marks $50 Million For SX-2
 
The House Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee (John Murtha, D PA
Chairman) added $50 million for SX-2 in its markup of the House FY'95 Defense
Appropriations bill during this past week.  This is very good news, as this
money is unlikely to be removed again when the full HAC does its markup, or
when the bill is worked over by the full House.  We are very likely to go into
both DOD Authorizations and Appropriations conferences with substantial sums
for SX-2 in the House versions.
 
 
     SASC DOD Authorizations Markup Results Disappointing But Fixable
 
Meanwhile over in the Senate, it turns out that the Senate Armed Services
Committee did in fact approve language that would zero funding for DOD SX-2,
and transfer the (still roadblocked in ARPA) $35 million we fought for last
year to NASA.  We of course approve of NASA getting into the SSTO tech
development business, but not at the expense of the existing DOD effort.
 
The good news is that SASC did this on an 11-10 vote, and some of the Senators
who voted against us can probably be persuaded to change their minds before
the House-Senate conference meets to hammer out the final version of this
bill, sometime in late July.
 
We'll be going over legislative strategy in detail in the next issue of Space
Access Update.  Meanwhile it's late, and we figure y'all don't want to wait
for us to get our act together on that before you see the revised DC-X flight
schedule info.  
 
That's all for tonight.
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

From:	US4RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson" 27-JUN-1994 
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: DC-X June 27 flight unsuccessful.

Path: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.duke.edu!MathWorks.Com!yes
hua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!opeo!slee01.srl.
ford.com!eccdb1.pms.ford.com!dsg59.nad.ford.com!sherzer
From: [email protected] (Allen Sherzer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: DC-X test flight for June 27 - unsuccessful flight
Date: 27 Jun 1994 16:48:43 GMT
Organization: Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI, USA
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsg59.nad.ford.com

The DC-X had another flight this morning and suffered from its first
in flight failure. At launch time some hydrogen leaked out into the
aeroshell and ignited on launch blowing a hole in the aeroshell.

DC-X took off and pilot Pete Conrad noticed no problem until somebody
pointed out to him that there was a big hole in the side. He initiated
an immediate abort and DC-X executed a "picture perfect landing" with
about a 50% fuel load on the desert floor. Not bad.

It looks like nothing except the aeroshell was damaged and it can be
repaired pretty easy. The thursday flight won't happen but flight
tests should resume soon. I'll keep people posted.

BTW, for the winged VS vertical landing debate it is interesting to
note that if DC- had been a winged vehicle, it would likely have
been totaled.

  Allen
--
Allen Sherzer

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: DC-X June 27 flight unsuccessful.
% Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 13:45:21 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>

From:	US4RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson" 27-JUN-1994 
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: Another report of the explosion

From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:05:27 -0400
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: DC-X Blows Shroud, Lands Safely
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [email protected]
Apparently-To: [email protected]

DC-X Blows Shroud, Lands Safely
Copyright c 1994 by Tom Hanna, Space: The Future Frontier,
Correspondent to The Oregon L5 Society.
Free to distribute as long as it is not charged for and credit is given to
Tom Hanna and Space: The Future Frontier.

***To hear Tom Hanna's direct phone report from White Sands (transcribed
below), call the Oregon L5 Society message line at (503) 655-6189 (anytime)
and during the announcement press "6" on a touch-tone phone. The message from
White Sands lasts about 2.5 minutes. You may leave us a short message after
the recording or call back and leave your message after the full
announcement.  Playback service not available to pulse-dial phones.***

White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico
1994 June 27 Monday 09:15 MDT

Right at launch apparently some gas formed inside the aeroshell of the Delta
Clipper and as soon as the engines ignited and it lifted off it blew the side
of the aeroshell clear off the spacecraft. It kept flying just fine into its
climb. Even though pieces of the spacecraft were falling off, the structure,
frame, propulsion system and telemetry were in excellent condition. The
McDonnell-Douglas Mission Control Team, which includes lunar explorer Pete
Conrad, threw the spacecraft into its "auto safe" mode. The planned mission
was to go to 1100 feet, pitch over and ascend to 4500 feet, then land.
Instead, it reached about a thousand feet and went into "automatic land"
mode. The neat thing about this is that it didn't come near the landing pad.
It landed right on the tarmac, I mean out there in the gravel and everything
else. It landed very well, out there in the rubbish. Rescue crews who went
down to check the spacecraft reported everything was A-OK, except for the
fact the side of the spacecraft was blown off.

Thursday's planned flight has been cancelled unless a replacement aeroshell
can arrive in time.

After the current run of tests, funded through the Pentagon's Ballistic
Missile Defense Office (BMDO), the unmanned "Delta Clipper - Experimental" or
DC-X will be transferred to NASA as a testbed for new spaceship technology,
according to a NASA spokesman at the launch. The plucky 1/3 scale spacecraft
will be refitted and should return to flight by April 1996, renamed the
DC-XA.

Video coverage may also be available from Space: The Future Frontier.

-end-

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Another report of the explosion
% Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:27:57 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Article: 5963
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #39  7/6/94
Date: 6 Jul 1994 20:30:16 -0700
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Sender: [email protected]
 
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
                    Space Access Update #39  7/6/94
                 Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting the government's "SSRT"
(Single Stage Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its recently funded
followon, SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely about
the technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2, though we also cover the
subject of reusable SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit) policy in general.  
 
We anticipate a change of focus soon if all goes well.  Once SX-2 startup is
(with your help!) assured, we plan to begin working on establishment of a
healthy second X-rocket development track at NASA, and on getting
development of suitable engines started for the fully reusable orbital
transports that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying
to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production ships a-building
shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society or on the DC-X/SSTO video we have for
sale, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044, or email
[email protected].  Please forgive any delay in our reply; we're a couple
weeks behind in answering non life-or-death email right now.]
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
        DC-X Bent But Not Broken After Second New-Series Flight
 
SAS members got a note from us, and the rest of you likely have heard
elsewhere that DC-X's first flight since the long layoff (on Monday June
20th) went just about as expected, taking off with a full propellant load
for the first time, reaching a maximum altitude of 2850 feet and a maximum
angle of attack of 70 degrees, and staying aloft for just under 136
seconds.  The previous maximum flight duration was 72 seconds.  
 
The second flight of the new series was scheduled for a week later, Monday
June 27th, and was to be the first half of a three-day turnaround test, the
second half being scheduled for Thursday June 30th.  Two additional flights
were tentatively scheduled for mid-July.  
 
Well, that schedule is down the tubes now.  DC-X is pretty much OK, but as
you've all likely heard from the early reports, things didn't go exactly as
planned last Monday.  Future flight dates are very much up in the air right
now.  More on this in a bit.  The good news, of course, is that DC-X did
manage to land essentially intact, further proof that aircraft-style
operations are possible for reusable rockets.  
 
This second new-series flight was open to the press and to a limited number
of invitees.  Yours truly was there, lugging a rented camcorder.  
 
The flight was scheduled for 9 am on Monday, June 27th.  The ship was ready
to go well ahead of time; the pacing item for flight became the test range
timeslot opening up.  The go-ahead came from the range a little past 8:30
am, and the count restarted at just over minus two minutes, everything
normal, with a light wind out of the north at about five knots.  
 
The short version: There was some sort of explosion right around the moment
of engine startup, splitting open the graphite/epoxy aeroshell on the south
side of the vehicle.  The vehicle systems all still showed as OK in the
FOCC (Flight Operations Control Center trailer) displays; the pilot, Pete
Conrad, went ahead with the flight.  
 
As the DC-X rose out of the cloud of dust and vapor from engine startup,
however, yard-square pieces of aeroshell began to fall off every second or
two, alerting the crowd that something was wrong.  Close-up views from the
pad area TV cameras apparently showed a big hole in the vehicle side;
Conrad was told of this and decided to switch over to the autoland program,
an abort mode designed to cancel all maneuvers in progress then bring the
vehicle straight down to a landing as quickly as possible.  
 
(The aeroshell is DC-X's one-piece outer skin, made out of graphite fiber
cloth impregnated with epoxy, extending from just below the nosecone to just
above the maneuvering flap wells.)
 
DC-X was at 1200 feet when Conrad initiated the autoland, and reached a
peak altitude of 2600 feet before beginning its descent.  She landed on
bare desert ground a hundred yards or so beyond the paved landing area. 
Other than producing a larger dust cloud than usual, the landing was
without incident.  
 
There was considerable confusion at first about exactly when the explosion
took place, and about whether it was inside or outside the aeroshell.  Much
of this confusion got into the early reports.  What follows isn't
definitive, but it's pretty close.  
 
What follows is from review of our video tape of the launch and of the
vehicle back on its launch stand the next day.  During the launch, someone
in the FOCC (Pete Conrad?) was being piped over the PA; the FOCC
announcements are audible on the tape.  (We will be making this footage
and other new material available as part of a mark 2 DC-X tape in the near
future -- we'll announce it when it's ready.)
 
 -- Videotape Data, Pre-Liftoff
 
At about T-50 seconds, the engine precool started up, feeding liquid
hydrogen through the engines to bring them down to operating temperature,
producing the usual large vapor cloud around the base of the vehicle.  Our
vantage point was three miles west of the vehicle, looking down a shallow
slope and out over the flat valley floor to the test site.
 
The breeze from our point of view was blowing left to right (out of the
north) blowing the engine pre-cool vapor in a ground-hugging plume
stretching 60-80 feet off to the right (south) of the ship, where the plume
lifted off the ground, dispersing in another 50 feet or so.  
 
Around T-3 seconds, one frame (1/30th of a second) after the first faint
glow of engines igniting, there is an orange flash that hugs the ground
under the pre-cool vapor plume, extending between the left side of the
vehicle base and a point about sixty feet to the right of the vehicle base.
There is a relatively dark section between the right side of the vehicle
base and a point about twenty feet to the right of the vehicle base.  Both
ends of the bright section stretching between twenty and sixty feet right
of the vehicle are sharply defined.  This may in fact be two separate
flashes, one under the vehicle from the engines and one off to the right of
the vehicle.  
 
The groundhugging flash only lasts one frame.  The next frame shows what
may be the start of another flash immediately to the right of the vehicle
and extending perhaps a third of the way up the vehicle.  The next frame
shows this brightening and expanding, still sharp edged.  Subsequent frames
seem to show this subsiding to what appears to be the normal hydrogen vapor
burnoff glow, less sharp edged and bright than the first three frames after
engine ignition, extending perhaps halfway up the vehicle, but offset to
its right from our point of view by the breeze.  
 
Coinciding with the initial flash(es) a series of several sharp pops comes
over the PA, lasting about a quarter second.  The pattern of pops might or
might not be similar to the brief series of concussive bangs we heard
direct from the pad about fifteen seconds later.  We couldn't resolve the
PA pops on the tape with any certainty on our oscilloscope, an ancient
bare-bones model.  We speculate that the pops were concussion(s) picked up
on the pad by one or more pieces of control or monitoring gear then
transmitted electronically to the FOCC trailer, where the PA picked them
up.  The PA pops were all the same volume.  The PA pop repeats and timing
were likely indicative of how far from the launch stand the pieces of gear
picking them up were.  
 
The audible concussion(s) arrived, as we mentioned, about fifteen seconds
after the initial flash.  The tape shows two very loud and very sharply
defined spikes about 55 milliseconds apart, the first spike slightly higher
amplitude than the second, followed about a tenth of a second later by a
lower-amplitude but relatively prolonged boom.  (Fifteen seconds is
approximately three miles worth of speed-of-sound delay.)  To the ear, the
delayed boom sounds like a diffuse echo of the initial bang(s) off the
surrounding landscape.  
 
We understand that the TV camera directly south (downwind) of the launch
stand went dead one frame after the initial engine glow appeared.  
 
 -- Tentative Conclusions, Pre-Liftoff Events
 
We think it likely that the thick ground-hugging portion of the pre-cool
hydrogen plume drifting downwind from the engines was concentrated enough
to explode rather than simply burn off as we've seen on previous engine
startups.  It's possible that part of the plume may have been confined by
some part of the ground service equipment.  The plume concentration and
ground-hugging path were both likely a result of the slow steady north wind
plus the low temperature and thus high density of the air/hydrogen mix
coming from under the vehicle.  
 
There was definitely one and very likely two explosions in the launch stand
area immediately after engine ignition.  The second audio spike on the tape
is unlikely to have been an echo of the first -- the perceived direction of
the sharp double crack we heard was entirely from the pad area, and there
was nothing suitable to act as a reflector of the sound either in the pad
area or in the viewing area.  
 
Our initial assumption was that engine ignition touched off the first
explosion, but this doesn't account for the second concussion on the tape,
or for the (ambiguous) video frame evidence that the initial ground hugging
flash may have been separate from the under-vehicle engine glow.  
 
Our best guess at this point is that hydrogen drifting downwind along the
ground was ignited approximately sixty feet from the vehicle, resulting in
the initial explosion, and that the blast from the initial explosion
reached the downwind side of the vehicle 55 milliseconds later, touching
off a second hydrogen explosion.  The interval between the two audio spikes
on the tape is consistent with a sonic-speed blast travelling approximately
sixty feet.  What this fails to explain, of course, is the near simultaneity
of engine ignition and the explosion(s).  We simply don't know what might
have caused that.
 
We'd guess from the video and from the lack of damage to vehicle systems
that this second explosion was also primarily outside the aeroshell, but we
can't be 100% sure of this.  Our close-up view of the DC-X on the pad the
next day shows that while one edge of the split in the aeroshell is bent
outward, overall the damage to the aeroshell seems to be an inward crumpling
on the south side, from the top of the maneuvering flap to just under the
nosecone.  The outwardly bent edge might indicate an internal explosion, or
it might be due to some combination of post-explosion "rebound" and
aerodynamic forces.  The portions of the tank and other internal equipment
visible through the gaps in the aeroshell show no signs of scorching.
 
Inspection of our closeup video of the launch stand area the next day
doesn't tell us much more - DC-X had been moved back to its launch stand,
and the loose pieces of aeroshell had been collected and laid out next to
the vehicle.  The propellant loading pipes running south from the launch
stand seem slightly scorched as compared to the pipes running north, but
there is no obvious damage to them.  Two items of equipment situated to the
south of the vehicle at about the distance we think the explosion started
were covered with tarps, but various other items in other locations were
covered with tarps also; we can't draw any conclusions from that.
 
We also walked out past the official landing pad and saw the patch of desert
where DC-X came down after this mission.  The ground for a wide area around
the test site is flat, bare of vegetation, apparently dried out mud, very
hard-packed and fine grained.  The low desert scrub vegetation doesn't start
until well beyond the test area, where the ground starts rising toward the
valley sides.   DC-X's bare-ground touchdown site was marked by a wooden
stake dead-center, probably because it wouldn't otherwise be visible far
enough away to accurately determine range from the launch pad.
 
The actual landing marks were four shallow, roughly spherical-section pits
dug out by the blast from the four engines, less than a foot deep and less
than three feet wide each.  We'd estimate nine inches deep at center and
about thirty inches wide, give or take a bit.  There was no sign of
scorching -- the dirt apparently was just blasted away as dust.  The landing
did raise a large dust cloud that drifted away on the breeze afterwards.
 
The landing legs made no dents in the ground, but did leave visible scuff
marks, apparently dark oxide rubbed off the bottom of the metal feet.  
 
 -- DC-X Prognosis
 
From what we saw of the aeroshell, it's going to need replacing.  The
contractor on that was Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites.  He recently moved
the company from California to Colorado, but we understand they do still
have the production jigs for the DC-X aeroshell.  Mr. Rutan was reportedly
down in New Mexico at the end of last week to have a look at the damage,
and presumably to give time/money estimates on repairing or replacing the
aeroshell.  
 
Preliminary word was nothing wrong with DC-X's machinery, but we would
expect there will be much more thorough inspections before the bird flies
again, in case anything got bent a bit by the concussion.
 
There was no major damage to the pad area that we could see, though we do
know at least one camera died, and we'd be amazed if some of the gear near
the explosion doesn't need repairs.
 
The original schedule called for three more flights before money ran out in
late July.  Presumably grounding DC-X will save some money for now, but
repairs are likely to eat that and more.  If DC-X can't be repaired in the
next couple of weeks, chances are they'll need another million or two from
either ARPA (who still have $35 million in unspent SSTO money) or NASA.
 
 
                              SAS Is Two!
 
Space Access Society has survived two years of official existance as of
Monday, July 4th.  Membership is over 200 and growing ($30 US for one
year's online membership, checks only please, remember to include an email
address) and our influence extends well beyond our membership, due at least
in part to the fact that we continue to spread this rag around on the nets
for free.  
 
The official story of SAS's start is that after years of planning we were
established on July 4th, 1992 in a burst of patriotic fervor.  Rumors that
our illustrious founder was in fact trying to impress a girl he'd just met
are of course totally false.
 
Seriously, it's been an interesting two years.  Thanks, everybody.  Fingers
crossed, three more years just might see cheap access to space on the right
track with unstoppable momentum.  
 
And now, we're going to have to get hasty in finishing this, as we're late,
we're late, we're very very late, and there's a lot of political news to
cover.  Forgive any rough edges from here on.
 
 
     NASA Announces Series Of "RLV" Component Development Contracts
 
There have been rumors flying around for months, but now that Aviation Week
has printed it, it's official:  NASA is getting into the SSTO business. 
(Check out AW&ST, 6/27/94, pp. 22-23.)  Of course, they're not calling it
SSTO; the official NASA term apparently will be "RLV", for Reusable Launch
Vehicle.
 
NASA is getting their toes wet in the field by setting up 16 nonprofit
"cooperative agreements" with various companies to develop specific pieces
of SSTO-related technology, with an emphasis on building and testing actual
hardware.  The cost over the next four years is expected to be $170
million, with NASA paying about 75% and the contractors paying the rest.  
 
The projects will be run by a new NASA Office Of Space Access and Technology
(nice ring that "Space Access" has...), also called "Code X", presumably for
the X-development hardware emphasis.  Code X is to be formed from the Office
of Space Systems and Development plus the Office of Advanced Concepts and
technology.  (Anyone who has info on the history and outlook of these
outfits please drop us a note or give us a call.)
 
It's not clear yet who is to run Code X, though SAS thinks Colonel Simon
Worden, former head of advanced technology projects (including DC-X) at
BMDO, would be a good man to keep things under control and in focus over
the next few years.  He has a reputation for not being easily distracted, a
useful trait for any would-be NASA cat-herder.  
 
The DC-X-A project to rebuild DC-X over the next two years and use it as a
"flying test stand" will come under the new outfit.  NASA's future takeover
of DC-X is still going forward, by the way, despite uncertainty over the
remainder of this summer's flight test program.
 
On the whole, the new Office of Space Access and Technology seems to be a
good thing; their initial project list includes a number of useful
demonstrations of lightweight reusable structures, cryo tanks, and thermal
protection.  SAS's main cavil is that the engine development projects show
a bit of an obsession with really large high-pressure tripropellant motors.
 
We'd like to see at least one effort to demonstrate a more conservative
RLV-suitable bipropellant engine -- something along the lines of an RL-10
combining features already existing in various RL-10 versions: a 35Klb
thrust upgrade, an extendable skirt (or other form of altitude
compensation), and deep throttling capability, all in one engine which
would then be extensively tested with an eye toward high reliability and
incremental weight reduction.  
 
 
                 Congressional Funding Status, DOD SX-2
 
Congress is off this week; Senators and Representatives will generally be
easier to reach via their local offices than in DC.  Congress will be back
in session Monday, July 11th.
 
Meanwhile, here's a quick overall status report on SX-2 funding.
 
 -- Authorizations
 
The House FY'95 DOD Authorizations bill has passed, with $100 million for
SX-2 along with very favorable report language.
 
The Senate FY'95 DOD Authorization was almost finished at the end of last
week.  It zeroes SX-2 funding -- but as you'll recall, SX-2 funding lost a
close 10-11 vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee.  
 
The SASC membership will very likely be the Senate delegates to the House-
Senate DOD Authorizations conference.  If we can keep our friends on the
HASC and SASC, and turn around one or two of our opponents on SASC, we
should get SX-2 funding in the final DOD Authorization bill.  This
conference will get underway shortly after Congress is back in session next
week.  
 
 -- Appropriations
 
The House FY'95 DOD Appropriations bill has also passed.  The good news is
that it contains $50 million for SX-2, which along with the $35 million in
FY'94 SSTO money still languishing in ARPA should be enough to get SX-2 off
to a good start.  
 
The bad news is that the accompanying report language has two SX-2 killer
clauses.  One directs that the money be used to develop reusable technology 
components for expendables (!) and the second says that the money goes away
entirely should the White House as expected direct that NASA take the lead
on developing SSTO technology.
 
We hear that a HAC Defense subcommittee staffer took it upon himself to
insert these clauses.  We hear that it's the same guy who pulled a similar
stunt last year.  We understand that these gotcha clauses will be taken care
of, one way or another, but we can't help wondering how long the
subcommittee chairman will continue to put up with this sort of nonsense.
 
On the Senate side, the DOD Appropriation will match the Senate's DOD
Authorization: Zero funds for SX-2.  We understand however that if we can
get SX-2 funding through the Authorizations conference, the Appropriations
conference will also very likely end up following the House version and fund
SX-2 at an adequate level.  The House-Senate DOD Appropriations conference
isn't due until early August.
 
 
       Congressional Funding Status, NASA RLV Component Projects
 
We have something new here, actual NASA funding for SSTO-useful technology
development projects -- and it could be in trouble only a week after the
projects were officially announced.  Some things never change.  
 
We don't yet have a comprehensive picture of the NASA RLV funding status. 
We do know that the House has authorized $40 million for NASA SSTO work in
FY'95, and that NASA is moving ahead on the DC-X-A plan (among other
projects) on that basis.
 
We understand there's a potential problem on the Senate side.  Apparently 
someone in Senator Barbara Mikulski's office opposes giving NASA any SSTO
funding.  Senator Mikulski (D, MD) chairs the Senate Appropriations
Committee's HUD VA and Independent Agencies subcommittee, which oversees
NASA appropriations, so this could be a problem if the case for moving ahead
with SSTO development isn't brought to her attention.
 
___________________________________________________________________________
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
 -- SX-2 Funding
 
The top priority right now is to get SX-2 funding out of the House-Senate
Defense Authorization conference, which should be underway early next week.
To do that, we need to reinforce our existing support in both House and
Senate, and also pick up some new support on the Senate side.  
 
Write a brief thank-you note to any of these Senators from your state who
supported SX-2 in the SASC vote.
 
Call, fax, or write any of these Senators from your state marked as having
voted against SX-2 funding, and ask them to support SX-2 in the conference.
 
For the rest of this week, call or fax them in their home-state office --
you can get the voice number from your phone book "Blue Pages", the US
government section, under "Senators".  From Monday on, use the DC numbers.
 
If you phone, tell whoever answers that you're calling about the Defense
Authorization conference.  They may pass you on to someone else at that
point, or they may take the call themselves.  Ask them to accede to the
House position and fund the SSRT (Single Stage Rocket Technology) "SX-2"
project.  If they want to know more, fill them in as best you can;
otherwise thank them for their time and ring off.  
 
If you fax or mail a letter, state your basic point (you'd like them to
accede to the House's $100 million funding level for the SSRT "SX-2" in the
FY'95 DOD Authorization conference) at the start.  Go on to tell them a bit
about the project and why you think it's important, if you feel like
writing more.  Keep it under a page, though, and above all keep it polite.  
 
Late news -- We hear that Senator Hutchison plans to support us, while
Senator Graham of Florida is wavering on the theory that NASA will do
everything that needs to be done with SSTO.  In the latter case, we
recommend that you emphasize how SX-2 complements NASA's plans, filling in
the gap between now and 1997 when NASA would get a demonstrator project
started.  SX-2, of course, is planned to fly in '97.
 
 
               -- Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) --
  ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
(Senators marked with a "*" either voted against SX-2 funding or were absent)
 
  Name                               office#        phone      fax (AC 202)
* Sam Nunn (D-GA)   SASC Chair       SD-303          224-3521     224-0072
  Strom Thurmond (R-SC) RRM          SR-217          224-5972     224-1300
* James Exon (D-NE)                  SH-528          224-4224     224-5213
  John McCain (R-AZ)                 SR-111          224-2235     224-8938
* Richard C. Shelby (D-AL)           SH-509          224-5744     224-3416
  William S. Cohen (R-ME)            SH-322          224-2523     224-2693
* Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)           SR-315          224-4543     224-2417
* Carl Levin (D-MI)                  SR-459          224-6221     224-1388
* Dan Coats (R-IN)                   SR-404          224-5623     224-1966
  Trent Lott (R-MS)                  SR-487          224-6253     224-2262
  Bob Smith (R-NH)                   SD-332          224-2841     224-1353
  Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)               SH-110          224-5521     224-2852
* John Glenn (D-OH)                  SH-503          224-3353     224-7983
  John Warner (R-VA)                 SR-225          224-2023     224-6295
* Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT)         SH-316          224-4041     224-9750
  Bob Graham (D-FL)                  SH-524          224-3041     224-6843
  Dirk Kempthorne (D-ID)             SD-367          224-6142     224-5893
  Lauch Faircloth (R-NC)             SH-702          224-3154     224-7406
* Charles S. Robb (D-VA)             SR-493          224-4024     224-8689
* Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)              SH-311          224-3954     224-8070
* Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)        SH-703          224-5922     224-0776
* Richard H. Bryan (D NV)            SR-364          224-6244     224-1867
 
 
There are a couple of key people in the House Armed Services Committee whose
help we could use.  If you live in their districts, call, fax, or write in
support of SX-2 funding in the conference.
 
Representative Ron Dellums (D CA) HASC Chairman
  2136 RHOB, Washington DC 20515  (202) 225-2661 voice, 225-9817 fax
Representative Floyd Spence (R SC) HASC RRM (Ranking Republican Member)
  2405 RHOB, Washington DC 20515  (202) 225-2452 voice, 225-2455 fax
Representative Bob Stump (R AZ) HASC R&T Subcommittee RRM
   211 CHOB, Washington DC 20515  (202) 225-4576 voice, 225-6328 fax
 
There are also some people on the House side who've been very helpful and
could use some thanks.  If you live in their districts, drop them a note of
appreciation for their support for SX-2.
 
Representative John Murtha (D PA)
  2423 RHOB, Washington DC 20515
Representative Norm Mineta (D CA)
  2221 RHOB, Washington DC 20515
Representative Anna Eshoo (D CA)
  1505 LHOB, Washington DC 20515
 
 
 -- NASA RLV Funding
 
While SAS is wary of NASA's future handling of SSTO, we feel that early
indications are that NASA's announced "RLV" technology demonstration
projects may in the near term produce hardware and techniques useful to
SSTO developers in general.  We recommend that people from Senator
Mikulski's state (Maryland) phone, fax, or write her office in support of
$40 million in FY'95 NASA SSTO/RLV funding.  
 
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D MD) SAC HUD, VA, & Independent Agencies Chair
  SH709, Washington DC 20510  (202) 224-4654 voice, 224-8858
  
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

From:	US4RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson" 20-JUL-1994
18:58:21.45
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: DC-X Blast Cause - Official McDonnell Douglas Press Release



Contact:        Keith Takahashi or Anne Toulouse
                McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
                (714) 896-1302 or 896-6211
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
94-190
CAUSE OF TEAR IN THE DC-X AEROSHELL DETERMINED

    WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M., July 19, 1994 -- The detonation of fuel
cloud vapors that blew into an air purge duct resulted in damage to the
Delta Clipper Experimental (DC-X) single-stage launch vehicle during the
June 27 flight test. The air purge duct is a part of the DC-X's ground
support equipment.

    An investigation committee has determined that a cloud of free-vented
gaseous oxygen, gaseous hydrogen and water vapor, which normally forms at
the base of the DC-X during the engine pre-start phase, was ingested into
the air purge duct. Video records indicate that the cloud stayed close to
the ground during the June 27 flight and did not rise as in the past.

    The committee, which was organized by the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO), and McDonnell Douglas said the cloud traveled along
the ground and was ingested by one of two venting system air ejectors
located in a utility trench at the flight pad.

    During the pre-launch phase, the ejectors, 12-inch diameter, 25-foot long
pipes, continuously blow air to prevent the accumulation of hydrogen and
oxygen under the vehicle. At engine start the gaseous mixture inside the
ejector pipe was ignited and a detonation occurred.

    In turn, the detonation caused the cloud of vented gaseous oxygen and
hydrogen to burn quickly creating a pressure wave. The pressure wave forced
the flat external side of the DC-X's graphite composite epoxy aeroshell
inward toward the aluminum core structure. Pressure was reversed as the
pressure wave passed, pulling the aeroshell outward. Additionally, normal
atmospheric pressure, trapped between the aeroshell and the aluminum core
structure, along with the lower pressure wave caused the damaged section to
bulge and rip outward.

    Despite a 4- by 15-foot vertical tear in the aeroshell during takeoff, the
DC-X executed a safe landing on the desert floor. All systems were
operating normally throughout the 78-second flight. Seventeen seconds into
flight, the DC-X's "autoland" command was activated and canceled previously
planned flight maneuvers. The DC-X then automatically completed pre-planned
emergency landing sequences.

    "The vehicle performed flawlessly after receiving a blast that would
probably have demolished any other launch vehicle," said Paul Klevatt,
McDonnell Douglas' DC-X program director. "We are quite pleased that the
hard, innovative work our flight controls and software people did when
designing the DC-X initially paid off in a safe return of the vehicle," he
added.

    Pete Conrad, McDonnell Douglas' DC-X flight manager, remarked: "I couldn't
understand why an 'autoland' command was requested, since my flight screen
showed a normal launch and flight. I soon realized, however, that parts
were coming off the vehicle at this time."

    "The committee's analysis indicated that damage to the DC-X's aeroshell, a
small leaking crack in the liquid hydrogen tank, and minor damage to some
ground support equipment is repairable," said Lt. Col. Jess Sponable,
BMDO's Delta Clipper program director. The crack in the tank was caused
when a flap actuator rod end was jammed against the tank by the pressure
wave.

    "We are currently assessing various options ranging from repairing and
flying the DC-X as soon as possible, to only repairing the DC-X system and
transferring it to NASA," stated Lieutenant Colonel Sponable. A decision
will be announced soon.

    Efforts are under way to fully define the necessary repairs and their
costs. The team is also reviewing the configuration of the DC-X ground
support equipment to prevent similar detonation in future flights.

-0-



Chris W. Johnson

Internet: [email protected]
UUCP:     {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj
URL:      http://gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu/



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94)
id AA12428; Wed, 20 Jul 94 18:58:20 -040
% Received: from smtp.utexas.edu by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/27May94) id
AA28947; Wed, 20 Jul 94 15:48:45 -070
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.135.32])
by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA14136; Wed, 20 Jul 1994
17:26:06 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/SMTP-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.11); Wed,
20 Jul 94 17:26:31 CD
% Received: from SMTP-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 20 Jul 94 17:26:01 CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: DC-X Blast Cause - Official McDonnell Douglas Press Release
% Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 17:24:50 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11.
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Article: 6050
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #40  7/19/94
Date: 21 Jul 1994 09:07:58 -0700
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Sender: [email protected]
 
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
                    Space Access Update #40 7/19/94
                 Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting the government's "SSRT"
(Single Stage Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its recently funded
followon, SX-2.  Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely about
the technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2, though we also cover the
subject of reusable SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit) policy in general.  
 
We anticipate a change of focus soon if all goes well.  Once SX-2 startup is
(with your help!) assured, we plan to begin working on establishment of a
healthy second X-rocket development track at NASA, and on getting
development of suitable engines started for the fully reusable orbital
transports that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying
to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production ships a-building
shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society or on the DC-X/SSTO video we have for
sale, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044, or email
[email protected].  Please forgive any delay in our reply; we're a couple
weeks behind in answering non life-or-death email right now.]
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
We've been running into a problem lately -- things have been happening so
fast that we can't keep up; by the time we get an Update ready, two or
three of the stories are already out of date, and we go back and rewrite
them, and by then something else has changed...  We're going to put stories
out as we get them written until we get caught up again; look for a lot of
shorter Updates over the next few weeks.
 
In this issue, the latest on DC-X.
 
In the next few days, weirdness at ARPA over the $35 million in SX-2 money
they've been sitting on, the latest legislative SSTO funding news, NASA's
rapidly evolving SSTO plans, and a possible compromise solution brewing to
all the conflicting SSTO agendas floating around -- maybe even a solution
we can support.  
 
Fingers crossed on that last.  And lots of phone calls and faxes and late-
night policy-thrashing sessions.  Oh well, we did volunteer!
 
 
             More on DC-X Accident, Recovery Possibilities
 
Well, there's finally been a press release on what caused the problems with
DC-X's June 27th flight.  It's fairly sparse, but there's enough new info
to fill in the picture reasonably well.  We also have some information on
the possibilities for repair and reflight of DC-X, possibly as soon as this
fall.  More on that in a bit.  
 
Monday June 27th was of course the second flight of the new series and
fifth flight overall for DC-X.  It was also the flight where a pre-liftoff
explosion tore up the graphite fiber/epoxy vehicle skin, the "aeroshell",
on one side of the vehicle, causing the flight to be aborted to a safe
landing in the open desert, about a hundred-eighty yards west of the paved
landing pad.  DC-X is currently grounded until further notice.  
 
(We feel compelled to point out that a safe intact landing after launch
explosions and significant vehicle damage is somewhat unusual for rocket
vehicles, and is a strong indication that there's something to the DC-X
program's emphasis on "savability", the aircraft-style ability to abort a
mission and land intact if things go wrong.)
 
First, on the actual sequence of events leading to the DC-X damage.  You
may recall that in SAU #39, we concluded from evidence on our videotape of
the flight that there were two explosions about one twentieth of a second
apart right after engine ignition, and that both explosions were external
to the vehicle, apparently in the ground-hugging plume of engine-precool
hydrogen drifting southwards from the vehicle in the ~5 knot breeze.  
 
The tape indicates that the precool plume ignited at ground level about
fifty feet south of the vehicle, the flame travelling up the plume 
of vented hydrogen along the ground to the base of the vehicle, where
it then apparently touched off vented hydrogen that had collected around
the downwind side of of the vehicle in a second explosion.  This second
explosion seems to be the one that did the damage to DC-X.  
 
The question this left open was, how was the vent plume ignited fifty feet
south of the vehicle a fraction of a second after engine start?  Today's 
press release provided the missing clue.
 
(Background: Hydrogen in moderate concentrations in open air will generally
just burn without significant explosive effect, as we've seen in previous
DC-X launches.  Higher concentration and/or higher pressure increases the
burn rate; if hydrogen burns in a confined space pressure can build up
rapidly.  The result can range over a spectrum from very fast burning with
some overpressure to an explosion with a significant subsonic blast wave to
detonation with a very sharp supersonic shock wave, depending on the
concentration of hydrogen and the degree of confinement.) 
 
There is an underground air duct leading to the DC-X launch stand, used to
blow air in under the vehicle during engine precool, ironically to prevent
explosions by keeping hydrogen from building up in the confined space under
the vehicle.  The duct comes up from the south; what we believe is the air
intake for the duct blower is about fifty feet south of the pad.  (The press
release says the duct tubes are only twenty-five feet long, but that there
are two of them -- possibly two sections of one fifty-foot duct?)
 
Apparently the ground-hugging plume of vented hydrogen drifting downwind
from DC-X during engine precool impinged on the duct air intake.  Enough
hydrogen was drawn into the duct so when the engines lit, the hydrogen
inside the duct ignited and then due to pressure buildup in the confined
duct detonated.  This was the first explosion heard on the tape.  
 
The shock wave and flame front emerged from the duct intake into the open
air portion of the plume, igniting it; the plume then burned back up toward
the vehicle at high subsonic speed, as seen on our tape.  
 
At that point, one possibility is that the slow, very steady breeze had
left a region of stagnant (relatively still and undisturbed) air on the
downwind side of the vehicle, and that hydrogen vapor had built up to a
relatively high level there.  Examination of our tape is inconclusive; the
precool plume occasionally seems to creep upward along the downwind side of
the vehicle, clinging to the aeroshell.
 
Another possibility is that the shock wave from the air duct detonation
pushed vent plume hydrogen up against the aeroshell and compresed it just
in time for the flame front to arrive.  
 
Possibly a combination of these mechanisms was present.  The result
according to the press release was somewhere on the borderline between fast
burning and a slow explosion.  This produced a pressure wave strong enough
to compress the aeroshell inwards on the south side of the vehicle.  When
the wave passed, leaving a partial vacuum in its wake, air pressure inside
the aeroshell bowed it outwards and split it open.
 
 -- Tentative Conclusions
 
With the advance warning that we are amateurs, and working with sketchy
data, our overall conclusion is that this was a matter of a very specific
wind direction, velocity, and steadiness having an apparently unforseen
effect on the vented precool hydrogen vapor.  In previous flights, the
precool vapor has tended to rise from around the base of the vehicle almost
immediately, rather than cling to the ground for a considerable distance as
seen June 27th.
 
The airduct hydrogen ingestion and detonation might in 20-20 hindsight have
been preventable (and then again might not have been; we don't have enough
data) but the subsequent open-air explosion that did the actual damage even
in hindsight seems a bit of a freak occurrence.  To sum it up, this sort of
thing is why we do flight tests.  
 
 -- DC-X Repair Possibilities
 
We would have been very surprised if there was not some damage to the
vehicle systems in addition to the shredded aeroshell, though obviously
there wasn't enough damage to cause an immediate vehicle failure.  The
press release mentions one specific item, a small crack in the liquid
hydrogen tank, caused when the actuator rod for the body flap on the south
side of the vehicle was jammed against the tank by the pressure wave.  They
also mention unspecified damage to various ground equipment -- we know the
TV camera immediately south of the pad went dead one frame after engine
ignition, and it seems likely that anything else near the south end of the
air duct that wasn't armor plated is also toast.  
 
We expect that the internal plumbing under that section of aeroshell,
hydraulic and electrical lines and such, took a beating; some will likely
be replaced as part of any repairs.  
 
We have heard that it should be possible to repair DC-X in a couple of
months and finish the test program this fall, for a total additional cost
on the order of five million dollars.  This would not interfere with the
handover to NASA, as the parts for the DC-XA upgrade won't be ready for
installation until next spring sometime.  We hear NASA in fact supports
repair and reflight, as they quite sensibly would rather take over a proven
flyable vehicle with as much flight test data available as possible.  
 
Our opinion is that it's time to stop feeding DC-X flight-test funds through
an eyedropper; it's a waste of all the time and money that's gone into
getting this far.  We say pay what it takes and get the job done.
 
The obvious source for the DC-X repair/reflight funds is the $35 million of
SSTO money still unspent at ARPA, of course.  Right?  Uh, well...  More on
that tomorrow.  The short version is that someone at ARPA seems to have
their own ideas on what do do with that money, and it isn't DC-X/SX-2.
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

From:	US4RMC::"[email protected]" 28-JUL-1994 10:45:11.76
CC:	
Subj:	Re: Wild Speculations

Mass drivers, space elevators, etc... are all very interesting.  But the
Delta Clipper requires a closer look then the previous glossing.  Sure, it
is not glamorous, and it isn't magic, but it does have the potential of
cutting earth orbit achievement cost by a great deal (estimated amount to be
shown later)... and as Robert Heinlein once put it "Once you're in orbit,
you're halfway to anywhere".

First a little background.  The DC-X (which is the present 1/3 scale model)
is under test in White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.  The technology
utilized in the DC-X was culled from an SDI program designed to place the
"Brilliant Pebble" antimissile satellites in orbit.  The DC-X was designed,
built,  and flight tested in 2 years for a cost 60 million with McDonnell
Douglas as the entity responsible for the Clippers care and feeding.
 Although there have been many problems, the DC-X tests have been
sufficiently successful to warrant continuing  the program on to the next
level,  the DC-X2.

The DC-X2 will be a 2/3 scale of the final product.  With completion
projected for 1996,  it will be capable of suborbital hypersonic flight and
will also be the testing vehicle for the critical maneuver that to date has
the Clipper's engineers sweating buckets.  That maneuver  is the flip over
at 10,000 feet that the craft will need to execute in order to land.  

The full scale rocket, at this point called  the Delta Clipper Orbital, will
launch vertically, accelerating into orbit.  It will reenter the atmosphere
nose first with it's engines idling.  The  atmospheric drag will decelerate
the craft until it reaches 10,000 feet or so, whereupon the DC will roll
upright using flaps for "stability".  It will then land using main engine
thrust , so the entire craft is reusable, only the fuel  is consumed.  Very
Buck Rogers, but McDonnell Douglas thinks they can make it fly.  

--------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some statistics presented raw for the interest of shortening this
post. All are, of course, estimates;  but these are estimates from
professionals.

The Delta Clipper Orbital:
First flight : 1998
Fuel : Hydrogen and Oxygen, perhaps a Tri-propellant adding kerosene.
Payload : 10 tons (as compared to 28 tons for the shuttle)
Cost per pound for payload : _50_  dollars!  (1000. + for the shuttle)
Turn around: 1 week, likely less. Not kidding.
Ground crew necessary for launch/recovery:  7 (Not a misprint)
Development cost : 20 billion.
Person of note involved in project : Charles (Pete) Conrad -- Commander
of the Apollo 12 lunar mission in November of 1969.

The bad news:
The roll over will make the craft aerodynamically unstable (an arrow flying
backwards).  For this to be done safely, I think it likely that computer
controlled  micro-corrections of control surfaces will be in order;  maybe
something similar to the software aiding the "Flying Scythe". This is a
personal observation, not from any source.

Unlike the DC-X  and DC-X2,  60% of the Orbiter will be new technology.
This is mostly in the area of materials, as the Clipper must be 90% fuel
mass.  A promising area is in composite materials for the fuel tanks.

The good news:
The Clippers 50 bucks a pound means that tourism becomes possible.  Weigh
200lbs? Got $10,000 smackers?  See orbit!  Special thanks to my friend Hatch
for pointing out the possibilities. Personally, I'll have to wait for coupon
day.  :(

The hydrogen oxygen burning engines burn very cleanly, even 10,000 flights a
year wouldn't  pose an environmental problem    :) 

Despite the Snafu's, the DC-X test have been VERY encouraging, with guidance
and safety factors performing better than anticipated.

Fleets of Delta Clippers could bring the cost to orbit down further. 
At 50 bucks a  LB, the private sector will have what it needs to exploit
orbital resources;  cheap (relatively) regular transportation.  Does the
owner the Hilton chain read this list?

All of the above statistics are taken from the February 1994 issue of _Sky
and Telescope_  as well as the February 1994 issue of _Popular Science_.
Read and enjoy!

[email protected]  

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date: Thu, 28 Jul 94 10:33:17 EDT
% Reply-To: [email protected]
% Originator: [email protected]
% Sender: [email protected]
% From: [email protected]
% Subject: Re: Wild Speculations
% X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: SSI Members email Discussion Group

Hmmmmmm...

I'd take this summary with a large grain of salt. Some of the numbers don't seem
to be correct.

For example, from 819.169:

  > The Delta Clipper Orbital:
  > First flight : 1998
  > Fuel : Hydrogen and Oxygen, perhaps a Tri-propellant adding kerosene.
  > Payload : 10 tons (as compared to 28 tons for the shuttle)
>>> Cost per pound for payload : _50_  dollars!  (1000. + for the shuttle)
  > Turn around: 1 week, likely less. Not kidding.
  > Ground crew necessary for launch/recovery:  7 (Not a misprint)
>>> Development cost : 20 billion.
  > Person of note involved in project : Charles (Pete) Conrad -- Commander
  > of the Apollo 12 lunar mission in November of 1969.



Now, the cost per pound to LEO from 819.58:



  >                        Current leaders         Future contenders
  >                        Shuttle   Araine 4      DC              TSTO
  > Cost per launch
  > (millions of dollars)   $500    $70 to $115     $10             $16
  > 
  > Min time between        4 weeks  4 weeks        1 to 7 days      16 days
  > launches                                        days
  >
  > Payload  (1,000 kg)     23.5    4.9 to 9.6      9.1 to 11.4      14
  >                                                
>>> Cost per kg put into    $21,277   $10,145 to    $900 to         $1,150
>>> low earth oribt                   $13,821       $1,100


819.169 seems to be off by an order of magnitude.

Also, as I recall, $20B for development seems a bit high (I haven't bothered to
look up the MacDAC estimates). 819.132 has some interesting discussion on
development costs...

Sounds like the kids game Wispering Down the Lane...

Article: 6074
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #41  7/29/94
Date: 29 Jul 1994 16:58:07 -0700
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Sender: [email protected]
 
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
                     Space Access Update #41 7/29/94
                 Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, an
"X-rocket", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up both
experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO)
technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO development cost while at the same
time increasing investor confidence, to the point where SSTO will make
sense as a private commercial investment.  We have reason to believe we're
not far from that point now.  
 
One major current focus is on supporting the Department of Defense's Single
Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) program, DC-X and its funded (but so far
stalled) followon, SX-2.  We're also working on getting a healthy X-rocket
development going at NASA, and on getting work underway there on suitable
engines for the fully reusable orbital transports that should come after
SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying
to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production ships a-building
shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society or on the *new* DC-X/SSTO video we
have for sale, including flight 3 and flight 5 footage and a White Sands
Missile Range travelogue, email [email protected], or write us at:  
            SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.
Please forgive any delay in our reply; we're a couple weeks behind in
answering non life-or-death email right now.]
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
         Three Options Presented On Dealing With DC-X Damage
 
The official investigation into the 6/27/94 DC-X accident, like a lot of
other aspects of the project, finished in record time -- less than three
weeks.  Our compliments to everyone who burned the midnight oil to get this
done; typically such investigations take months.  
 
We expect it helped that the cause (in hindsight at least) was fairly
obvious.  The official conclusions pretty much match what we were able to
figure out from our amateur video of the flight plus a couple clues from
our next-day site tour - the reports we published in the last two Updates.  
 
The damage was done by a fluke low-grade external explosion, brought
about by a combination of previously unseen vented precool hydrogen plume
behavior (clinging to the ground for ~80 feet, and also we suspect to the
vehicle lee side, rather than rising and dispersing right off the vents)
plus a wind direction that aimed the plume right at a launch-stand
ventilation duct air intake.  The combination was both unlikely and
unpredictable; future prevention should be fairly simple.  
 
Discovering and fixing this sort of obscure failure mechanism is why flying
hardware beats the hell out of running simulations -- very few simulation
designers are as fiendishly clever as Murphy. (Of "Murphy's Law" fame...)
 
The three options officially presented, now:
 
 - One, to do no repairs and turn DC-X over to NASA as-is, leaving NASA to
 do the repairs as part of the DC-XA rebuild.
 
 - Two, to repair DC-X then turn her over to NASA for the DC-XA rebuild,
 but without flight-testing the repairs.  
 
 - Three, to repair DC-X in the next several months, either onsite or back
 at the factory, finish the current flight test program, then turn the once
 again flight-proven vehicle over to NASA in time for the planned DC-XA
 rebuild start next spring.  (Parts fabrication for the DC-XA gets underway
 this year, but the parts won't be ready till next April or so.)
 
Option one is downright silly.  The program still has almost half of the 
$5 million allocated for this spring's flight test program restart, enough
to complete most or all of the needed repairs.
 
Option two is only marginally less silly.  For one thing, NASA would really
rather start the DC-XA modifications from a known-flyable vehicle, not one
that might still have hidden glitches.  For another, it's penny-wise and
pound-foolish not to finish the current flight test program; the expense
involved ($5 million more, including some pad for further contingencies)
is small compared to both the additional data to be garnered, and to what's
already been spent (near $70 million) to get to this point.  
 
Option three is the way to go, and the place to get the additional $5
million is the $35 million already appropriated in ARPA for SSTO work.  Fix
DC-X now, fly it again ASAP, and only then turn it over to NASA.
 
 
                ARPA Getting Weird With DC-X/SX-2 Money
 
Speaking of ARPA, someone over there has finally decided they want to spend
that $35 million that a lot of people worked so hard for.  
 
This is the $40 million in FY'94 SSTO funding we fought for last year,
minus the $5 million allocated to get DC-X flying again last month.  
 
We had to fight again this spring to keep this money from being rescinded
(dumped back into the Treasury) and just barely won that brawl.  We got $5
million for DC-X only at the absolute screaming last second, and even then
only after NASA (Administrator Goldin, really) had thrown a million of
their own money into the pot as a sign of support.  
 
Now ARPA is proposing to divvy up the remaining $35 million among a bunch
of micro-launcher and propulsion development proposals, many of which may
in fact be worthy, but NONE of which are what we fought for or what the
Congress thought it was putting up the money for, completion of DC-X
testing and startup of the SX-2 followon to DC-X.  
 
ARPA's theory seems to be that NASA is going to do SX-2 or something like
it now, so ARPA should try to look at some low-cost alternatives that might
be useful for lightweight "sortie vehicles", the sort of spacecraft that
could carry, say, two guys in pressure-suits plus a toolkit or instrument
package for a quick couple of hours in orbit.  
 
The problem is that it's still not at all clear what NASA is going to do
about SSTO.  
 
Administrator Goldin seems to understand what's needed, a quick, cheap
flight demonstrator to prove out lightweight structures and high-speed
flight ops at a high flight rate and with a small ground crew.  
 
But a lot of his troops still seem to hear "$36 billion 20-year Shuttle
II!" when they're told "quick and dirty SSTO demonstrator." And a lot more
seem to misunderstand "quick and cheap" to mean five years and a billion
dollars rather than three years and three hundred-four hundred million. 
And then there's the problem of "high flight rate" being understood as
several times a year off a rebuilt pad at KSC instead of several times a
month off a patch of desert with a few equipment trucks, and "small ground
crew" being understood as a few thousand instead of as a few dozen.  
 
Many within NASA haven't yet come to grips with what's actually required
here.  And until it's crystal clear that NASA's SSTO project is committed
to the right direction, we will be firmly opposed to DOD abandoning the
"SSRT" DC-X/SX-2 SSTO development path.  
 
One possible solution we've heard kicked around would be to have NASA
effectively subcontract their X-demonstrator's definition and operation to
the SSRT guys, who are going to be working out of USAF Phillips Labs in
future.  This would leave NASA free to concentrate on their strong suit,
developing various technologies in support of the demonstrator and future
full-SSTO successors, and would give all of us political types a lot more
confidence that NASA SSTO is going to give the nation value for money.  
 
We'd be happy to see ARPA putting, oh, half of that $35 million into
micro-SSTO technologies as part of such a deal, with $5 million going to
finish DC-X's current test program and the rest going to getting Phillips
Lab off to a running start on getting NASA the best possible deal on an SX-2
class demonstrator.
 
Absent some such deal, there could end up being a lot of very unhappy SSTO
supporters, in the Congress and elsewhere.  We're hoping everyone is
reasonable about this.  
 
 
                          Legislative Roundup
 
The critical House-Senate conference on FY'95 DOD Authorizations finally
got underway at the start of this week.  As you'll no doubt recall, the
House authorized $100 million for DOD SSTO, while the Senate Armed Services
Committee came within one vote of supporting SSTO funding.  We're hoping for
a favorable compromise out of this conference in the next few days.  More
when we know more.
 
On the DOD Appropriations front, the situation remains that the House has
appropriated $50 million and the Senate still hasn't started on their FY'95
DOD Appropriations.  We expect that the final result here will track
whatever we end up getting in the Authorizations.
 
NASA, meanwhile, seems set to get around $40 million in the coming year to
get a number of "RLV" (Reusable Launch Vehicle) technology projects
underway, including the DC-XA upgrade.  The Administrator wants it, and
the amount is basically lost in the noise in NASA's overall FY'95 budget of
around $14 billion.  
 
Apropos of NASA SSTO, there was a hearing in the House Space Science
Subcommittee (the House NASA oversight committee) on July 19th, for the
purpose of determining the proper balance between ground-based technology
and experimental flight vehicle development.  Witnesses called were NASA's
Assistant Administrator for Access Jack Lee and Dr. Ivan Bekey, General
Daniel O. Graham of the Space Transportation Association, USAF Colonel
Simon Worden (head of advanced tech at SDIO when DC-X was started), Bill
Gaubatz and Pete Conrad of the McDonnell-Douglas DC-X team, and Jerry Grey
of the AIAA.  
 
At issue was what we will uncharitably call the Dinosaur position, the view
that we need to spend tens or hundreds of millions per year for many years
to develop all sorts of additional advanced technology before we're ready
to try flying anything, with the implicit assumption that the first vehicle
we fly has to be as near as makes no difference a perfected final product.
We merely note that the rapidly shrinking NASP project was conducted on
this premise, and that even they have tried to refocus on flying test
hardware (the HYFLITE proposal) over the past year.
 
Most of the witnesses supported our preferred alternative (immediate
pursuit of a less-than-perfect flight testbed as a way of keeping the
effort focused and moving forward) to one degree or another.  Colonel
Worden put it most succinctly.  "Unless that program is centered on a
flight demonstration within a few years - I would suggest no more than
three - it is my opinion that it is pointless to proceed." He went on to
say that without such a near-term goal, "technology programs quickly decay
into sandbox activities which survive more on their contribution to local
employment and vested interests than on real future needs." 
 
Couldn't have said it better ourselves.  
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
    

Article: 3711
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: [email protected] (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Subject: Kistler Aerospace SSTO-is it 4 real?
Sender: [email protected] (Usenet NEWS)
Organization: ABO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY, FINLAND
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 18:02:47 GMT
 
Straight from SPACEFLIGHT and the dreams of Nick Szabo and Herman Rubin:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
"OPENING UP THE SPACE FRONTIER FOR HUMANITY"
--------------------------------------------
 
Kistler Aerospace Corporation is planning to design, build, test and 
operate fleets of reusable, SSTO rocketships that will reduce the cost
of access to space by a factor of ten, revolutionise the global space
transportation industry, and open up the space frontier for humanity.
 
KAC is a privately financed company with no government funding and no
government interference. The company plans to design, build and operate
its own fleets of fully reusable rocketships and the launch
landing, and mission operations facilities necessary to support them.
KAC has raised its first level of seed financing from private investors
and plans to raise up to two BILLION dollars in development funds during 
the next five years from private, corporate and institutional sources.
 
KISTLER ROCKETSHIPS:
-------------------
 
Current goal: development of a sub-scale demonstrator rocket system (the
K-0) that will ground and flight test unique, proprietary rocket launcher
designs in 1995.
 
Late 1990s goal: K-1 - a fully reusable rocketship capable of launching
0.9t to LEO. 
 
2000- : K-2 - a larger model capable of placing 9t into low Earth orbit.
 
PROJECT STATUS:
--------------
-Founded in November 1993 by Walt Kistler, famous for founding a number
 of successful companies in the fields of scientific and industrial
 instrumentation (e.g. Kistler-Morse Corp.), and Bob Citron (communications
 and commercial space development, including SPACEHAB Inc.).
-Preliminary design of the K-0 rocket is underway.
-Flight testing will begin at Mojave in the spring of 1995, will move to
 White Sands during the second quarter of 1995.
-Conceptual design of the K-1 system; negotiations with major aerospace
 companies to undertake the K-1 Phase 1 design studies to be completed
 this summer.
-Discussions with major NASA centres leading to several joint technology
 development activities starting in 1995 and 1996.
-Negotiations leading to the development of a permanent "Kistler Spaceport"
 as part of the Southwest Spaceport facility adjacent to White Sands,
 construction of which is planned during the last quarter of 1996.
 
FUTURE FINANCING:
----------------
Approx. $250 million are required for the design, flight testing and
development of the K-1 rocketship system (six orbital vehicles) and the
Kistler Spaceport (1995-1998). $1-$2 billion are required for the
design & development of a fleet of six K-2 SSTO spacecraft and additional
Kistler Spaceport facilities (1996-2002).
 
THE KAC TEAM:
------------
KAC is in the process of assembling a team of highly skilled professional
project managers, rocket and space system development engineers and
launch and mission operations teams who have worked on all major US space
programs from Saturn/Apollo through Shuttle,Space Station and DC-X...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments? If they are half as good as they think, why don't they simply team
up with McDAC on the Delta Clipper...? And what do we need that toy rocket
for (K-1) - TELEDESIC?
 
MARCU$
 
                                   ////
                                  (o o)
------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo-----------------------------------
 
                           Computer Science Department
                       University of Abo Akademi, Finland
 
Email: [email protected]
       [email protected]
MAIL:  Marcus Lindroos, PL 402 A, 07880 Liljendal, FINLAND

Article: 6171
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #42  8/9/94
Date: 10 Aug 1994 01:59:28 -0700
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Sender: [email protected]
 
Followup-to: sci.space.policy
                  Space Access Update #42 8/9/94
              Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news
publication.  Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable
access to space for all, period.  We believe in concentrating our
limited resources at whatever point looks like yielding maximum
progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator,
an "X-rocket", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit
(SSTO) technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO development cost while
at the same time increasing investor confidence, to the point where
SSTO will make sense as a private commercial investment.  We have
reason to believe we're not far from that point now.  
 
One major current focus is on supporting the Department of Defense's
Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) program, DC-X and its funded
(but so far stalled) followon, SX-2.  We're also working on getting a
healthy X-rocket development going at NASA, and on getting work
underway there on suitable engines for the fully reusable orbital
transports that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds
flying to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production ships
a-building shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society or on the *new* DC-X/SSTO video
we have for sale, including footage from all five flights plus a White
Sands Missile Range travelogue, email [email protected], or write us
at:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  
 
Please forgive any delay in our reply; we're a couple weeks behind in
answering non life-or-death email right now.]
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
A quick one this week -- not much hard news and too much going on. 
Sound like a paradox?  Welcome to politics in the nineties.
 
 
               DC-X Back At The Factory For Repairs
 
DC-X was quietly trucked back to the factory around the start of August.
If we'd known in time, we could have hung out at the Denny's by I-10
and watched it roll by.  Oh well.  We understand the aeroshell has been
removed and is under repair; no details on repair techniques yet,
though given that MDA has said there's margin for weight growth,
possibly they're doing what would be done with, say, a boat hull --
stapling or wiring the pieces together temporarily, bracing them to
the proper shape, then applying another layer of graphite-epoxy on the
inside anyplace where the shell was torn or severely bent.
 
We understand that the explosion bent some hydraulic lines that, if
broken, would have led to loss of engine gimballing capability.  These
are being rebuilt in a way (check valves and so forth) such that no
one hydraulic leak can kill the capability to gimbal the engines. 
Loss of engine gimballing would make the vehicle uncontrollable and,
post-liftoff, would have led at minimum to the need to use the
emergency parachute for vehicle recovery.  
 
We have no word yet on repairs to the inch-and-a-half crack in the
liquid hydrogen tank, or on any other damage that teardown and
inspection may have revealed.
 
It seems very likely now that DC-X will be repaired and reflown before
turnover to NASA next spring; everyone involved seems to want that. 
The financing is still up in the air, the main question being will the
money come from the $35 million FY'94 DOD SSTO money that remains
unspent (in ARPA for now) or will NASA pay the several million needed
for reflight, once repairs are done.  Stay tuned.
 
 
            DOD SX-2 Funding Likely But Not Certain Yet
 
There are a number of positive indications regarding the chances of
getting a substantial amount of FY'95 money (plus a reprogramming of
the FY'94 money stalled in ARPA) for startup of SX-2 in DOD, but
there's nothing definite yet.  We hear that at least one key
legislator has recently become aware that this is a bipartisan effort
aimed at a competitive bidding process, not the partisan single-
district pork it has apparently been portrayed as.  
 
One possibility is still a cooperative DOD/NASA demonstrator.  Another
possibility that has gained ground in the last few weeks is the one we
were pushing this spring, an immediate-start DOD suborbital SX-2, with
NASA following on with a '96-'97 start of a more capable (possibly
even a squeaks-into-orbit) reusable rocket X-demonstrator.  
 
 
         Improved OSTP Space Launch Policy Is Official Now
 
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has delivered
their final version of the new US national space launch policy, and
the President has signed it.  The broad outline of the policy is the
same as in early drafts that have circulated:  DOD should upgrade and
possibly consolidate the existing ELV (expendable launcher) fleet, and
NASA should upgrade existing Shuttles but build no new ones, in
anticipation of relatively near-term fully reusable followon vehicles.
 
The important changes we won were in the details of how the reusable
followons are to come about.  
 
 - NASA is still the official lead agency for developing reusable
 launcher technology, but they are now also directed to cooperate with
 DOD efforts in this area.  
 
 - The language delaying a NASA reusable rocket flight demonstrator
 start until 1997 has been changed to a start "no later than 1996".  
 
 - And the final OSTP policy strongly supports design and construction
 of operational reusable space transports by private industry,
 possibly with government "anchor tenant" or other incentives, rather
 than design and operation by any government agency.
 
This is a national space launch policy we can work with.
 
 
               Space Access Society Goes "Shareware"
 
And finally for this issue, we're going to do something a bit
different, and ask you all for support for what we've been doing at
SAS.  We understand that this is a ticklish subject in a number of the
venues where these Updates circulate.  We're going to do our best here
not to violate anyone's guidelines; please bear with us for the next
few paragraphs.  
 
Putting one of these Updates together typically takes anywhere from a
couple of days to a week, depending on circumstances.  Each one also
takes a considerable investment in fax paper, long distance charges,
online time, head-butting with our Advisory Board, and general
overhead, as in keeping an office roof over our head.  We've put out
forty-two Updates in the last sixty weeks.
 
We've made occasional noises about "Updates for paid-up SAS members
only, real soon", but frankly, it ain't gonna happen, though we do try
to give members an occasional discount or bit of inside info.  (We
have to do *something* for the people who've kept us going so far.)
 
We circulate these Updates on the nets as soon as we have 'em ready to
go for a very good reason:  It's one of the most effective tools we
have for advancing our cause: "Affordable reliable access to space for
all."  It doesn't matter how good our info is and how much sense our
point of view makes; if it doesn't get read, it does no good.  
 
So think of our Space Access Updates as shareware.  We put 'em out on
the nets for you to check out for free.  If you like them, if you read
them, if you think they're worthwhile, send us some money to help us
keep on putting them out.  A check for thirty dollars US to SAS will
make you a member for a year, with direct emailing of Updates.  Ten or
twenty will help too, but all you get for that is warm fuzzies.  A
thousand will make you an SAS member for life -- and chances are
you'll get shorted, because, assuming sufficient toil, tears, and
sweat plus a dash of luck, we'll be able to disband, mission
accomplished, sometime early next decade.  
 
How's that for a mission statement: "To short our life members."  
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
    

Article: 6207
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #43  8/17/94
Date: 18 Aug 1994 14:03:42 -0700
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Sender: [email protected]
 
Followup-to: sci.space.policy
                     Space Access Update #43 8/17/94
                 Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, an
"X-rocket", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up both
experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO)
technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO development cost while at the same
time increasing investor confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense
as a private commercial investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far
from that point now.  
 
One major current focus is on supporting the Department of Defense's Single
Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) program, DC-X and its funded (but so far
stalled) followon, SX-2.  We're also working on getting a healthy X-rocket
development going at NASA, and on getting work underway there on suitable
engines for the fully reusable orbital transports that should come after 
SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying
to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production ships a-building
shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society or on the *new* DC-X/SSTO video we
have for sale, including footage from all five flights plus a White Sands
Missile Range travelogue, email [email protected], or write us at:  
SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  
 
Please forgive any delay in our reply; we're a couple weeks behind in
answering non life-or-death email right now.]
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
We're nearing the final hurdle of this summer's Congressional funding
season, the one where the actual money is allocated, the Defense
Appropriations Bill conference.  This calls for a maximum effort from all of
us over the next, uh, anywhere from a few days to a month.  Congress's
schedule is very uncertain.  See the "Appropriations" story for details.  
 
And yes, SAS is still running on the ragged edge of insolvency;
memberships and/or donations are hugely helpful.  Thanks to everyone who's
helped out already; we couldn't have gotten this far without you all.  
 
__________________________________________________________________________
 
Stories this issue, with approximate line numbers:
 
-- DC-X Should Be Flyable By End Of October
   line 70
 
-- DOD FY'95 Authorizations Conference Finished, Results OK
   line 91
 
-- DOD Appropriations Conference Underway Any Day Now, Results Critical
   line 162
 
(text of DOD Authorizations Space Launch language appended at end of Update)
__________________________________________________________________________
 
 
                DC-X Should Be Flyable By End Of October
 
According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, 8/8/94 p. 68, DC-X repairs
should be complete sometime in October, costing approximately $2.5 million,
most of the remaining current funding.  Major items involved are new
aeroshell sections from Scaled Composites of Colorado, and repair of a 2
inch crack in DC-X's liquid hydrogen tank.  
 
As we've reported previously, NASA and BMDO both want DC-X reflown before
turnover to NASA for the DC-XA upgrade and flight program.  The minimum is
one flight to prove out the repairs, the optimum is four flights to complete
the baseline vehicle aerodynamic data gathering.  Cost for this is estimated
at $3-$4 million, including transporting DC-X back to White Sands and the
WSMR range-time charges.  
 
ARPA is reluctant to fund DC-X reflight out of the $34.9 million in reusable
rocket money left from the $40 million we all fought for last year.  ARPA at
this point is in grave danger of getting to spend none of that money; the
decision may be out of their hands already.  See below.  
 
 
        DOD FY'95 Authorizations Conference Finished, Results OK
 
The FY'95 DOD Authorizations Conference report and bill language are
appended to the end of this Update.  They could be better, but they are 
good enough to live with if we can get their equivalent into the final
Appropriations bill.
 
The final Authorizations (roughly, the shopping list of what the
Appropriators can then write checks for) allows for the following:  The
SSRT/DC-X people at USAF Phillips Lab get $30 million in new FY'95 money,
plus transfer of the "unobligated balance" of the FY'94 SSTO money that's
been stuck at ARPA for the last year -- $34.9 million, last we heard. 
We have to watch for attempts to obligate it by ARPA in the interim; they've
been making noises about spending it on their own programs.
 
The money comes with restrictions.  Phillips Lab is not allowed to start
building SX-2 on their own (a loophole here is "..at least until the
Administration changes its policy"); they have to do it in cooperation with
NASA, with at minimum matching funds from NASA, at least for FY'95.  
 
(SAS is of the opinion that Phillips Lab running SX-2 with NASA funding
support and cooperation would be a good thing; NASA could then aim their
main effort at a full orbital demonstrator to fly around the turn of the
century, with both DC-XA and SX-2 experience to increase confidence levels.)
 
Phillips Lab also cannot spend any of the ARPA money on "..further
development of the 'Delta Clipper' vehicle built by BMDO".  The vehicle
referred to has to be DC-X, as no other "Delta Clipper" vehicle has been or
ever will be built by BMDO at this point.  Given that fact, the ARPA money
cannot be spent on "further development" of DC-X.  IE it cannot be spent on
the DC-XA -- but as best we can tell, this means the ARPA money CAN be spent
on DC-X reflight before DC-XA conversion begins, and CAN be spent on an
open-competition followon to DC-X.  It's unclear whether the intent here was
to forbid any DC-X followon or to forbid DOD money going to NASA's DC-XA
upgrade, but the effect is clearly the latter.  
 
The last major restriction is that none of the $30 million in new FY'95
money may be obligated until a joint NASA-DOD reusable/expendable
development plan is submitted to the Congress.  (Subsection F of the Bill
language.) 
 
The good news is that the FY'94 ARPA money does NOT seem to fall under
this, the way the bill is written.  Our interpretation is that ARPA money,
once in hand, could be used for low-level preliminary work such as DC-X
reflight and getting ready for release of an SX-2 RFP without unduly
annoying the DOD Authorizers.  Full-scale SX-2 program start would have to
wait for the moment of submission of the DOD/NASA program plans to Congress.
Not approval, mind, submission.  
 
The bad news is that no deadline is given for this joint NASA-DOD plan.  It
could become the excuse for another year of foot-dragging.  This is unlikely
however; the White House's new space policy calls for NASA (plus whatever
help they call in) to deliver a near-identical report by the first week in
November.  Chances are these two reports will be combined, with the November
due date prevailing.  
 
We are told, by the way, that the various restrictions on immediate SX-2
go-ahead in this Authorizations bill are the work of a staffer on the
Senate Armed Services Committee named Kirk McConnell; it apparently took a
running battle by SSTO supporters to water down these restrictions to a
halfway acceptable level.  
 
We are told that McConnell is one of a number of Congressional staff
opponents of SSTO done right (quick, cheap, and "X") who have emerged over
the last couple of years.  We are told that Bob Davis, a staffer on the
House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee is another such, and that Davis
has in the past inserted anti-SSTO language that directly contradicted the
express intent of his Subcommittee Chairman.  We hope that this sort of
thing won't be a problem in the upcoming DOD Appropriations Conference.
 
 
   DOD Appropriations Conference Results Will Be Critical - But When?
 
The House passed a DOD FY'95 Appropriations bill with $50 million for SX-2 
back at the start of the summer.  The Senate finished their version (with no
SSTO funds) last week.  The House-Senate conference to hammer out a
compromise version could be starting before the end of this week.  
 
And it could wait until September sometime.  No way to tell; between the
"Crime Bill" and the various health care bills, the next few weeks' schedule
in Congress is completely up in the air.  
 
Whenever the DOD Appropriations conference happens, we must get positive
treatment for DOD SSTO work.  Appropriations is where Congress writes the
actual checks and sets the final spending conditions.  This one looks like
being the final push for pro-SSTO activists in this year's funding process.  
 
What we're hoping is that the House version's $50 million, plus the 
$34.9 million remaining at ARPA, will both be sent to the DC-X/SSRT guys at
Phillips Lab in New Mexico, with instructions to go ahead on a high-speed
reusable rocket ATD (Advanced Technology Demonstrator, an "X"-vehicle),
possibly in cooperation with (but not totally dependent on) NASA.  
 
We have a good shot at getting this, if we work our tails off.  We already
have significant support on the House side, not least from the HAC Defense
subcommittee chairman, John Murtha of Pennsylvania, and from a number of
subcommittee members.  We could use more supporters there, though, and we're
not at all strong on the Senate side of the conference.  Then too, there's
the recurring problem of anti-SSTO staffer agendas.  We can win, and win big
here -- but it's no sure thing.  
 
We know who the Senate conferees will be -- the nineteen members of the
Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee.  The chair and
ranking minority member of the full SAC are already members of this
subcommittee.  
 
We don't know for sure who the House conferees will be, but chances are it
will be the thirteen members of the HAC Defense subcommittee, plus the chair
of the full HAC.  
 
___________________________________________________________________________
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
It's time for a maximum-effort push.  We need to persuade the DOD
Appropriations conferees to do three things:
 
 -- provide $50 million for startup of the SX-2 high-speed reusable rocket
 ATD, in PE63401F at USAF Phillips Lab in New Mexico.  
 
 -- transfer the remaining $34.9 million of ARPA SSTO money to PE63401F at
 Phillips.  
 
 -- allow completion of DC-X flight test this fall and remove all
 restrictions on immediate startup of the SX-2 ATD.  
 
Call or write: Any Representative on the list whose district you live in or
very near to.  Any Senator on the list from your state.  Senator Inouye, the
SAC Defense chair, Senator Stevens, the ranking Republican, and Senator Byrd,
the chair of the full SAC.
 
If you write or fax, keep it to one page.  Mention right at the start you're
writing about the FY'95 DOD Appropriations conference, tell them what you'd
like to see done, then provide supporting details, why you think this is good
for the country and so forth.  (The person reading it will almost certainly
be an overworked underpaid staffer.  If yours is the only letter they get,
it needs to be sensible and persuasive; if yours is the hundredth, it needs
to be easy to categorize and add to their running total.)
 
If you phone, keep it short and polite -- you're likely talking to that same
overworked staffer.  Tell them you're calling about the DOD Appropriations
conference, and that you support funding for Air Force Phillips Lab, to
complete DC-X flight test this fall and to start development of the SX-2
high-speed reusable rocket ATD (Advanced Technology Demonstrator or
"X-vehicle").  If they want to know more, fill them in as best you can,
otherwise thank them for their time and ring off.  
 
We especially need to get across that restrictions on completion of DC-X
flight test before its handover to NASA are a bad idea, as are further
delays in getting the SX-2 competition underway.  Phillips Lab should be
allowed to proceed ASAP.  
 
By the way, legislators on the lists below with an "*" next to their name are
as best we know already SSTO supporters.  When calling or writing them,
thank them for their past support and ask them to continue it in the upcoming
DOD Appropriations conference, then give 'em the details.  We'd also like to
hear about it if anyone gets positive assurances of support on this from any
of the other legislators listed.
 
 
 -- Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee list --
 ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
 
 (A * next to a Senator's or Representative's name means we're reasonably
     sure they already support us on SX-2 funding and development.)
  
  SENATOR         PARTY/STATE  PHONE     FAX        Office#
  -----------------------------------------------------------
  Bond, Christopher     R  MO  224-5721  224-7491   SR293
  Bumpers, Dale         D  AR  224-4843  224-6435   SD229
  Byrd, Robert          D  WV  224-3954  224-4025   SH311
  Cochran, Thad         R  MS  224-5054  224-9450   SR326
  D'Amato, Alfonse      R  NY  224-6542  224-5871   SH520
  DeConcini, Dennis     D  AZ  224-4521  224-2302   SH328
 *Domenici, Pete        R  NM  224-6621  224-7371   SD434
  Gramm, Phil           R  TX  224-2934  228-2856   SR370
  Harkin, Tom           D  IA  224-3254  224-9369   SH351
  Hatfield, Mark        R  OR  224-3753  224-0276   SH711
  Hollings, Ernest      D  SC  224-6121  224-3573   SR125
  Inouye, Daniel chair  D  HI  224-3934  224-6747   SH722
  Johnston, J.Bennett   D  LA  224-5824  224-2952   SH136
  Lautenberg, Frank     D  NJ  224-4744  224-9707   SH506
  Leahy, Patrick        D  VT  224-4242  224-3595   SR433
  Nickles, Don          R  OK  224-5754  224-6008   SH713
  Sasser, Jim           D  TN  224-3344  224-8062   SR363
  Specter, Arlen        R  PA  224-4254  224-1893   SH303
  Stevens, Ted RRM      R  AK  224-3004  224-2354   SH522
 
 
 -- House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee list --
 ("Representative XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20515" will get mail to them.)
 
 *Murtha, John          D  PA  225-2065  225-5709  2423 RHOB
  Dicks, Norman         D  WA  225-5916  226-1176  2467 RHOB
  Wilson, Charles       D  TX  225-2401  225-1764  2256 RHOB
  Hefner, Bill          D  NC  225-3715  225-4036  2470 RHOB
  Sabo, Martin          D  MN  225-4755  225-4886  2336 RHOB
  Dixon, Julian         D  CA  225-7084  225-4091  2400 RHOB
 *Visclosky, Pete       D  IN  225-2461  225-2493  2464 RHOB
  Darden, George        D  GA  225-2931  225-0473   228 CHOB
  McDade, Joseph        R  PA  225-3731  225-9594  2370 RHOB
  Young, Bill           R  FL  225-5961  225-9764  2407 RHOB
 *Livingston, Bob       R  LA  225-3015  225-0739  2368 RHOB
  Lewis, Jerry          R  CA  225-5861  225-6498  2312 RHOB
 *Skeen, Joe            R  NM  225-2365  225-9599  2367 RHOB
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
 
 
FY'95 DOD AUTHORIZATIONS BILL LANGUAGE, LAUNCH POLICY SECTION
 
SEC. 211 SPACE LAUNCH MODERNIZATION.
 
        (A) POLICY.--- (1) It is in the Nation's long-term national security
and economic interest to regain preeminence in the area of space launch
technology and operations.
        (2) Access to space at affordable costs is fundamental to maintaining
required command, control, communications, intelligence, navigation,
weather, and early warning support to United States and coalition forces.
        (3) Encouragement of privately financed, cost effective expendable and
reusable launch vehicles is in the economic interest of the Department of
Defense and the United States Government.
        (b) FINDING.---Congress finds that the current Department of
Defense space launch infrastructure has several deficiencies, including
high cost, excessive management overhead, inadequate operability and
responsiveness to satellite launch requirements, lack of standardization,
very large launch personnel requirements to support launch operations,
over capacity, and technology obsolescence.
        (c) REQUIRED ACTIONS.---The Secretary of Defense shall take the
following actions in pursuance of the space launch modernization policy
set forth in subsection (a) and to correct the deficiencies described in
subsection (b):
        (1) Develop an integrated space launch vehicle strategy that, if
implemented, would replace or consolidate the current fleet of medium
and heavy launch vehicles.  Where prudent and cost effective, the strategy
should include a plan for the development of new or upgraded expendable
launch vehicles.
        (2) Implement improved management practices including
streamlined acquisition approaches, small government program staff, and
minimal program overhead.
        (3) Encourage and evaluate innovative acquisition, technical, and
financing (including best commercial practices) solutions for providing
affordable, operable, reliable, and responsive access to space.
        (4) Centralize oversight of launch requirements to ensure integrated
evaluation of satellite requirements and launch capabilities.
        (5) Encourage and provide incentives for the use of commercial
practices in the acquisition, operation, and support of Department of
Defense space operations.
        (6) Establish effective coordination among military, civilian, and
commercial launch developers and users.
        (d) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.---Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated in section 201(3), $90,000,000 shall be available for research,
development, test, and evaluation of non-man-rated space launch systems
and technologies.  Of that amount---
                (1) $30,000,000 shall be available for a competitive reusable
rocket technology program.
                (2) $60,000,000 shall be available only for expendable launch
vehicle technology development and acquisition, as appropriate.
        (e) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.---The Secretary of Defense shall, to the
extent provided in appropriations Acts, transfer to the Department of the
Air Force the unobligated balance of funds appropriated for fiscal year 1994
to the Department of Defense for the Advanced Research Projects Agency
for single-stage-to-orbit rocket research and development.
        (f) PROGRAM PLAN.---The Secretary of Defense and the
Administrator of National Aeronautics and Space [sic] shall jointly
develop an plan to coordinate the programs of the Department of Defense
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for expendables
and reusable rocket technology demonstrations and technology
development and submit such plan to the Congress.
        (g) LIMITATIONS.---(1) Funds authorized for appropriation in
subsection (d)(1) may be obligated only---
        (A) to the extent that the fiscal year 1995 current operating plan of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration allocates at least an equal
amount for the its Reusable Space Launch program; and
        (B) as specified in the program plan developed and provided to the
Congress pursuant to subsection (f).
        (2) Not more than $30,000,000 of the funds authorized in subsection
(d)(2) may be obligated until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense submits
to the Congress program plans including objectives, milestones, future
years defense program funding, and government-industry cost sharing
considerations, as applicable.
 
 
FY'95 DOD AUTHORIZATIONS REPORT LANGUAGE, LAUNCH POLICY SECTION
 
From the Joint Explanatory Statement ("Statement of Managers"), The
Committee of Conference on the FY '95 DoD Authorization Bill
(H.R. 4301/S.  2182)
 
_Space launch programs (sec. 211)_
 
        The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 213) that would transfer
prior-year funds appropriated for single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket
technology from the Department of Defense to the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), since the Secretary of Defense
submitted a report recommending that NASA be assigned lead
responsibility for developing reusable rocket technology.  The Senate bill
would authorize no funds for reusable rocket technology for fiscal year 1995
and would authorize a total of $20.2 million for expendable rocket
technology development.
        The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 211) that would (1)
establish DOD space policy; (2) require the Secretary of Defense to replace
current launch systems, conduct flight tests by 1998 of reusable launch
vehicles, and conduct flight tests of expendable launch vehicles; and (3)
authorize $200.0 million, equally divided, for reusable and expendable
rocket technology demonstrations.
        The Senate recedes with an amendment.
        The conferees agree to (1) authorize no funds for the national launch
system program; (2) authorize $10.0 million in PE 62601F to continue
concept development of simple, inexpensive expendable rocket systems that
do not require complex turbomachinery; (3) transfer prior-year SSTO funds
from the Advanced Research Projects Agency to the Air Force PE 63401F
and note that these funds would not be for further development of the
"Delta Clipper" vehicle built by BMDO; (4) authorize $30.0 million for the
Air Force in PE 63401F to initiate reusable rocket technology development
efforts, with the stipulation that DOD obligations shall not exceed amounts
made available by NASA for such efforts for fiscal year 1995; (5) authorize
$50.0 million for the Air Force in PE 35119F to initiate a competitive
program to replace existing launch capabilities; and (6) limit the obligation
of funds for both reusable and expendable rocket programs until
coordinated DOD/NASA program plans are submitted to Congress.
        The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 required
the Administration to conduct another study of space launch capabilities,
because Congress was unsatisfied by the space launch Bottom-Up Review,
which concluded that acknowledged problems with current systems are
not serious enough to warrant displacing other defense programs.  The
new study has resulted in the development of new national policy in this
area.  This policy assigns lead responsibility for reusable and expendable
space launch vehicles to NASA and DOD, respectively.  NASA has been
instructed to determine by 1996 whether a reusable vehicle flight
demonstration program is feasible and affordable, and by the end of the
decade, whether a development program should be pursued.  The Deputy
Secretary of Defense is examining again whether a new launch initiative
is warranted and affordable within the Department of Defense.
        Accordingly, the conferees direct that the Department of Defense will
not lead any government-financed reusable space vehicle flight
demonstration or acquisition programs, at least until the Administration
changes its policy.  However, if the Department of Defense decides to
conduct a competition to replace current DOD launch capabilities, and if
DOD concludes that an industry proposal to build a reusable system to
meet requirements is realistic, affordable and cost-effective, the conferees
will consider a well-justified acquisition plan.
        The conferees doubt that DOD can afford to finance any expensive
space launch acquisition program.  The conferees are aware of claims that
the private sector is willing to finance all or most of a new capability.  The
conferees encourage DOD to explore such claims.  However, the conferees
expect that such proposals would require commitments from the
government, which may entail substantial risk, and therefore require
careful consideration by Congress and the Administration.
 
                                 *end*

Article: 6234
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #44  8/29/94
Date: 29 Aug 1994 21:57:26 -0700
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Sender: [email protected]
 
Followup-to: sci.space.policy
                   Space Access Update #44 8/29/94
               Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, an
"X-rocket", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up both
experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO)
technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO development cost while at the same
time increasing investor confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense
as a private commercial investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far
from that point now.  
 
One major current focus is on supporting the Department of Defense's Single
Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) program, DC-X and its funded (but so far
stalled) followon, SX-2.  We're also working on getting a healthy X-rocket
development going at NASA, and on getting work underway there on suitable
engines for the fully reusable orbital transports that should come after 
SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying
to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production ships a-building
shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society or on the new DC-X/SSTO video we have
for sale, including footage from all five flights to date, DC-X and SSTO
backgrounders, plus a White Sands Missile Range travelogue, email:
[email protected], or write us at:  
SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  
 
Please forgive any delay in our reply; we're a couple weeks behind in
answering non life-or-death email, and will be so for a while yet.]
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Stories this issue, with approximate line numbers:
 
-- Critical DOD Appropriations Conference Happens After September 8th
   line 65
 
-- Monkey Business In DOD FY'95 Authorizations Conference Results
   line 103
 
-- Jack Mansfield To Head New NASA Office Of Space Access & Technology
   line 145
 
-- NASA/DOD Reusable Launch Roundtable, DOT Industry Meeting 
   Expected To Endorse New Access Paradigm
   line 174
 
-- SAS Action Recommendations
   line 246
 
__________________________________________________________________________
 
 
 Critical DOD Appropriations Conference Happens After September 8th
 
The House passed a DOD FY'95 Appropriations bill with $50 million for
SX-2 back at the start of the summer.  The Senate finished their version
(with no SSTO funds) in mid-August.  The House-Senate conference to
hammer out a compromise version will happen sometime after members of
the Congress come back to DC from their home districts on September 8th.
Much of the groundwork is already being done by the staffs involved; the
conference when it comes could be over fast.
 
We must get positive treatment for DOD SSTO work out of this conference.
Appropriations is where Congress writes the actual checks and sets the
final spending conditions.  This FY'95 DOD Appropriations bill should be
the final push for pro-SSTO activists in this year's funding process.  
 
What we're hoping is that the House version's $50 million, plus the $34.9
million remaining at ARPA, will both be sent to the DC-X/SSRT guys at
Phillips Lab in New Mexico, with instructions to go ahead on the SX-2
high-speed reusable rocket ATD (Advanced Technology Demonstrator, an
"X"- vehicle), possibly in cooperation with NASA, possibly on their own. 
(NASA at the moment is showing signs of confusion at the working level on
SSTO.  Tying DOD efforts to NASA before they demonstrably have their act
together would be a grave mistake.)
 
We have a good shot at getting SX-2 started this fall.  We already have
significant support on the House side, not least from the HAC Defense
subcommittee chairman, John Murtha of Pennsylvania, and from a number of
subcommittee members.  We could use more supporters there, though, and
we're not at all strong on the Senate side of the conference.  Then too,
there's the recurring problem of anti-SSTO staffer agendas.  We can win,
and win big here -- but it's no sure thing.  
 
See the "SAS Action Recommendations" for how you can help us make this
happen.
 
__________________________________________________________________________
 
 
   Monkey Business In DOD FY'95 Authorizations Conference Results
 
It was a bit over a week ago that we published a story with the headline
"DOD FY'95 Authorizations Conference Finished, Results OK".  The story
went on to say "[The bill language] could be better, but [it is]
good enough to live with..."  Well, something funny happened on the way
to the printers.  
 
We went on to say "We are told, by the way, that the various
restrictions on immediate SX-2 go-ahead in this Authorizations bill are
the work of a staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee named Kirk
McConnell; it apparently took a running battle by SSTO supporters to
water down these restrictions to a halfway acceptable level."
 
Well, we can't say for certain whodunnit, but between the "page-turning"
on Friday August 12th (the session where conference participants went
over that particular section of the Authorizations bill to check that it
was all as agreed) and the publication of the bill in the Congressional
Record Monday August 15th, someone added an entire sentence to Section
211, subsection (f), the subsection calling for the Administrator of
NASA and the Secretary of Defense to jointly develop a plan to
coordinate DOD and NASA reusable and expendable developments.  
 
The new sentence added onto the end reads "The Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress the plan developed under this subsection."
 
This is NOT a trivial change.  This is not a minor grammatical correction
or clarification of the sort to be expected as the bill is set into type.
This is a significant alteration of the provision, from a joint NASA-DOD
plan to one where DOD gets the final say.  We do not know if this is
good or bad for SSTO in DOD, though given resistance by the Office of
the Secretary of Defense to SSTO to date, bad seems entirely possible.
 
This sentence was added entirely after the fact, after the essential
content of the bill had been set by the conferees, almost certainly
added by unelected staff axe-grinders.  We're more than a little annoyed
over this.  We have to wonder why the elected officials whose clear
intent is being meddled with here continue to put up with this nonsense.
 
__________________________________________________________________________
 
 
 Jack Mansfield To Head New NASA Office of Space Access & Technology
 
As expected since this spring, the new NASA Office of Space Access and
Technology ("Code X") is now official.  At least it will be as of
September 6th.  OSAT has been created by the merger of NASA's existing
Office of Advanced Concepts & Technology ("Code C" in NASA HQ-speak) and
the Office of Space Systems Development ("Code D").  
 
Mr. Mansfield was most recently on the permanent staff of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, where he handled budget and technical issues
regarding a number of national strategic programs.  We understand he is a
recent convert to the idea of cheap space access via reusable SSTO 
X-development.  We are cautiously optimistic about his new role.  
 
We're a bit less optimistic about the new OSAT he's being handed to run. 
We hear there are already a hundred people on OSAT staff at NASA HQ,
about forty in the "Transportation" branch, the rest in the "Spacecraft
and Remote Sensing" branch.  This strikes us as already topheavy for
proper X-development efforts.  
 
We understand that Mansfield will report directly to Goldin in this job,
and that Goldin really does want to do SSTO right by our lights, nothing
resembling a standing-army Shuttle II.  We expect that making this happen
will involve these gentlemen spending the next year or two overcoming
considerable institutional inertia; we wish them the best of luck in this
effort.  
 
__________________________________________________________________________
 
 
      NASA/DOD Reusable Launch Roundtable, DOT Industry Meeting
               Expected To Endorse New Access Paradigm
 
NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, with Defense Department endorsement, has
instigated a "National Space Transportation Roundtable For Reusable
Launch Systems" this coming September 14th.  This will be a half-day
meeting, with the general purpose of bringing together representatives
"..from the Congress, Government Agencies, various sectors of the
industry, financial and entrepreneurial interests, and other interested
space policy and advocacy groups." The purpose of the exercise is to get
across to those who haven't gotten the word yet that the rules of the
space-launch game have changed drastically.  
 
We understand that the new ground rules are that the government will do
tech support for new launcher development (pathfinder X-vehicles in
particular, and old NACA-style research in general) but that development
funding for those new launchers is going to have to be from private or
commercial sources.  The government may provide "anchor tenant" deals to
encourage investors, but the days of massive government-funded launcher
development projects are over.  
 
We heartily approve of the general principal, though we're going to wait
and see how the details turn out.  
 
The meeting will take place in two tiers -- about twenty "principals" will
each have their chance to speak their piece over the formal four hours of
meeting.  The meeting is to be moderated by John Logsdon, a noted
authority on US national space policies over the decades.  A hundred or
more "observers", interested parties and press, will also be present.  As
usual in such affairs, a lot of the substantive work will be done
informally, in small get-togethers before and after the main event.  
 
Seats at the head table are, needless to say, a tough ticket, and
apparently subject to maneuvering.  People we're pretty sure will be there
are Representatives Dana Rohrabacher and Bob Walker, Senator Pete
Domenici, high-ranking officials from NASA, DOD, Department of
Transportation, and the White House's Office of Science and Technology
Policy, heads of a half-dozen major-to-mid-size aerospace corporations, a
handful of heavy-hitter finance and insurance types, and even a few
activist types, among these one Jerry Pournelle, Chairman of the Citizen's
Advisory Council on National Space Policy.  
 
Not, alas, us; we'll be with the observers.  We'll be in good company
before it's over, however, as the head table would have to seat thirty or
more to hold all the prominent names we've heard mentioned.  We expect
that fast-track X-development of fully reusable SSTO will be well-
represented at the head table though, which is what counts in our book. 
Details on "principals" once that's firmed up.  No sense embarrassing
anyone who doesn't make the cut <grin>
 
The meeting is, by the way, being hosted by the National Space Society; we
understand they were asked to after the DC Chamber of Commerce wanted too
much money.  NSS is of course trying to give the impression that this was
all their idea and is going for all the prestige they can get.  Mind, we
would do the same were we in their place; this is too good an opportunity
for publicity for any self-respecting Space Society not to exploit to the
max.
 
We will have to content ourselves with noting that we know where the
ideas to be endorsed at this meeting come from (chortle - a lot of them
came from, or at least via, us) while thanking NSS in advance for their
hospitality in taking care of the meeting arrangements.  
 
Meanwhile we hear that Department of Transportation is holding a
separate meeting a week beforehand, this one limited to commercial
aerospace companies, to cover pretty much the same ground -- getting the
companies up to speed on how the new national space launch policy is
going to affect the way they do business.
 
__________________________________________________________________________
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
We'll repeat from last week: It's time for a maximum-effort push.  
We have ten days until the Congress is back in session on September 8th;
the DOD Appropriations conference could happen any time after that.
 
During much of the next week, the key Senators and Representatives will
be back in their home states and districts.  The Thursday after Labor
Day, September 8th, they're due back in DC.  Until after Labor Day, the
best way to contact them is via their local offices.  
 
Look these local offices up in your local phone book "blue pages"
governent listings section, under "US Government" -- "Senators",
"Congress", or "Representatives", and get in touch.  Give them a call
and ask for a fax number, if you have a letter that might not make it
via USPS in time.  
 
Otherwise call or write, or if you're up for it, set up a meeting with
them and give them five minutes on why SSTO is a good thing and SX-2 is
the best way to get there.  If you're going to do this, have your
presentation organized; rehearse it on a friend if possible.  Don't waste
their time; they have very little to spare at this point in the political
season.  
 
 
We need to persuade the DOD Appropriations conferees to do three things:
 
 -- provide $50 million for startup of the SX-2 high-speed reusable rocket
 ATD, in PE63401F at USAF Phillips Lab in New Mexico.  
 
 -- transfer the remaining $34.9 million of ARPA SSTO money to PE63401F at
 Phillips for use on DC-X and SX-2.
 
 -- remove all restrictions on immediate startup of the SX-2 high-speed
 reusable rocket ATD, and allow completion of DC-X flight test this fall
 before turnover to NASA for the DC-XA rebuild.
 
Contact: Any Representative on the list whose district you live in or
very near to.  Any Senator on the list from your state.  Senator Inouye,
the SAC Defense chair, Senator Stevens, the ranking Republican, and
Senator Byrd, the chair of the full SAC.  These last three contact at
their DC offices, unless you're from their state.  
 
If you write or fax, keep it to one page.  Mention right at the start
you're writing about the FY'95 DOD Appropriations conference, tell them
what you'd like to see done, then provide supporting details -- why you
think this is good for the country and so forth.  (The person reading it
will almost certainly be an overworked underpaid staffer.  If yours is
the only letter they get, it needs to be sensible and persuasive; if
yours is the hundredth, it needs to be easy to categorize and add to
their running total.)
 
If you phone, keep it short and polite -- you're likely talking to that
same overworked staffer.  Tell them you're calling about the DOD
Appropriations conference, and that you support funding for Air Force
Phillips Lab to start development of the SX-2 high-speed reusable rocket
ATD (Advanced Technology Demonstrator or "X-vehicle") and to complete
DC-X flight test this fall.  If they want to know more, fill them in as
best you can, otherwise thank them for their time and ring off.  
 
We especially need to get across that there should be no further delays
in getting the SX-2 competition underway.  Congress approved this a year
ago, yet it's still on hold.
 
By the way, legislators on the lists below with an "*" next to their name are
as best we know already SSTO supporters.  When calling or writing them,
thank them for their past support and ask them to continue it in the upcoming
DOD Appropriations conference, then give 'em the details.  We'd also like to
hear about it if anyone gets positive assurances of support on this from any
of the other legislators listed.
 
 
 -- Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee list --
 ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
 
 (A * next to a Senator's or Representative's name means we're reasonably
     sure they already support us on SX-2 funding and development.)
  
  SENATOR         PARTY/STATE  PHONE     FAX        Office#
  -----------------------------------------------------------
  Bond, Christopher     R  MO  224-5721  224-7491   SR293
  Bumpers, Dale         D  AR  224-4843  224-6435   SD229
  Byrd, Robert          D  WV  224-3954  224-4025   SH311
  Cochran, Thad         R  MS  224-5054  224-9450   SR326
  D'Amato, Alfonse      R  NY  224-6542  224-5871   SH520
  DeConcini, Dennis     D  AZ  224-4521  224-2302   SH328
 *Domenici, Pete        R  NM  224-6621  224-7371   SD434
  Gramm, Phil           R  TX  224-2934  228-2856   SR370
  Harkin, Tom           D  IA  224-3254  224-9369   SH351
  Hatfield, Mark        R  OR  224-3753  224-0276   SH711
  Hollings, Ernest      D  SC  224-6121  224-3573   SR125
  Inouye, Daniel chair  D  HI  224-3934  224-6747   SH722
  Johnston, J.Bennett   D  LA  224-5824  224-2952   SH136
  Lautenberg, Frank     D  NJ  224-4744  224-9707   SH506
  Leahy, Patrick        D  VT  224-4242  224-3595   SR433
  Nickles, Don          R  OK  224-5754  224-6008   SH713
  Sasser, Jim           D  TN  224-3344  224-8062   SR363
  Specter, Arlen        R  PA  224-4254  224-1893   SH303
  Stevens, Ted RRM      R  AK  224-3004  224-2354   SH522
 
 
 -- House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee list --
 ("Representative XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20515" will get mail to them.)
 
 *Murtha, John          D  PA  225-2065  225-5709  2423 RHOB
  Dicks, Norman         D  WA  225-5916  226-1176  2467 RHOB
  Wilson, Charles       D  TX  225-2401  225-1764  2256 RHOB
  Hefner, Bill          D  NC  225-3715  225-4036  2470 RHOB
  Sabo, Martin          D  MN  225-4755  225-4886  2336 RHOB
  Dixon, Julian         D  CA  225-7084  225-4091  2400 RHOB
 *Visclosky, Pete       D  IN  225-2461  225-2493  2464 RHOB
  Darden, George        D  GA  225-2931  225-0473   228 CHOB
  McDade, Joseph        R  PA  225-3731  225-9594  2370 RHOB
  Young, Bill           R  FL  225-5961  225-9764  2407 RHOB
 *Livingston, Bob       R  LA  225-3015  225-0739  2368 RHOB
  Lewis, Jerry          R  CA  225-5861  225-6498  2312 RHOB
 *Skeen, Joe            R  NM  225-2365  225-9599  2367 RHOB
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 6326
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #45  9/8/94
Date: 8 Sep 1994 23:53:38 -0700
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Sender: [email protected]
 
Followup-to: sci.space.policy
                    Space Access Update #45 9/8/94
                Copyright 1994 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, an
"X-rocket", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up both
experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO)
technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO development cost while at the same
time increasing investor confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense
as a private commercial investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far
from that point now.  
 
One major current focus is on supporting the Department of Defense's Single
Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) program, DC-X and its funded (but so far
stalled) followon, SX-2.  We're also working on getting a healthy X-rocket
development going at NASA, and on getting work underway there on suitable
engines for the fully reusable orbital transports that should come after 
SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying
to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production ships a-building
shortly thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  
 
                         Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society or on the new DC-X/SSTO video we
have for sale (first batch now shipped!) including footage from all five
flights to date, DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, plus a White Sands Missile
Range travelogue, email:  [email protected], or write us at:  
SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  
____________________________________________________________________________
 
          Stories this issue, with approximate line numbers:
 
No DOD Appropriations Conference Till September 19th At Earliest
      line 54
DC-X Repairs Going OK
      line 80
Reusable Space Launcher Roundtable Story In Aviation Week
      line 96
Yet Another SAS Editorial Rant
      line 128
SAS Action Recommendations
      line 190
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
   No DOD Appropriations Conference Till September 19th At Earliest
 
Congress is currently in recess, mostly back in their home districts
getting back in touch with the voters and gearing up for this fall's
campaign.  They'll be back in session for the first two days of next week,
but then they're off again until Monday the 19th.  
 
The latest word from DC is that the all-important (to SX-2, at any rate)
Defence Appropriations Bill House-Senate conference committee won't meet
until Monday the 19th at the earliest.  There's no guarantee the conference
won't be delayed well beyond that, of course -- there's a lot of other
things on Congress's plate this fall.
 
This conference is vital to the future of the SX-2 because the compromise
DOD Appropriations bill that emerges will be the final word on funding and
conditions for such DOD research projects.  If we get SX-2 funding, in the
right place, under conditions that (unlike last year) actually allow the
project to get underway, SSTO will start moving forward again, fast.  If
not, we face another year of low-progress slogging.  
 
See the "SAS Action Recommendations" section for what you can do to
improve the odds.  
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
      
                         DC-X Repairs Going OK
                         
There's not much news here, really.  DC-X is still back at the plant in
Huntington Beach.  Its condition has been thoroughly checked out, and
there's no reason to believe the repairs can't be done in time for resumed
flight test late this fall, if funding comes through.  Another reason to
check out the "SAS Action Recommendations" section.
 
The plan is still to replace about half of the middle section of the
aeroshell.  About the only new info we have is that they now believe they
can repair the two-inch crack in the liquid hydrogen tank from the outside,
making the job considerably easier than if they had to open the tank up.
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
      
       Reusable Space Launcher Roundtable Story In Aviation Week
 
Hey, they're talking about us here!  All of us "outspoken SSTO advocates",
that is.  "Sniping" aside (we prefer to think of what we do as constructive
criticism) this is a pretty accurate capsule of the situation.
 
       From AvWeek 8/29/94 page 21 "Washington Outlook" section:
                            "Testy Summit?"
   "A summit meeting on single-stage-to-orbit rocket efforts will be held
   here Sept. 14 and NASA chief Daniel S. Goldin is likely to have his
   hands full.  He likes to 'build consensus', but he will be dealing with
   outspoken SSTO advocates who keep sniping at the space agency's new
   role.  Fans of the Defense Dept.'s successful DC-X program are worried
   that NASA will fritter away $1 billion through 1999, fiddling with new
   SSTO technologies on the ground but flying very little.  Advocates
   argue that NASA is already too conservative, because it wants to allow
   for 30% growth in vehicle weight.  On that assumption, NASA regards a
   tricky tripropellant engine as a must.  Many SSTO enthusiasts want to
   put the emphasis on flying a DC-X followon, called SX-2, as soon as
   possible.  They believe that would solve many of the technical riddles
   that lead more cautious engineers to believe an orbital vehicle will
   prove to be heavier than the optimists think."
 
While we're on the subject, it seems a little gentle deflation aimed at the
Roundtable's hosts last Update has had more read into it than was actually
said.  NSS so far seems to be handling a very difficult job professionally
and impartially, and we once again want to thank them in advance for their
hard work and hospitality.  Relax, guys, it'll all be over in a few days.
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
                    Yet Another SAS Editorial Rant
 
And on another Roundtable related matter, excuse us while we editorialize
for a bit.  
 
We keep hearing stories that a lot of the "usual suspects" are maneuvering
to capture big chunks of the new NASA reusable launcher reseach budget for
projects that, while nominally reusable, frankly miss the point.
 
As far as SAS is concerned, the object of the exercise should be to enable
private industry to fund, develop, and fly reusable space transports that
will radically reduce the cost of space access.
 
By "radically reduce", we do not mean 25%.  We do not mean even a factor of
two or three cost reduction.  Pursuing such timid approaches is a sure-fire
way to continue the current massive launch bureaucracies on a slightly
cheaper basis.  Sorry guys, but that isn't the object of the exercise.
 
"Radically reduce" means by a factor of ten just for starters, with
potential for an additional order of magnitude drop in cost per flight as
traffic ramps up.  The idea is to totally change the rules of the space
game, to open up space as a new frontier in a big way in less than a
generation.
 
A pipe dream?  Maybe, maybe not.  We know the characteristics of the ships
that could do this.  They need to be:
 
 - Fully reusable.  How much would airline travel cost if they mounted a
 new set of engines after every flight?
 
 - Operationally simple, with a small crew and fast turnaround.  How much
 would airline travel cost if it took thousands of people weeks of work to
 turn around a 747 between flights?  If the 747 parts had to be collected
 from separate landing zones, brought together back at a fixed launch
 site, refurbished, handfitted together again, and the 747 inspected
 within an inch of its life before reflight?  
 
 - Highly reliable, with simple rugged structures, multiple redundant
 systems (especially engines!) and intact abort capability throughout the
 flight profile.  How much would airline travel cost if aircraft failed
 catastophically once every hundred, or even every thousand flights?
 
 - And the icing on the cake, refuelable in space and landable despite lack
 of atmosphere, to allow missions beyond low orbit, even as far as Luna.
 
We looked at all this long and hard back in 1988 and concluded that multi-
engine rocket SSTO was the best near-term bet to fit this bill.  Not only
do we see no reason to change our minds now, we see that rocket SSTO now
has a large lead on all other contenders, due tothe successful DC-X program.  
 
Some other more elegant solution may well displace fast-turnaround rocket
SSTO a generation or two hence.  But rocket SSTO will suffice to make this
generation the one remembered as the true start of the space age.  "Better
is the enemy of good enough."
 
Meanwhile, partially-reusable rebuild-between-flights launchers are an
idea whose time never really came.  Congress is not going to fund them. 
Let them rest.  
 
__________________________________________________________________________
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
[This is largely a repeat from the last two issues, but we're repeating
ourselves for good reasons.  One, this is the second of two vitally
important Congressional SSTO decisions this year.  (The first was the
"rescission" fight last spring when we narrowly avoided a giveback of the
$40 million DC-X/SX-2 money we won a year ago.)  Two, we actually had
plenty of advance notice this time.  We're learning.]
 
It's time for a maximum-effort push.  We have ten days until the Congress
is back in session on September 19th; the DOD Appropriations conference
could happen any time after that.  Effort in the interim isn't wasted
either; the staffers are already doing a lot of the work of the conference
in advance.
 
We need to persuade the DOD Appropriations conferees to do three things:
 
 -- provide $50 million for startup of the SX-2 high-speed reusable rocket
 ATD, in Program Element 63401F at USAF Phillips Lab in New Mexico.  
 
 -- transfer the remaining $34.9 million of ARPA SSTO money to PE63401F at
 Phillips for use on DC-X and SX-2.
 
 -- remove all restrictions on immediate startup of the SX-2 high-speed
 reusable rocket ATD, and allow completion of DC-X flight test this fall
 before turnover to NASA for the DC-XA rebuild.
 
During much of the next ten days, the key Senators and Representatives
will be back in their home states and districts.  Congress will be in
session for Monday and Tuesday of the coming week, September 12th and
13th.  Much of the rest of the time, they'll be back home, and the best
way to contact them is via their local offices.  
 
Contact: Any Representative on the list whose district you live in or
very near to.  Any Senator on the list from your state.  Senator Inouye,
the SAC Defense chair.  Senator Stevens, the top ranking Republican.
Senator Byrd, the chair of the full SAC.  Contact these last three at
their DC offices, unless you're from their state.  
 
Look up the local offices in your local phone book "blue pages" governent
listings section, under "US Government" -- "Senators", "Congress", or
"Representatives", and get in touch.  Give them a call, ask for a fax
number, tell them what you support over the phone (as described below) or
just drop by in person, say hi, and tell them that in the upcoming DOD
Appropriations conference, you support full funding and immediate go-ahead
for the SX-2 reusable rocket.  As in phoning, don't bother them with the
details unless they ask.  If they do, then answer their questions as best
you can.  If you can, bring along a one-page letter plus a printout of the
suggested funding language (from the end of this Update) to hand them once
you're done talking.  
 
You never know.  If you drop in, you might actually get to meet your
Senator or Representative if they happen to be in the office.  Keep such
visits brief and polite, and keep focussed on the issue at hand, SX-2
funding.  Don't confuse things by trying to push too many issues at once -
though if you happen to know of a stand they've taken that you approve
of, it doesn't hurt to mention "By the way, I really like what you've been
doing/the position you've been taking on the XYZ question."
 
 -- Contact Tips
 
If you write or fax, keep it to one page.  Mention right at the start
you're writing about the FY'95 DOD Appropriations conference, tell them
what you'd like to see done, then provide supporting details -- why you
think this is good for the country and so forth.  (The person reading it
will almost certainly be an overworked underpaid staffer.  If yours is
the only letter they get, it needs to be sensible and persuasive; if
yours is the hundredth, it needs to be easy to categorize and add to
their running total.)
 
If you phone, keep it short and polite -- you're likely talking to that
same overworked staffer.  Tell them you're calling about the DOD
Appropriations conference, and that you support funding for Air Force
Phillips Lab to start development of the SX-2 high-speed reusable rocket
ATD (Advanced Technology Demonstrator or "X-vehicle") and to complete
DC-X flight test this fall.  If they want to know more, fill them in as
best you can, otherwise thank them for their time and ring off.  
 
We especially need to get across that there should be no further delays
in getting the SX-2 competition underway.  Congress approved this a year
ago, yet it's still on hold.
 
By the way, legislators on the lists below with an "*" next to their name are
as best we know already SSTO supporters.  When calling or writing them,
thank them for their past support and ask them to continue it in the upcoming
DOD Appropriations conference, then give 'em the details.  We'd also like to
hear about it if anyone gets positive assurances of support on this from any
of the other legislators listed.
 
 
 -- Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee list --
 ("Senator XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
 
 (A * next to a Senator's or Representative's name means we're reasonably
     sure they already support us on SX-2 funding and development.)
  
  SENATOR         PARTY/STATE  PHONE     FAX        Office#
  -----------------------------------------------------------
  Bond, Christopher     R  MO  224-5721  224-7491   SR293
  Bumpers, Dale         D  AR  224-4843  224-6435   SD229
  Byrd, Robert          D  WV  224-3954  224-4025   SH311
  Cochran, Thad         R  MS  224-5054  224-9450   SR326
  D'Amato, Alfonse      R  NY  224-6542  224-5871   SH520
  DeConcini, Dennis     D  AZ  224-4521  224-2302   SH328
 *Domenici, Pete        R  NM  224-6621  224-7371   SD434
  Gramm, Phil           R  TX  224-2934  228-2856   SR370
  Harkin, Tom           D  IA  224-3254  224-9369   SH351
  Hatfield, Mark        R  OR  224-3753  224-0276   SH711
  Hollings, Ernest      D  SC  224-6121  224-3573   SR125
  Inouye, Daniel chair  D  HI  224-3934  224-6747   SH722
  Johnston, J.Bennett   D  LA  224-5824  224-2952   SH136
  Lautenberg, Frank     D  NJ  224-4744  224-9707   SH506
  Leahy, Patrick        D  VT  224-4242  224-3595   SR433
  Nickles, Don          R  OK  224-5754  224-6008   SH713
  Sasser, Jim           D  TN  224-3344  224-8062   SR363
  Specter, Arlen        R  PA  224-4254  224-1893   SH303
  Stevens, Ted RRM      R  AK  224-3004  224-2354   SH522
 
 
 -- House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee list --
 ("Representative XYZ", office#, "Washington DC 20515" will get mail to them.)
 
 *Murtha, John          D  PA  225-2065  225-5709  2423 RHOB
  Dicks, Norman         D  WA  225-5916  226-1176  2467 RHOB
  Wilson, Charles       D  TX  225-2401  225-1764  2256 RHOB
  Hefner, Bill          D  NC  225-3715  225-4036  2470 RHOB
  Sabo, Martin          D  MN  225-4755  225-4886  2336 RHOB
  Dixon, Julian         D  CA  225-7084  225-4091  2400 RHOB
 *Visclosky, Pete       D  IN  225-2461  225-2493  2464 RHOB
  Darden, George        D  GA  225-2931  225-0473   228 CHOB
  McDade, Joseph        R  PA  225-3731  225-9594  2370 RHOB
  Young, Bill           R  FL  225-5961  225-9764  2407 RHOB
 *Livingston, Bob       R  LA  225-3015  225-0739  2368 RHOB
  Lewis, Jerry          R  CA  225-5861  225-6498  2312 RHOB
 *Skeen, Joe            R  NM  225-2365  225-9599  2367 RHOB
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
 
 
(Print out the following proposed language for the FY'95 DOD Appropriations
Bill and pass it along to any Congressman you contact.  If we can get this
into the funding bill intact, we'll have taken a major step forward.)
 
    Proposed Language For
    Conference Report On
    H.R. 4650
    Department of Defense
    FY 1995 Appropriations Act
    
    (Page & line numbers refer to
    Public Print of 8/11/94.)
    
       Page 42, at the end of line 2 (in the item relating to
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force), add
    the following: "Of the funds appropriated in this paragraph,
    $50,000,000 shall be available for single-stage-to-orbit
    research and development (PE 63401F) at Phillips Laboratory,
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, for use for activities that will lead
    to construction of an Advanced Technology Demonstrator
    ("ATD") X-vehicle, notwithstanding the assignment by the
    President of the development of a single-stage-to-orbit
    X-vehicle demonstrator to the National Aeronautics and
    Space Admnistration."
        
           Page 181, after line 14 (at the end of title VII), add the
    following new section:
    
    1    SEC. 8154.  TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO AIR FORCE.
    2    The Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the
    3    Department of the Air Force for single-stage-to-orbit
    4    research and development (PE 63401F) the remaining
    5    unobligated balance of funds appropriated for
    6    fiscal year 1994 to the Department of Defense for
    7    the Advanced Research Projects Agency for such
    8    research and development.  Such funds may be used
    9    to finish the original flight test program of the DC-X1
    10  test vehicle and shall be available notwithstanding
    11  the assignment by the President of the development of
    12  a single-stage-to-orbit X-vehicle demonstrator to the
    13  National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    
                          *end*

Article: 6426
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #46  9/27/94
Date: 27 Sep 1994 22:53:19 -0700
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Sender: [email protected]
 
                  Space Access Update #46  9/27/94
 
I'm just back from a two-week road trip, so this will be brief.  I had a
couple spare hours before catching my flight west this afternoon, so I
dropped by the Longworth House Office Building just in time to hear about
the final results of the DOD Appropriations conference RE SSTO funding.
 
It looks like very good news.  We seem to have gotten what we need to get
started on a joint NASA/DOD high-speed X-rocket this year.  Given how bad
things looked as recently as Friday, this is wonderful.  (Friday's
reports were in fact accurate, but they were snapshots of an interim
stage in the process.  Things obviously improved in the final product.)
 
This does not mean we're home free, but it does now give us a heck of a
lot of leverage in A: seeing that one or more X-rockets are actually
built in a timely fashion, and B: seeing that we get the right sort of
X-rocket, the sort that can lead to radically cheaper space transports.
 
A side note: I hear "X-32" is taken; this will likely be the "X-33".
One wonders just what an X-32 might be...  More on what happened and what
all this might mean in the next few days.  
 
Heartfelt thanks to everyone who worked for this win.  
 
                              Henry Vanderbilt  [email protected]
                              Executive Director, Space Access Society
 
 
 
[Congressional Record, 9/26/94, page H9612 -- FY'95 DOD Appropriations
Bill language]
 
[final conference version of SSTO funding amendment.  This effectively
transfers the remaining $35 million of held-up ARPA money from last year
to USAF Phillips Lab via NASA.]
 
Sec.8106...
 
....(b) Of the funds provided in the Department of Defense Appropriation
Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-139), The Secretary of Defense shall transfer
a total of $60,000,000 to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA):  Provided, That of that amount, $25,000,000 shall
be transferred from Procurement, Defense-Wide, 1994/1996, and shall only
be used for LANDSAT 7:  Provided further, that of that amount,
$35,000,000 shall be transferred from Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, [RDT&E - ed.] Defense-Wide, 1994/1995, and shall only be
used for Single- Stage-to-Orbit research and development at Phillips
Laboratory, Alburquerque, New Mexico and, pursuant to the President's
call for a supporting role for DOD in this technology, the funds shall
be used in activities to support NASA-led construction of an Advanced
Technology Deomonstrator X-vehicle and to finish the original flight
test program of the DC-X1 test vehicle.  
 
 
 
[Page H9648, report language referring to a budget line item in the list
of Air Force RDT&E items on pages H9645/6, $30 million for "Reusable
Launch Vehicle Technology".  This goes directly to the DC-X/SX-2 people
at USAF Phillips Lab, if as seems likely 0603401F is the same as the PE
63401F we've been pushing for.]
 
 
SPACE PROGRAMS
 
The conferees agree:
 
.... (f) that the $30,000,000 provided for reusable space launch vehicle 
technology should be included in program element 0603401F;... 
 
                                *30*

Reformatted for a little easier reading...

Article: 4625
From: [email protected] (John Battcher)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: DC-X Update (KSC)
Date: 29 Nov 1994 21:12:18 GMT
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center
 
To all of you interested in DC-X: I received the following last week from Steve
Vogelwede of McDonnell Douglas-KSC. Steve has given his ok for this info to be 
posted here. (If you are wondering what connection KSC has with DC-X ...
McDonnell Douglas- KSC developed the launch vehicle checkout system
(the RTDS) for the DC-X  based on a system that they had previously developed
for payload testing (the PPCU) at KSC. Sorry about the acronyms! 
 
(beginning of Steve's message:)
 
DC-X News:

DC-X repair funds are expected this week.  The $1.5 million will cover all
repairs for the DC-X.  Additional funds have been requested to complete the
DC-X flight test series.

Plans are to return to New Mexico in January.  The first DC-X flight will be 
on February 16th.  Three additional flights will be completed in
February-April.  The DC-X program must be completed by April 15th due to
DC-XA schedules.  KSC will provide field support from January to April for
this effort.  The effort will be funded by the BMDO program office.
 
 
DC-XA Summary:

The DC-XA program will be a flight testbed for new technologies.  NASA from
MSFC in Huntsville will be funding the DC-XA program.  Several new
technologies will be integrated into the DC-XA.
 
Here is a summary of the new DC-XA Technologies:

	1.  LH2 Tank - New composite fuel tank being developed by MDA-HB.
	2.  LO2 Tank - New Aluminum-Lithium tank being developed by Russia
		with MDA-HB.
	3.  Thermal Protection System - New technologies from Dupont,
		Germany, and France are being studied.
	4.  Advanced Propulsion System - Aerojet is leading the effort to
		develop a Liquid to Gas Conversion system for the Reaction
		Control System.  This system will include composite fuel
		lines and an Aux. Power Unit for the DC-XA.
	5.  Composite Intertank Structure - New graphite composite intertank
		for DC-XA.
	6.  Avionics - A second Vehicle Management System Computer will be
		added and a new Flight Test Telemetry System is being
		procured to gather data from the new DC-XA systems.  The
		Advanced Propulsion System will also incorporate a new
		avionics box on the avionics 1553 bus.
 
RTDS/KSC Support:

The DC-XA program will use the same KSC RTDS system from the DC-X program.
Here is a summary of our KSC tasks for DC-XA:

	1.  Incorporate the new PCM telemetry stream (512Kbps) into the RTDS
		database.
	2.  Add 4-5 new applications to support the new DC-XA subsystems.
	3.  Add additional automation to existing DC-X applications.
	4.  Lead the FOCC  integration.
	5.  Lead the integration of the new DC-XA ground monitoring system.
		There are 3 new systems for DC-XA.
	6.  Upgrade RTDS Hardware
	7.  Incorporate PPCU Updates.
 
We will start DC-XA development work after the DC-X program is completed in
April.  Delivery of the RTDS mods is scheduled for August of 1995.  The
DC-XA assembly is scheduled to be completed in October.  The DC-XA will be
shipped to New Mexico for the flight test series on  Nov 1, 1995.  The DC-XA 
static tests and flights will all be performed at the White Sands Missile
Range.  The White Sands Test Facility will NOT be used for the DC-XA
program.  The DC-XA program will be completed in June of 1996.
 
There has been talks about a DC-XB after the DC-XA program is completed.

Stay tuned....
 
Steve
 
(end of Steve's message)
 
John Battcher/NASA-KSC   Payload Test Systems
[email protected]
Note: The usual DISCLAIMERS apply....
 

Article: 6893
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #48  02/09/95
Date: 9 Feb 1995 15:18:33 -0800
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Sender: [email protected]
 
Followup-to: sci.space.policy
                     Space Access Update #48 2/9/95
                  Copyright 1995 by Space Access Society.
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO)
technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO development cost while at the same
time increasing investor confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense
as a private commercial investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far
from that point now.  
 
Our major current focus is on supporting the government's Single Stage
Rocket Technology (SSRT) program, DC-X and its followon, the cooperative
NASA/DOD/industry project called "X-33".  We're also working on getting
development started of engines suitable for the fully reusable commercial
orbital transports that should follow X-33.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying
to orbit later this decade, with production ships a-building shortly
thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  
 
                 Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society
 
 
[For more info on Space Access Society, on our upcoming Space Access '95
conference (April 21-23 1995 at the Phoenix Airport Day's Inn) or on the 
DC-X/SSTO video we have for sale (Two hours, includes footage from all five
flights to date, DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, plus a G.Harry Stine White
Sands Missile Range travelogue):  
 
email:  [email protected] 
or write us at:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.]
 
[The tape is twenty bucks, fifteen for SAS members, checks only, VHS only,
all proceeds go directly back into running SAS, email SAS membership is
thirty bucks a year.  Apologies for this crass commercial message; it saves
people waiting on our alas wildly variable mail-response time.]
____________________________________________________________________________
 
          Stories this issue:
 
X-33 Approaches Initial Contractor Selection
 
DC-X Rebuild/Reflight Funding Finally Comes Through,
Additional DOD SSTO Funds Still Delayed
 
NASA Undergoing Major Changes, Much More Due This Summer
 
NASA RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicle) Team Takes Shape
 
Kistler Aerospace: Private Reusable Launch Outfit has Initial Funding,
Vehicle Development Underway
 
Space Access '95 Conference Set For April 21-23 in Phoenix,
Program Shaping Up Nicely
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Welcome to our latest issue, Space Access Update #48.  We continue at a
fairly long publication interval; last issue was Interim Update #47.5 of
January 13th 1995.  We expect things to heat up sometime in May, when the
Republican "100 Days" (plus the usual couple of weeks extra these things
take) will be done and the Congress will shift the majority of its attention
to the FY'96 Federal budget.  SSTO funding in DOD will again be an important
issue, and this year for the first time SSTO money in the NASA budget will
also be a high-priority item.
 
Over the last seven years we've created an opportunity for a revolutionary
reduction in the cost of access to space, with all that entails.  This coming
year will be a turning point: Either we'll get X-33 off to a proper start,
or it will be diverted into a futile never-fly white collar jobs program.  
 
At least this year we have a chance.  Interesting times we're living in.  
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
              X-33 Approaches Initial Contractor Selection
 
 
NASA released the final version of the X-33 CAN (Cooperative Agreement
Notice, a request for bids) in early January, as noted in Interim Update
#47.5.  The X-33 CAN looks on the whole a workable basis for the sort of
experimental reusable single-stage rocket testbed SAS advocates as
a way to get practical experience with the lightweight rugged hardware and
lean fast-turnaround operations needed for useful SSTO space transports.
 
Industry responses to the X-33 CAN are due February 24th.  So far, we know of
three likely bidders, all major aerospace outfits.  All three will likely get
initial contacts to refine their designs; the downselect to one (or possibly
two) contractors to actually build flight vehicles isn't scheduled until
fifteen months later.  Too long, in our opinion, but that's another matter.
 
The main question at the moment is just what design will each of these
contenders submit?
 
The three major bidders are:
 
 - The McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing team, run out of MDA's Huntington Beach
 plant by Bill Gaubatz.  Gaubatz and MDA Huntington Beach should sound
 familiar from the DC-X program.  Boeing's Livingston Holder is Gaubatz's
 second-in-command on the team.  
 
 - The Lockheed Advanced Development Corporation (better known as the "Skunk
 Works"), part of the soon-to-be-merged Lockheed-Martin aerospace giant.  We
 understand a gentleman by the name of David Urie will be in overall charge
 of the project, with Robert Baumgartner the chief engineer.  There was some
 question earlier on as to whether Martin Denver would push its own X-33 bid,
 but apparently a deal has been cut where Martin Denver will do the fuel
 tanks for Lockheed ADC's X-33 bid.
 
 - Rockwell Space Systems Division, with a gentleman named Chuck Scottoline
 as program manager.  Rockwell has been widely rumored to be pursuing a
 teaming arrangement for X-33 - we'd assume this will be with Northrop-
 Grumman, both because there's no other major US aerospace outfits left, and
 because Northrop-Grumman's physical locations would fit well in the
 traditional "contractor-in-every-district" approach to winning major
 aerospace contracts.  Rockwell SSD is, we understand, nothing if not
 traditional in these matters.
 
As for the actual vehicles to be bid, things are clearest with Lockheed ADC.
They will almost certainly bid their "aero-ballistic vehicle", a vertical-
takeoff horizontal-landing (VTHL) wedge-shape lifting body to be powered by
seven "linear aerospike" engines that will use much of the aft surface of
the vehicle as expansion surface - essentially using the whole back end of
the vehicle as an open-face rocket nozzle.  
 
Such engines were built and tested over twenty years ago, as a possible
propulsion system for Shuttle, and we suspect have been worked on since
then in relation to some of the "black" advanced aerospace vehicles Skunk
Works specializes in.  
 
One consequence of using such engines is LADC's reluctance to go for a
"subscale" vehicle for X-33, since scaling the vehicle up would require a
new size-matched engine development as well.  LADC's ultimate goal is an
operational vehicle 126 feet long, 85 feet wide, 1.6 million lbs gross
liftoff weight (GLOW), 87.5% of which would be propellant, with a payload to
due-east low orbit of 45,000 lbs.  They'll likely bid an X-33 of similar
size but simpler boilerplate structure and no payload, in order to avoid
scaling problems with any operational followon.  
 
Rockwell SSD meanwhile is playing their cards close to their vest, but as the
current Shuttle main contractor, they will very likely try to follow up by
giving NASA what they perceive NASA wants, a subscale version of NASA's
institutionally preferred "Shuttle II" configuration, a tubular-body delta-
winged VTHL vehicle powered by five large "tripropellant" (kerosene/liquid
hydrogen/liquid oxygen) engines.  The rumors and viewgraphs floating around
tend to support this view.
 
The MDA/Boeing team ought to be the most predictable, since the obvious thing
to do is to follow up MDA's wingless VTVL DC-X success with a larger VTVL 
X-33, something midway between the 1/3 scale DC-X and the full-scale "Delta
Clipper" MDA has been pushing these last few years.  (Last we saw, the
notional Delta Clipper was about 120 feet tall, about 40 feet across at the
base, GLOW somewhat over 1 million lbs, eight conventional bell nozzle
engines, with a nominal payload of 25,000 lbs to due east low orbit.)
 
MDA/Boeing is being very secretive, however, and rumors have been flying
around that they will abandon wingless VTVL for some sort of winged design.
Supporting this are Boeing's expertise with winged vehicles, and NASA's
perceived prejudice in favor of winged VTHL.  All this could of course be
deliberate misdirection by MDA/Boeing; such is not unheard of in this sort of
competition.
 
We'll skip the endless arguments over the advantages of wingless VTVL versus
winged VTHL for an SSTO space transport, and stick to observing that
MDA/Boeing has a major lead in wingless VTVL via their DC-X experience, a
lead that might be foolish to abandon by fighting the other contractors on
less favorable ground.  Add in the fact that there's a movement afoot to have
X-33 be a flyoff between two vehicles, likely one VTVL and one VTHL (SAS
actively supports this option; it'll cost more in the short run, but is far
more likely to give the US useful SSTO transports once X-33 has run its
course) and MDA/Boeing would be foolish indeed to abandon their position as
the sole likely wingless VTVL bidder.  
 
We should mention in this regard that NASA Administrator Dan Goldin has said
that NASA's RLV program will not be the first to face cuts just because it's
the last into this year's budget.  RLV is rapidly gaining wide support as a
national priority - the funding will be there.
 
As for NASA's perceived institutional bias in favor of wings, what ultimately
counts is who sits on the X-33 selection board.  Administrator Goldin is
engaged in a major reform of NASA and has already ridden roughshod over
plenty of other institutional biases.  
 
For now though this is mostly guesswork.  We should know more after February
24th.
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
          DC-X Rebuild/Reflight Funding Finally Comes Through
                 Additional DOD SSTO Funds Still Delayed
 
The $35 million in DOD DC-X/SSTO funding that ARPA sat on for a year has
finally gotten where it needs to, USAF Phillips Lab via NASA.  This will
allow NASA to be repaid for the funds they've advanced to DC-X, and keep the
DC-X repair and test program completion moving forward.  Last we heard, DC-X
should begin flying again sometime in March, and will finish flight test in
May if all goes well.  
 
This money will also let Phillips labs get work underway on a number of
other SSTO and X-33 related projects, including aerospike engine work and
purchase/test of Russian D-57 engines, a LOX/hydrogen engine of 70,000 -
90,000 lbs thrust that might be suitable for X-33 use.  
 
However, the $30 million in new FY'95 money we fought for this summer is
still tied up in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).  The ARPA $35
million might well still be there too, except for the fact that it was tied
to $25 million in LandSat funding that the White House wanted to go through -
"Mission To Planet Earth" and all that.  Clever move by whoever tied the two
together; we applaud them.
 
Meanwhile, the OSD Comptroller's Office is sitting on $30 million in SSTO
money, about half of which would go to X-33-specific projects, the other half
of which would begin development of a generic SSTO-suitable LOX/hydrogen
engine, a highly reliable and throttleable powerhead/combustion chamber
combination that could be adapted to various operational SSTO configurations. 
 
As we've observed before, engines are the long pole in the tent for
operational SSTO's; engines historically take longer to develop than any
other aerospace vehicle component.  The time to start SSTO-suitable engine
development is now.  
 
We understand that an anti-impoundement suit is in the works - only Congress
has legal "standing" to bring such a suit, and this year's majority party
may well be more interested in pursuing such than last year's.  Best perhaps
for all concerned if this particular funding is assigned a higher priority,
lest a precedent be established that will considerably reduce OSD's
discretion in deciding what's "pork" and what isn't.  
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
        NASA Undergoing Major Changes, Much More Due This Summer
 
There are a lot of unhappy campers within NASA lately, and it's likely to get
worse, not better over the next year.  The good news is that the final result
has a decent chance of being a leaner, revitalized NASA, leading the way
toward more advanced aeronautical and astronautical technologies for US
industry and scientific space exploration.
 
Some of the morale problems are completely outside NASA's control.  For
better or worse, NASA has historically been a preserve for white male
technical types.  The Administrator is widely blamed for new minority/female
hiring preference rules that are causing a lot of resentment in the ranks,
despite the fact that such hiring practices are pretty much government-wide
these days.  It's the Administration, not the Administrator, guys.
 
Also outside NASA's control is the ongoing funding squeeze.  NASA is having
to do more with less, and many are being or soon will be laid off.  The fact
that new hires are rare no doubt exacerbates resentment over minority
preference rules.  Administrator Goldin also doesn't seem to have bought
into the old NASA "keep the team together" paradigm that led to lots of
people on the payroll who had no projects to work on, post-Apollo.  He's
keeping as many useful programs as possible alive by ruthless trimming of
deadwood - and of course nobody is ever deadwood in their own mind.
 
Things are tense, and it's going to get worse not better for a while.  The
FY'96 budget just released calls for trimming NASA by $5 billion more over
the next five years.  Administrator Goldin has said that in order to deal
with these cuts he will have to radically restructure NASA, and that it's
going to be painful.  Goldin is going to be under huge pressures, internal
and external.  SAS thinks that he's headed in the right direction, however,
and deserves our ongoing support.  He may need every bit of help he can get.  
 
In a related matter, Shuttle operations funding is being trimmed on an
ongoing basis, against considerable resistance.  Care is being taken to see
that nothing vital to flight safety is cut - there are currently two
separate panels looking into what is and isn't necessary in current Shuttle
processing and flight ops.  
 
The problem is, flying a hybrid rebuildable/expendable rocket like Shuttle
has an inherent chance of catastrophic failure in the rough neighborhood of
1% per flight.  There are just too many components that are effectively
flying for the first time on each mission, and too many of these are safety-
critical with no backup.  The best QC in the world is all that keeps the
odds as low as 1%; typical expendable boosters fail at double that rate and
more.  
 
Odds are we're going to lose another Shuttle orbiter before the fleet is
finally replaced by new-generation vehicles and retired to well-deserved
prominence as groundbreaking spaceflight history displays.  
 
In the current climate, no matter why we lose one, it'll be reflexively
blamed on the budget cuts by the NASA old-boy net.  Watch for it.
 
SAS's position is that we hope NASA beats the odds and never loses another
orbiter.  But if it does happen, we believe the thing to do is find out what
went wrong, fix it, and go back to flying as soon as possible - in months
not years.  Until something better comes along, we need to keep Shuttle
flying.  
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
           NASA RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicle) Team Takes Shape
 
We hear that Colonel Payton's retirement papers will be approved and that
he'll be at NASA HQ running the overall RLV program by mid-February.  Let's
hope it's true; time's a-wastin'.
 
We hear that there will be an intermediate RLV manager at MSFC, between the
individual RLV project heads and Gary Payton at NASA HQ.  We're frankly
puzzled by this; it seems an unnecessary extra layer of management, more
likely to slow things down than anything else.  
 
We hear that the people running NASA's three main RLV programs at Alabama's
Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) will be as follows:  
 
 - X-33, Gene Austin.
 
 - DC-XA, Susan Taylor.  DC-XA will be the NASA lightweight rebuild of the
 DC-X once the current flight program is finished.  DC-XA is due to fly in
 1996 as a reusable materials and structures testbed.
 
 - X-34, Jim Kennedy.  X-34 still seems to suffer from confusion of roles
 between being an (illegal) government-funded competitor in the expanding
 1000-2000lb launch market, and a reusable hypersonic materials and
 components testbed.  SAS is reserving judgement, we await further X-34
 developments with interest.  
 
We're hoping to have someone from each of these programs talk to us at 
Space Access '95 this April, though we won't likely be able to pin things
down until after Gary Payton is on board and settled in.
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
          Kistler Aerospace: Private Reusable Launch Outfit Has
              Initial Funding, Vehicle Development Underway
 
Redmond Washington-based Kistler Aerospace is hard at work, building their
"K-0" DC-X equivalent proof-of-capability vehicle (aimed at first flight
late this year) and refining the design of their planned K-1 2000-lb payload
commercial reusable launcher.
 
KA has some solid space venture people behind it.  Walt Kistler and Bob
Citron were involved with the successful "Spacehab" middeck-extension module
that's flown on recent Shuttle flights before they started KA.
 
KA seems to have startup funding in hand; HMX Inc is doing engine development
work for them under contract, one indicator that there's some money already.
Last we heard, Kistler says they'll need $250 million total to get the K-1
into operation late this decade.  The one-ton class launch market addressed
by the K-1 is expected to be undergoing rapid growth at that point.  The
company is said to be putting considerable effort right now into lining up
funding for the K-1 development.
 
The K-1 will be a stage-and-a-half vehicle, a small LOX/hydrogen fuelled
almost-SSTO that will be launched on top of a peroxide/kerosene fuelled "zero
stage" to modest altitude and airspeed.  The zero stage will then do a
powered return to and vertical landing at the launch site while the K-1
vehicle continues to orbit and deploys a payload.
 
K-1 design has been evolving rapidly.  The "flying bedstead" zero stage seen
in Space News a while back is no more, replaced by a more conventional in-
line cylindrical booster.
 
Meanwhile, work is going forward on the K-0 low-altitude proof-of-competence
demonstrator.  This will basically be a subscale peroxide-powered zero stage,
intended to build engineering team experience and investor confidence.  It's
expected to fly sometime late this year.
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
          Space Access '95 Conference Program Shaping Up Nicely
 
                            Space Access '95
                Space Access Society's annual conference
               on the technology, economics, and politics
                 of Affordable Access to Space for All
 
        April 21-23 1995, Friday evening through Sunday evening
              at the Day's Inn Airport in Phoenix Arizona
 
Main Sessions:
 
 - Saturday morning: Space transport venture financing, organization,
 operations cost-control and commercial certification.  
 
 - Saturday afternoon: The X-33 reusable single-stage rocket testbed, with
 NASA and major bidder presentations (McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing team and
 Lockheed Advanced Development confirmed, Rockwell under discussion)
 
 - Sunday morning: Other funded reusable-rocket projects.  DC-XA, X-34,
 "Black Foal", Kistler Aerospace.  
 
 - Sunday afternoon: RLV politics presentations and roundtable discussion.
 
There will be a special Friday 1-4 pm intro session presenting space and
space launch basics for local students and anyone else interested.
 
 - Friday evening sessions will run 6-8 pm and 10 pm - midnight, possibly
 later, with a cash bar reception 8 pm - 10 pm.  
 
 - Saturday evening sessions will run from after the dinner break till
 midnight, possibly later.  
 
 - Sunday evening sessions will run from after the dinner break until 10 pm.
 
Evening sessions will consist of informal panel discussions on topics of
interest, rare space video footage, small rocket entrepreneur talks, and
miscellaneous other cheap-access-related presentations.  
 
Already lined up: * G.Harry Stine * Jerry Pournelle * Max Hunter * Gary
Hudson * Mitch Clapp * Jim Muncy * McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing * Lockheed
"Skunk Works" * Kistler Aerospace * HMX, Inc. * More to come *
 
SA'95 registration is $75 through March 31st, $85 thereafter.  SAS members
$10 off.  Student rate $45 (enclose proof of full time student status, SAS
discount does not apply.) Registration includes pre-session continental
breakfast Saturday and Sunday.  
 
Call 602 431-9283 for info on program book ads, dealers tables ($30 each)
and exhibition space, 602 839-2543 weekends for space art show info.  
 
SA'95 room rates at the Days Inn Phoenix Airport are $45 single or double,
$55 for poolside (poolside subject to availability.) Call 602 244-8244 for
reservations; mention "Space Access '95".  The hotel runs a free 24-hour
shuttle bus from the Phoenix Airport.  
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
 

Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 11:58:00 -0700 (MST)
From: Donald Doughty <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Space Access Update #49 3/9/95 (fwd)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [email protected]


Approved: monday
From: [email protected]
Subject: Space Access Update #49 3/9/95

                     Space Access Update #49 3/9/95
                  Copyright 1995 by Space Access Society.

Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  

Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO)
technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO development cost while at the same
time increasing investor confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense
as a private commercial investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far
from that point now.  

Our major current focus is on supporting the government's Single Stage
Rocket Technology (SSRT) program, DC-X and its followon, the cooperative
NASA/DOD/industry project called "X-33".  We're also working on getting
development started of engines suitable for the fully reusable commercial
orbital transports that should follow X-33.  

With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying
to orbit later this decade, with production ships a-building shortly
thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  

                 Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society


[For more info on Space Access Society, on our upcoming Space Access '95
conference (April 21-23 1995 at the Phoenix Airport Day's Inn) or on the 
DC-X/SSTO video we have for sale (Two hours, includes footage from all five
flights to date, DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, plus a G.Harry Stine White
Sands Missile Range travelogue):  

email:  [email protected] 
or write us at:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.]

[The tape is twenty bucks, fifteen for SAS members, checks only, VHS only,
all proceeds go directly back into running SAS.  Email SAS membership is
thirty bucks a year.  Apologies for this crass commercial message; it saves
people waiting on our alas wildly variable mail-response time.]
____________________________________________________________________________

          Stories this issue:

X-33 Phase 1 Contractors Chosen - No Major Surprises

FY'95 DOD Reusable Rocket Funding Still Held Up

DC-X Near Ready For Move Back To White Sands

Short SAS Editorial Rant

Space Access '95 Conference Info

          SAS Action Recommendations:

House Space Subcommittee Nears NASA Budget Markup, 
Support Needed For Enough X-33 Funding To Assure
Rapid Program Pace, Competitive Flyoff

____________________________________________________________________________

Well, things are heating up in DC sooner than we expected; the FY'96 NASA
Authorization is likely to be "marked up" sometime during the week of March
13th.  Meanwhile, Space Access Society's annual conference is just over six
weeks away, and while the program has come together nicely, there's always
one more thing to take care of.  We've no shortage of work to do.

In this connection, we'd like to ask those of you who haven't renewed your
SAS memberships in more than a year to do so.  We are going to get organized
to mail out actual renewal notices Real Soon Now, and nobody's subscription
will be cut off until we've sent you at least one notice, but frankly, we
need the money right now.  Things are tight.  It's still $50 for a year's
paper mail Updates, $30 for a year's internet emailed Updates if you have an
internet mailing address you can give us, any additional contributions
gratefully accepted and parsimoniously spent.  

Anyway, thank you all for your patience and support.  You've helped make
possible some major breakthroughs on the road to affordable access for all. 
We're not there yet, but we're a whole lot closer than a few years ago.  

                                          Henry Vanderbilt
                                          Executive Director
                                          Space Access Society
____________________________________________________________________________


             X-33 Phase 1 Contractors Chosen - No Surprises

Well, no major surprises.  There were rumors floating around in the last
couple of weeks that there was a fourth bidder for the X-33 project, Space
Access Inc. (no relation), a southern California company previously known to
us only as a likely bidder on the smaller X-34 lightsat launcher project.  

The rumors turn out to have been true, to our embarrassment - we were
convinced they were just the result of confusion between X-33 and X-34 - but
only the three major bidders, MDA/Boeing, Lockheed, and Rockwell, won 
Phase 1 X-33 contracts.  

These contracts provide $8 million each to cover fifteen months of X-33
detail design work, leading to a downselect to one or two designs to be
actually built and flown.  (SAS would like to see two X-33 designs in a
flyoff; more on that in the background for our Action Recommendations.) 
The companies will also be putting their own money into this.  
  
Details on the three winning bids have been tough to come by and will likely
remain so, due to this being a high-stakes ongoing competition.  We hear lots
of contradictory and fragmentary rumors, but we have little hard info to pass
along so far.  More when we know more.

X-34, meanwhile, was awarded to a Rockwell/Orbital Sciences Corp. team, no
surprise to anyone who's been following this.  X-34 grew out of an OSC
proposal for a reusable air-launched lower stage, and the project still
hasn't made up its mind whether it's a hypersonic X-testbed or a government-
subsidized commercial lightsat launcher.  Losing bidders were Space Access
Inc and Kelly Space & Technology, both new startup companies.  No word yet
on future plans of either of the two losing bidders.  

SAS's main concerns with X-34 are that the government's share not expand
beyond the promised $70 million, and that the existance of government-
subsidized X-34 not discourage private investment in new lightsat launchers.

____________________________________________________________________________


            FY'95 DOD Reusable Rocket Funding Still Held Up

We reported on this a month ago; nothing has changed, so we're going to
quote SAU #48 verbatim on this.

First though we'll mention a few additional facts:

 - It is official White House, DOD, and NASA policy that DOD have a role in
 reusable launch vehicle development.

 - This $30 million in FY'95 money was appropriated by the Congress for
 USAF Phillips Labs to allow Phillips to carry out these policies.

  - The OSD Comptroller is named John Hamre and the guy handling this issue
  for him is named Ron Garant.  

"...the $30 million in new FY'95 money we fought for this summer is still
tied up in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)."

"...the OSD Comptroller's Office is sitting on $30 million in SSTO money,
about half of which would go to X-33-specific projects, the other half of
which would begin development of a generic SSTO-suitable LOX/hydrogen
engine, a highly reliable and throttleable powerhead/combustion chamber
combination that could be adapted to various operational SSTO
configurations."

"As we've observed before, engines are the long pole in the tent for
operational SSTO's; engines historically take longer to develop than any
other aerospace vehicle component.  The time to start SSTO-suitable engine
development is now."

"We understand that an anti-impoundment suit is in the works - only Congress
has legal "standing" to bring such a suit, and this year's majority party
may well be more interested in pursuing such than last year's.  Best perhaps
for all concerned if this particular funding is assigned a higher priority,
lest a precedent be established that will considerably reduce OSD's
discretion in deciding what's "pork" and what isn't."

____________________________________________________________________________

              DC-X Near Ready For Move Back To White Sands

DC-X will be undergoing a pre-ship review this coming Wednesday, March 15th,
to make sure that all is ready for the repaired low-speed reusable rocket
testbed to be shipped back to the flight test site at White Sands Missile
Range in early April.  Flight test is tentatively set to resume in May,
completing the initial test series with 3-4 flights.

Component fabrication for the subsequent NASA DC-X-A lightweight upgrade
meanwhile proceeds, more or less on schedule.  Major components include
a Russian-built aluminum-lithium liquid oxygen tank and a graphite-epoxy
liquid hydrogen tank from McDonnell-Douglas.  The rebuild should get underway
next summer after completion of the current flight test series; major
components are scheduled to be ready toward the end of the summer.  

____________________________________________________________________________


                        Short SAS Editorial Rant

NASA Administrator right now has to be one of the most thankless tasks in
government.  The agency has long had a reputation for chewing up reform-
minded Administrators and spitting them out a couple years later; the major
NASA field centers have had considerable independence and political clout and
have not hesitated to use it to advance local interests.

Dan Goldin has spent several years now trying to reform NASA despite this,
with some success so far in the face of considerable opposition.  

Things changed this year; the White House proposes cutting NASA's 
budget by $5 billion total over the next five years.  Goldin's plan to deal
with this calls for major restructuring aimed at producing a smaller number
of more specialized NASA centers.  Projects are going to be shut down,
facilities are going to close, jobs are going to be lost - this may be for
the best in the long run, but it's going to be painful.  

But the alternative, preserving more jobs but then not being able to afford
to have those people do anything useful, is unacceptable.  The country
cannot afford a repeat of the post-Apollo budget cuts "keep the team
together" mistake.  We no longer have a comfortable lead in advanced
technology, we need NASA doing what it does best, pioneering new
technologies, (especially affordable reusable launchers) as efficiently as
it can with every dollar the country gives them.  

What we do NOT need is senior lawmakers from the majority party going after
the Administrator because NASA facilities back home are slated for cuts.  
If Goldin goes, whoever replaces him will face the same hard choices, and may
not make them nearly as well.

____________________________________________________________________________


                            Space Access '95
                Space Access Society's annual conference
               on the technology, economics, and politics
                 of Affordable Access to Space for All

        April 21-23 1995, Friday evening through Sunday evening
              at the Day's Inn Airport in Phoenix Arizona

Main Sessions:

 - Saturday morning: Space transport venture financing, organization,
 operations cost-control and commercial certification.  

 - Saturday afternoon: The X-33 reusable single-stage rocket testbed, with
 NASA and major bidder presentations (McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing team and
 Lockheed Advanced Development confirmed, Rockwell under discussion)

 - Sunday morning: Other funded reusable-rocket projects.  DC-XA, X-34,
 "Black Foal", Kistler Aerospace.  

 - Sunday afternoon: RLV politics presentations and roundtable discussion.

There will be a special Friday 1-4 pm intro session presenting space and
space launch basics for local students and anyone else interested.

 - Friday evening sessions will run 6-8 pm and 10 pm - midnight, possibly
 later, with a cash bar reception 8 pm - 10 pm.  

 - Saturday evening sessions will run from after the dinner break till
 midnight, possibly later.  

 - Sunday evening sessions will run from after the dinner break until 10 pm.

Evening sessions will consist of informal panel discussions on topics of
interest, rare space video footage, small rocket entrepreneur talks, and
miscellaneous other cheap-access-related presentations.  

Already lined up: * G.Harry Stine * Jerry Pournelle * Max Hunter * Gary
Hudson * Mitch Clapp * Jim Muncy * McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing * Lockheed
"Skunk Works" * Kistler Aerospace * HMX, Inc. * More to come *

SA'95 registration is $75 through March 31st, $85 thereafter.  SAS members
$10 off.  Student rate $45 (enclose proof of full time student status, SAS
discount does not apply.)  Registration includes pre-session continental
breakfast Saturday and Sunday.  Mail checks to:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd 
#24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  Indicate whether you want your organization's
name on your badge.

Call 602 431-9283 for info on program book ads, dealers tables ($30 each)
and exhibition space, 602 839-2543 weekends for space art show info.  

SA'95 room rates at the Days Inn Phoenix Airport are $45 single or double,
$55 for poolside (poolside subject to availability.) Call 602 244-8244 for
reservations; mention "Space Access '95".  The hotel runs a free 24-hour
shuttle bus from the Phoenix Airport.  

____________________________________________________________________________

SAS Action Recommendations:

                               Background
                               
The House Space Subcommittee is due to "mark up" next year's NASA funding 
Authorization bill sometime this coming week.  Word is that this will be a
quick markup, mainly aimed at removing new starts from NASA's FY'96 budget.
X-33 might well be considered such a new start...

What we actually need is an increase over the Administration request for X-
33, in order to get X-33 off to as quick a start as possible (delay means
danger of bogging down into a NASP-style never-fly technology project) and 
to allow sufficient funding for a flyoff between two contractors' designs.  

We believe a flyoff is very important.  It increases the chances of the
country ending up with a useful spaceship design greatly.  If we build one
X-33 and it's a dog, we're stuck with it; two ships far more than doubles
the chance at least one will work out - the ongoing competition will keep
the contractors' minds concentrated, improving chances of getting the sort
of ships needed to give us radically cheaper space access.  

In the long run, letting X-33 fail could be far more expensive than funding a
flyoff.  We're not that far ahead of the rest of the world in reusable rocket
technology; we could fall fatally far behind.

Recommendations:

Call, write or fax the offices of Sensenbrenner, Hall, and any Space
Subcommittee member whose district you live in or near to.  Ask that in the
NASA Authorization they fund X-33 at a level that will allow a competitive
flyoff.  

 -- Contact Tips

If you write or fax, keep it to one page.  Mention right at the start you're
writing about the FY'96 NASA Authorization, tell them what you'd like to see
done, then provide supporting details -- why you think this is good for the
country and so forth.  (The person reading it will almost certainly be an
overworked underpaid staffer.  If yours is the only letter they get, it
needs to be sensible and persuasive; if yours is the hundredth, it needs to
be easy to categorize and add to their running total.)

If you phone, keep it short and polite -- you're likely talking to that same
overworked staffer.  Tell them you're calling about the FY'96 NASA
Authorization, and ask them to fund the X-33 reusable rocket testbed at a
level that will allow a competitive flyoff.  If they want to know more, fill
them in as best you can, otherwise thank them for their time and ring off.  


And thank you all for your time and effort in the coming year.  This is the
first of many steps we're going to have to climb, if we're to end up the year
one year closer to affordable spaceships in our lifetimes. - HV


  House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

    (Chairman, Space Subcommittee)
  Sensenbrenner, F. James (R-09 WI)  1-202-225-5101 1-202-225-3190

    (Ranking Minority Member, Space Subcommittee)
  Hall, Ralph M. (D-04 TX)           1-202-225-6673 1-202-225-3332

  Tiahrt, Todd (R-04 KS)             1-202-225-6216 1-202-225-5398
  Hilleary, Van (R-04 TN)            1-202-225-6831 1-202-225-4520
  Harman, Jane (D-36 CA)             1-202-225-8220 1-202-226-0684
  Ward, Mike (R-03 KY)               1-202-225-5401
  Calvert, Ken (R-43 CA)             1-202-225-1986 1-202-225-2004
  Rohrabacher, Dana (R-45 CA)        1-202-225-2415 1-202-225-7067
  Salmon, Matt (R-01 AZ)             1-202-225-2635 1-202-225-2607
  Davis, Tom (R-11 VA)               1-202-225-1492 1-202-225-2274
  Stockman, Steve (R-09 TX)          1-202-225-6565 1-202-225-1584
  Seastrand, Andrea (R-22 CA)        1-202-225-3601 1-202-226-1015
  Largent, Steve (R-01 OK)           1-202-225-2211 1-202-225-9187
  Foley, Mark (R-16 FL)              1-202-225-5792 1-202-225-1860
  Weldon, Dave (R-15 FL)             1-202-225-3671 1-202-225-9039
  Traficant, James (D-17 OH)         1-202-225-5261 1-202-225-3719
  Roemer, Tim (D-03 IN)              1-202-225-3915 1-202-225-6798
  Cramer, Robert (D-05 AL)           1-202-225-4801 1-202-225-4392
  Barcia, James (D-05 MI)            1-202-225-8171 1-202-225-2168
  Hastings, Alcee (D-23 FL)          1-202-225-1313 1-202-225-0690
  Lee, Sheila Jackson (D-18 TX)      1-202-225-3816 1-202-225-6186
  Luther, William (D-06 MN)          1-202-225-2271 1-202-225-9802

____________________________________________________________________________


Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous

 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

To: [email protected]
Subject: SAS Political Action Alert 3/21/95 (fwd)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 12:43:17 -0500
From: NSS List Account <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [email protected]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 23:47:31 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: SAS Political Action Alert 3/21/95

              Space Access Society Political Alert  3/21/95

We should have a full Update out in the next few days; things are happening. 
Meanwhile, here's a short-fuse item where public pressure could make a
useful difference in the chances for near-term affordable space access.


SAS Action Recommendations:

                               Background

OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) wants to reprogram (spend on
something else) the $30 million in DOD reusable rocket funding they've been
sitting on since last fall, now that they've failed to rescind it (return it
to the Treasury unspent).  

There's a House-Senate conference due in the next few days to hammer out the
final details of an FY'95 supplemental appropriation for DOD, a bill giving
the Department of Defense some additional funding for the current year.

We don't want any extra money out of this supplemental appropriation.  What
we do want is the insertion of language directing that the $30 million we
(in theory) already have for this year should be released NOW to USAF
Phillips Labs, as directed in the original FY'95 DOD appropriation.  

It has been official White House, DOD, and NASA policy since last year that
DOD have a role in reusable launch vehicle (RLV) development.  This $30
million in FY'95 money was appropriated by the Congress for USAF Phillips
Labs to allow Phillips to support these policies.  The delay and diversion
attempts by OSD must stop.  

It looks like a conference participant will be ready to propose inserting
the language we need in the Supplemental Appropriation.  We need to ask the
other Representatives and Senators who'll be on the conference committee to
support this language, and we need to do it soon.  The conference could
begin before the end of this week.  

We have the actual list of Senate members of the conference, plus our best
guess as to who the House will send.  The conference will start once the
House is ready; we can't wait for a definitive list - but what we have is
likely pretty close.


                             Recommendations

Call, write or fax the offices of any Senator on the list from your state,
and any Representative on the list whose district you live in or near to.  

Ask them to support language in the Defense Supplemental Appropriation
Conference calling for immediate release of the $30 million already
appropriated for FY'95 DOD reusable rocket work at USAF Phillips Labs.


 -- Contact Tips

If you write or fax, keep it to one page.  Mention right at the start you're
writing about the FY'95 Defense Supplemental Appropriation Conference, tell
them what you'd like to see done, then provide supporting details -- that
DOD participation in NASA's X-33 is already official White House, DOD, and
NASA policy, that DOD experience with the (highly successful) DC-X is
important to the success of X-33, that funding release delay is on the verge
of seriously affecting DOD's X-33 participation, why you think reusable
rockets are good for the country's future economic and/or military
competitiveness, and so forth.  (The person reading it will almost certainly
be an overworked underpaid staffer.  If yours is the only letter they get,
it needs to be sensible and persuasive; if yours is the hundredth, it needs
to be easy to categorize and add to their running total.)

If you phone, keep it short and polite -- you're likely talking to that same
overworked staffer.  Tell them you're calling about the FY'95 Defense
Supplemental Appropriation Conference, and ask them to support language
calling for immediate release of the $30 million already appropriated for
FY'95 DOD reusable rocket work at USAF Phillips Labs.  If they want to know
more, fill them in as best you can, otherwise thank them for their time and
ring off.  

       House-Senate Defense Supplemental Appropriation Conference
                            Preliminary List

 Senators                             voice phone       fax

 Sen. Hatfield, Mark (R OR)         1-202-224-3753 1-202-224-0276
 Sen. Stevens, Ted (R AK)           1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044
 Sen. Cochran, Thad (R MS)          1-202-224-5054 1-202-224-3576
 Sen. Gramm, Phil (R TX)            1-202-224-2934 1-202-228-2856
 Sen. Domenici, Pete V. (R NM)      1-202-224-6621 1-202-224-7371
 Sen. McConnell, Mitch (R KY)       1-202-224-2541 1-202-224-2499
 Sen. Gorton, Slade (R WA)          1-202-224-3441 1-202-224-9393
 Sen. Specter, Arlen (R PA)         1-202-224-4254 1-202-224-1893
 Sen. Bond, Christopher (R MO)      1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149
 Sen. Burns, Conrad (R MT)          1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594
 Sen. Byrd, Robert (D WV)           1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
 Sen. Inouye, Daniel (D HI)         1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747
 Sen. Hollings, Ernest (D SC)       1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293
 Sen. Johnston, J. Bennett (D LA)   1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952
 Sen. Leahy, Patrick (D VT)         1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595
 Sen. Harkin, Thomas (D IA)         1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-7431
 Sen. Lautenberg, Frank (D NJ)      1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707
 Sen. Mikulski, Barbara (D MD)      1-202-224-4654 1-202-224-8858
 Sen. Reid, Harry (D NV)            1-202-224-3542 1-202-224-7327


 Representatives                      voice phone       fax

 Livingston, Robert (R-01 LA)       1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739
 Skeen, Joseph (R-02 NM)            1-202-225-2365 1-202-225-9599
 Rogers, Harold (R-05 KY)           1-202-225-4601 1-202-225-0940
 Walsh, James T. (R-25 NY)          1-202-225-3701 1-202-225-4042
 Myers, John T. (R-07 IN)           1-202-225-5805 1-202-225-1649
 Callahan, Sonny (R-01 AL)          1-202-225-4931 1-202-225-0562
 Regula, Ralph (R-16 OH)            1-202-225-3876 1-202-225-3059
 Porter, John E. (R-10 IL)          1-202-225-4835 1-202-225-0157
 Packard, Ronald (R-48 CA)          1-202-225-3906 1-202-225-0134
 Vucanovich, Barbara (R-02 NV)      1-202-225-6155 1-202-225-2319
 Young, C. W. Bill (R-10 FL)        1-202-225-5961 1-202-225-9764
 Wolf, Frank R. (R-10 VA)           1-202-225-5136 1-202-225-0437
 Lightfoot, James R. (R-03 IA)      1-202-225-3806 1-202-225-6973
 Lewis, Jerry (R-40 CA)             1-202-225-5861 1-202-225-6498
 McDade, Joseph M. (R-10 PA)        1-202-225-3731 1-202-225-9594
 Hobson, David L. (R-07 OH)         1-202-225-4324 1-202-225-1984
 Bonilla, Henry (R-23 TX)           1-202-225-4511 1-202-225-2237
 Nethercutt, George (R-05 WA)       1-202-225-2006 1-202-225-7181
 Neumann, Mark (R-01 WI)            1-202-225-3031
 Obey, David R. (D-07 WI)           1-202-225-3365 1-202-225-0561
 Durbin, Richard J. (D-20 IL)       1-202-225-5271 1-202-225-0170
 Mollohan, Alan B. (D-01 WV)        1-202-225-4172 1-202-225-7564
 Dixon, Julian C. (D-32 CA)         1-202-225-7084 1-202-225-4091
 Bevill, Thomas (D-04 AL)           1-202-225-4876 1-202-225-0842
 Wilson, Charles (D-02 TX)          1-202-225-2401 1-202-225-1764
 Yates, Sidney R. (D-09 IL)         1-202-225-2111 1-202-225-3493
 Fazio, Vic (D-03 CA)               1-202-225-5716 1-202-225-0354
 Hefner, Bill (D-08 NC)             1-202-225-3715 1-202-225-4036
 Murtha, John P. (D-12 PA)          1-202-225-2065 1-202-225-5709
 Sabo, Martin Olav (D-05 MN)        1-202-225-4755 1-202-225-4886
 Hoyer, Steny H. (D-05 MD)          1-202-225-4131 1-202-225-4300
 Stokes, Louis (D-11 OH)            1-202-225-7032 1-202-225-1339
 Dicks, Norman D. (D-06 WA)         1-202-225-5916 1-202-226-1176


Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous

            -- intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 19:32:42 -0700 (MST)
From: Donald Doughty <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Space Access Update #50 4/14/95 (fwd)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [email protected]



Subject: Space Access Update #50 4/14/95

                     Space Access Update #50 4/14/95
                  Copyright 1995 by Space Access Society.

Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  

Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO)
technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO development cost while at the same
time increasing investor confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense
as a private commercial investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far
from that point now.  

Our major current focus is on supporting the government's Single Stage
Rocket Technology (SSRT) program, DC-X and its followon, the cooperative
NASA/DOD/industry project called "X-33".  

With luck and hard work, we should see fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying
to orbit later this decade, with production ships a-building shortly
thereafter.  Join us and help us make this happen.  

                 Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society


[For more info on Space Access Society, on our upcoming Space Access '95
conference (April 21-23 1995 at the Phoenix Airport Day's Inn) or on the 
DC-X/SSTO video we have for sale (Two hours, includes footage from all five
flights to date, DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, plus a G.Harry Stine White
Sands Missile Range travelogue):  

email:  [email protected] 
or write us at:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.]

____________________________________________________________________________


          Stories this issue:


Short Takes - DC-X, X-33, NASA Cuts & Restructuring, Shuttle Contractor
              Consolidation, Volunteers Take DC, SA'95 Schedule Firms Up

"X-34" Questions

SAS Political Action Alert: Free The Pentagon Thirty Million!  
DOD SSTO Funds Holdup Threatening X-33 Schedule

____________________________________________________________________________


Short Takes...

                         DC-X Reflight Progress

We understand DC-X was moved back to White Sands on Friday, April 7th.  The
final DC-X test series (four flights, at increasing angle-of-attack/airspeed
combinations) is due to begin sometime after the first week of May, after
which the 40-foot tall reusable-rocket low-altitude operations testbed will
be shipped back to McDonnell-Douglas's Huntington Beach plant for rebuild
under NASA contract as the lightweight higher-performance DC-XA.  

                     X-33 Phase I Contracts Awarded
                     
NASA has signed contracts with the three succesful bidders for Phase I of
the X-33 project.  The contracts provide for $8 million each in government
money plus varying amounts of bidder funds and resources, to be spent on a
15-month initial design phase, leading to a downselect to one (or two if we
can get the money for a flyoff) team(s) to build and fly actual X-rockets. 
All the design teams plus NASA and the Phillips Labs people met in Los
Angeles this week; more on that when we know more.  

                  Proposed NASA Cuts Disproportionate

We note that the Administration's recent set of "reinventing government"
proposed cutbacks fell disproportionately on NASA.  We welcome the
restructuring of NASA that will accompany these cuts, but we'd rather see
the NASA budget stay level and the restructuring savings plowed back into
new projects to upgrade the nation's technology base.  

Meanwhile, the restructuring at NASA continues despite opposition.  A
rumored recent attempt by a NASA center director to go over the
Administrator's head to fight cutbacks apparently ended with that center
director taking early retirement.  Whatever actually happened, we are told
that Administrator Goldin has backing for his overall restructuring plan
from both the top White House and the top Republican House leadership.

                Shuttle Contractor Consolidation Likely

The idea of consolidating all Shuttle operations under one prime contractor
as a way of saving money is rapidly gaining acceptance; the main question
now seems to be the details, the timing, and of course, the contractor.  The
two leading contenders seem to be Lockheed-Martin, who through Lockheed are
currently lead contractor for Shuttle processing, and Rockwell, the airframe
contractor for the Shuttle orbiters.  Look for a hard-fought contest; the
winner gains hundreds of millions of dollars per year cashflow.  

We should mention here that SAS advocates continuing to fly Shuttle until
its wide variety of missions have one by one been taken over by more
specialized commercial reusable space vehicles, the remaining Shuttle
orbiters (we're bound to lose another at some point; we shouldn't let that
stop us) then going into honorable museum-display retirement.

              CSDC/SFF Volunteers Take Washington By Storm

Our congratulations to the volunteer teams that briefed fifty-five
Congressional offices on X-33 and the Walker Space Commercialization bill
during the week of March 6th, to the California Space Development Council
(CSDC) for recruiting them and and getting the ball rolling, and to the
Space Frontier Foundation (SFF) for briefing materials and DC support.  

The teams included David Anderman, Dr. Jamie Floyd, Joe Gillin, Mike Heney,
Charles Miller, Ben Muniz, Dennis Wingo and Ranson Wuller.  Well done, guys
- and special thanks to Charles Miller, who got the whole thing going in
the first place.  We were in DC ourselves recently, working a different set
of contacts on the same circuit, and it's no day at the beach.  

             Space Access '95 Conference Schedule Firms Up
              (April 21-23, Days Inn Airport, Phoenix AZ)

It now looks like we will have all three contractor teams giving
presentations during the Saturday afternoon X-33 track, as well as a high-
level NASA briefer and a representative from USAF Phillips Labs.  We also
expect a high-level NASA briefer on the "X-34" and DC-XA projects Sunday
morning, as well as Mitchell Clapp on "Black Horse".  Private reusable
launch company briefings include Kistler Aerospace, Kelly Space &
Technology, Space Access Inc. (no relation), as well as the rocket engine
firm HMX Inc.  

It'll be a good conference.  The informal evening programming is shaping
up, we still have rooms at the hotel in our Space Access conference block
(though you'd best reserve by Monday 4/17 - the hotel won't hold rooms for
us any longer than that; the place is filling up fast) and you have till
midnight tonight still to arrange 7-day advance airfares into Phoenix.  See
the SA'95 agenda appended to this Update for details.  

____________________________________________________________________________


                                "X"-34?

We'll lead this one off with a clarification.  Space Access Society
strongly supports the NASA/DOD X-33 project as a competition to build and
fly ASAP one or more fast-turnaround high-speed single-stage reusable
rocket experimental ("X") testbeds, with the goal of exploring and
demonstrating the feasibility of Single-Stage-To-Orbit transports capable
of the high flight rates and low support requirements needed to radically
reduce the cost of access to low earth orbit.  (By "radically reduce" we
mean an initial cost reduction by at least a factor of ten, with potential
for a factor of one hundred or more reduction as the market expands and
flight rates increase.)

Space Access Society meanwhile has been (and remains) neutral on the
NASA/OSC/Rockwell "X-34" partially-reusable commercial lightsat launcher
project.  We do however have some serious questions about this project.  

                       "X-34" Hits The Headlines

We do also know a first-class PR blitz when we see one.  An inert mockup of
the proposed Orbital Sciences Corporation HSRB (we forget whether this
stands for "Hyper Sonic" or "High Speed" Reusable Booster), more recently
and widely known as the OSC/Rockwell "X-34", has made the cover of Aviation
Week & Space Technology.  Not bad, when neither the (actually flying) DC-X
nor the (far more important) X-33 projects have yet been so featured. 
Perhaps the McDonnell-Douglas, Boeing, and Lockheed-Martin PR departments
should take lessons from Rockwell and OSC?  No offense, guys, but funding
for the far larger X-33 project is by no means assured.  

OK, serious questions time:

 - What is a commercial lightsat launcher project like OSC/Rockwell's HSRB
 doing with an X-number?  This is not an X-vehicle, it's a prototype for an
 operational satellite launcher.  Calling it an X-vehicle can only muddy
 the waters for genuine X-developments.  This is not even a Y-vehicle
 ("Y" is the designation for a prototype of an operational vehicle being
 developed for the government), as it isn't being developed for operation
 by NASA - since 1991, legally it can't be.  By law NASA must contract out
 for non-Shuttle launch services.  This is the OSC/Rockwell HSRB and
 nothing more, as best we can tell.  Kelly Johnson tried something similar
 a long time ago, attempting to get government finance for an operational
 fighter prototype as the "X-27".  He didn't get away with it.  

 - What is NASA doing subsidizing one particular commercial booster
 development in a rapidly expanding market (lightsat launch) that several
 purely privately-financed companies are either entering or are about to
 enter?  This looks like having a chilling effect on private investment in
 competing projects.  SAS strongly supports a free market in launch
 services, both domestically and internationally; this looks to us like
 government interference in the most important new space-launch market of
 the next ten years.  

 - What is NASA getting for paying $70 million toward HSRB development? 
 As far as we can tell, they get some practice in working in a NASA-
 commercial partnership, plus two dedicated NASA suborbital flights in
 1998-99.  The actual share of that $70 million going for technical support
 by the various NASA centers is $12 million; the other $58 million is cash
 payment to the OSC/Rockwell consortium.  Given the cost of a couple of
 high-performance sounding rocket flights, that $12 million might just be a
 more reasonable total pricetag for what NASA is getting out of this.

 The rest might be better spent to pay for similar NASA technical center
 support for other US companies trying to develop new lightsat launchers,
 in the style of the old NACA, thus encouraging growth of a new
 internationally competitive US industry.  We note in passing that NASA
 getting "rides" on early test flights of the resulting vehicles in
 exchange is a good idea - all benefits to NASA research aside, this should
 defuse possible future GATT complaints about export subsidies.

 - And finally, what is all this talk we hear about X-33 depending on "X-
 34" results?  The timescales are totally off; X-33 design(s) should be set
 by the end of 1996, while the two NASA "X-34" flights aren't due until
 1998 and 1999.  We've heard it said that "X-34" will break procedural
 trail for X-33 within NASA, and there is likely some truth to this; the
 NASA bureaucratic thickets do need thinning.  But tying X-33 to "X-34"
 this way sounds suspiciously like a way to justify delaying (and
 eventually killing?) X-33.  

____________________________________________________________________________


SAS Political Action Alert: Free The Pentagon Thirty Million!  

            DOD SSTO Funds Holdup Threatening X-33 Schedule

Background

There's not much new to this story.  Congress appropriated $30 million for
DOD reusable rocket work at USAF Phillips Lab last fall, but OSD (Office of
the Secretary of Defense) Comptroller John Hamre has refused ever since to
release this money, apparently with the support of his boss, John Deutch,
second in command at DOD and a longtime SSTO opponent.

A good part of this $30 million is supposed to go into direct DOD support
for X-33.  We hear it's getting to the point where lack of the money is
forcing hard decisions within the X-33 project in order to avoid schedule
stretchout.  We also hear that there's another effort afoot to rescind this
money outright - that is, to send it back to the Treasury unspent.

We already have strong support for releasing this money in the House of
Representatives; to date that hasn't been enough.  We need support from the
Senate as well.  Specifically, we need active support from one or more
members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC).  Given this, we
should be able to generate considerable additional pressure on OSD to
release the $30 million.  Support within SASC will also make it far easier
to get DOD funding for reusable rocket work in future, by the way.

SAS Action Recommendations:

This is a little different from our usual alerts.  There's no specific vote
or piece of legislation coming up on a tight deadline.  Instead, what we
need to do is make contact with individual Senators and/or their space
staffers, and persuade them that keeping DOD involved in reusable rocket
work at a low level (thirty to fifty million a year) makes sense despite
shrinking military budgets.  This should be an ongoing effort.

Look over the appended SASC list.  Write or fax any Senator there from
your state with as persuasive a one-page case for DOD supporting reusable
rocket work as you can make.  Mention right at the start what you're
writing about, tell them about the immediate problem with the $30 million,
then give supporting details -- why you think this is good for the country,
good for future DOD space needs, and so forth.  (The person reading it will
almost certainly be an overworked staffer.  If yours is the only letter
they get, it needs to be sensible and persuasive; if yours is the fiftieth,
it needs to be easy to categorize and add to their running total.)

If you have any existing connection with one of these Senators or with
their space staffer, try to use that to make contact and make the case for
releasing this $30 million, and for continuing DOD involvement in SSTO.
If you get a positive response, especially if you get a request for a more
detailed followup, please contact us here at SAS (602 431-9283,
[email protected]) so we can arrange support for you.


                  Senate Armed Services Committee List

("Senator XYZ, US Senate, Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)

Sen. Thurmond, Strom (R  SC)       1-202-224-5972 1-202-224-1300
Sen. Nunn, Sam (D GA)              1-202-224-3521 1-202-224-0072
Sen. Lott, Trent (R MS)            1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262
Sen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R TX)  1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776
Sen. Bryan, Richard H. (D NV)      1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867
Sen. McCain, John (R AZ)           1-202-224-2235 1-202-228-2862
Sen. Byrd, Robert C. (D WV)        1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
Sen. Cohen, William S. (R ME)      1-202-224-2523 1-202-224-2693
Sen. Coats, Daniel R. (R IN)       1-202-224-5623 1-202-224-8964
Sen. Smith, Robert (R NH)          1-202-224-2841 1-202-224-1353
Sen. Kempthorne, Dirk (R ID)       1-202-224-6142 1-202-224-5893
Sen. Warner, John W. (R VA)        1-202-224-2023 1-202-224-6295
Sen. Inhofe, James (R OK)          1-202-224-4721 1-202-224-????
Sen. Santorum, Rick (R PA)         1-202-224-6324 1-202-224-4161
Sen. Bingaman, Jeff (D NM)         1-202-224-5521 1-202-224-2852
Sen. Levin, Carl (D MI)            1-202-224-6221 1-202-224-1388
Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. (D MA)     1-202-224-4543 1-202-224-2417
Sen. Lieberman, Joseph I. (D CT)   1-202-224-4041 1-202-224-9750
Sen. Robb, Charles S. (D VA)       1-202-224-4024 1-202-224-8689
Sen. Glenn, John (D OH)            1-202-224-3353 1-202-224-7983

____________________________________________________________________________


Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous

 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --


                         SPACE ACCESS '95
                 April 21-23, 1995, Phoenix, AZ

Space Access '95 is Space Access Society's annual conference on the
technology, economics, and politics of radically cheaper access.  The
conference does not require formal papers from presenters and does not
publish a proceedings, in order to encourage presentation of the most
up-to-date possible information in an informal atmosphere.  (Presenters
may if they wish bring copies of supporting material for distribution
to interested attendees.)
   
The main purpose of our annual conference is to bring together players
in the emerging low-cost launch industry - businessmen, engineers,
political activists, potential customers - give them an overview of the
current state of play, and encourage them to talk to each other.  
At least one company presenting at this year's conference found its
initial customer at last year's.  We want to see more of this happen.
   
Space Access Society's sole purpose is to promote affordable reliable
access to space for all.  We believe that with an appropriate mix of
technology pathfinding, commercial non-interference, and regulatory
common-sense from the government, the commercial low-cost space launch
industry could see explosive growth over the next decade.

Conference Agenda: Daytime Sessions, 9 am - 6 pm

Saturday morning: Reusable Space Transport Venture Prerequisites
 - Finance & Organization, Paul Hans.
 - Ops-Cost Control, Dr. William C. Lewis and Eric Nelson, C.P.L.
 - Legal Environment, Les Tennen.
 - Vehicle Certification for Commercial Operations, G.Harry Stine.
    
Saturday afternoon: X-33
 - presentations by MDA/Boeing, Lockheed, Rockwell, NASA, and USAF 
 Phillips Labs.  
   
Sunday morning/early afternoon: Other Funded Reusable Launch Vehicle Projects
 - Kistler Aerospace, "Black Horse", HMX Inc., DC-XA (NASA and MDA), X-34,
 (NASA and possibly Orbital Sciences), Kelly Space & Technology, Space
 Access Inc. (no relation to SAS).
    
Sunday afternoon: Affordable Access Politics
 - presentations and roundtable discussion.

Evening sessions: panel discussions and presentations, details TBA
 - Friday 6 pm - 8 pm, then cash bar reception, then 10 pm - midnight.
 - Saturday 8 pm - midnight, two tracks.
 - Sunday 8 pm - 10 pm.
Participants include Max Hunter, Gary Hudson, Paul Hans, Hugh Gregory, Jim
Muncy, Jerry Pournelle, Henry Spencer, G.Harry Stine, Experimental Rocket
Propulsion Society, Pacific Rocket Society, more.  

At the Days Inn Phoenix Airport, 3333 E Van Buren, Phoenix, just north of
the airport, 602 244-8244 for reservations at the $45 Space Access
conference rate, free 24-hour airport shuttle.  Conference registration is
$85 at the door, $45 with proof of full-time student status.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  SAS Membership/SSTO Tape Order Form
         Checks only, no cash or credit cards.  Mail checks to:
    Space Access Society, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044

SAS membership rates are $30 US for a year's email Updates, $50 for email
plus mailed hardcopy ($25 extra outside NA), $250 for a year's corporate
membership (includes rights to internal excerpting and redistribution of
Updates), and $1000 for an individual SAS lifetime membership.  

The SAS DC-X/SSTO v2.0 video is $20 ($15 for SAS members), add $8 for
shipping outside North America, 2 hours of DC-X/SSTO material, VHS only.  

    SAS Membership _____ Tape ____ Donation to SAS _____

    Name __________________________________________________________   

    Address _______________________________________________________   

    City _______________________ State _____ Zip __________________   

    Email ________________________________________ 

    Evening phone ( ___ ) ________________________ (optional)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Path:
geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news2.near.net!news.d
elphi.com!BIX.com!hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Space Access Update #50 4/14/95
Date: 24 Apr 95 20:30:50 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com


TITLE: The $30 million in DOD reusable rocket funding that's been held up
since last fall has been pried loose finally.  We're told that most of it
should arrive at USAF Phillips Labs by the end of the week.

There are two "gotchas", but neither is fatal.  One, as much as $5 million
will be taken off the top as a "tax" to be put into some sort of DOD
contingency fund.  Two, there's some sort of holdup in the Air Force over
the part of the funds intended for TAV (trans-atmospheric vehicle) work.
In other words, no money for "Black Horse" for now.

But the money needed to support getting X-33 underway should be arriving
where it's needed within days.  This is good news.

                                      Henry Vanderbilt  [email protected]
                                      Executive Director, Space Access Society

Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 21:48:15 -0700 (MST)
From: Donald Doughty <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: X-33 breaking news FYI (fwd)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [email protected]



Subject: X-33 breaking news FYI

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cheap Access to Space Breaking News

For More Information, contact:
Space Frontier Foundation
Voice: 212/387-7787
Internet: [email protected]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
         Rohrabacher Praises NASA for Preserving 
         Industry Leadership of X-33/SSTO Project

    May 4, 1995: Washington, D.C.: Representative Dana
Robrabacher today praised NASA official Jack Mansfield for his
decisive action to keep industry - and not NASA engineers - in
charge of designing the Single Stage to Orbit X-33 Advanced
Technology Demonstrator.
    "Thanks to Jack Mansfield, NASA's leadership has sent the
rest of the space agency and all of industry a message; a new
day has arrived, and we aren't going back," said Rohrabacher.
    "We learned from the DC-X's tiny program office that the
fewer people giving orders to industry the better. The X-33
program builds on that by putting government engineers with
useful technical expertise in the role of subcontractors to
industry. Unfortunately, many people in NASA would like this
project to go back to the old way of doing business, where
bureaucrats tell industry how to build something. But
Mansfield's action makes it clear that won't happen."
    Rohrabacher delivered kudos to Mansfield, NASA's Associate
Administrator for Space Access and Technology, for declaring
that Marshall Space Flight Center engineers who carried out and
distributed to industry an unofficial SSTO design study would
not be allowed to participate in the X-33 Phase II Selection
process, or provide unrequested "support" of the RLV program. 
Mansfield's directive was issued in a memo to MSFC Director
Porter Bridwell. 
   In late March an independent MSFC study of SSTO design
options, which seemingly indicated a preference for a winged
body approach, was sent out to a wide distribution of NASA
Centers and industry officials, including all major X-33
participants.  This happened despite repeated assurances by NASA
and X-33 management officials that NASA would not allow any
internal institutional technical biases to influence industry's
development of X-33 designs or the bidding process.

                              -end release-

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Space Frontier Foundation, which coined the 
term "Cheap Access to Space", a catch phrase for 
radical change in space circles, is a grass roots 
organization of American citizens dedicated to 
opening the space frontier to human settlement 
as rapidly as possible.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
Subject: SSRT: DC-X Flies Again
Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 13:44:21 -0600
Sender: [email protected]
Mime-Version: 1.0




Contact:        Evelyn Smith
                McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
                (714) 896-1700

WHITE SANDS, N.M., May 16, 1995 -- The Delta Clipper Experimental launch
vehicle (DC-X) climbed into the skies over the U.S. Army's White Sands Missile
Range at 9:40.02 MDT today to resume a rigorous series of flight tests.
        The single-stage, vertical-takeoff, vertical-landing vehicle reached an
altitude of 4,350 feet flying at a constant angle.  During the ascent, the DC-X
traveled 1,150 feet from the flight stand.  The vehicle traveled laterally
until it was positioned over its landing pad located 350 feet from the initial
flight stand.  The DC-X touched down approximately 123.6 seconds after liftoff.
        "Today's flight and subsequent flights are a continuation of those
that were accomplished in 1993 and 1994 and are an expansion of the flight 
envelope similar to that done for new aircraft," said Dave Schweikle, director 
of McDonnell Douglas' DC-X program.  "The results of the technical 
demonstration will provide valuable aerodynamic data, launch vehicle rotation 
dynamics, and control system performance."
        Plans call for up to three additional flight tests this year.  The
DC-X will fly high-angle-of-attack maneuvers with sweeps of up to 180 degrees.  
These maneuvers will help to validate the computational fluid dynamics, control
system dynamics, and wind tunnel models used to design single-stage-to-orbit
vehicles.
        The tests will contribute more data about the flight environment
and flight characteristics of single-stage vehicles.  The series will also 
continue to provide data on the reusable launch vehicle's quick turn-around 
operations.
        Under the U.S. Air Force contract, McDonnell Douglas has resumed
flight tests almost a year after an explosion damaged the experimental vehicle.
        During the fifth flight test last June, an external detonation of
fuel cloud vapors caused by the ground support equipment damaged the DC-X.  
Despite a vertical tear in the vehicle's aeroshell during takeoff, the 
42-foot-high DC-X successfully executed a controlled emergency landing on the 
desert floor.
        McDonnell Douglas originally developed the experimental vehicle for the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization with the support of the Air Force
Phillips Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., and demonstrated its
subsonic maneuverability and airplane-like operability and maintainability in
suborbital flight tests on Aug. 18, Sept. 11, and Sept. 30 in 1993, and again
on June 20 and 27 last year.
        Following the conclusion of this year's flight tests, McDonnell
Douglas will integrate key advanced technology components into the
experimental vehicle under a series of cooperative research agreements awarded
by NASA.  The upgraded vehicle will be called the DC-XA, and flight tests are
scheduled to resume in 1996.  Phillips Laboratory will act as NASA's deputy for
Flight Test and Operations, managing the final DC-XA flights in 1996.
        # # #

Path:
geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!u
unet!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Space Access Update #51  5/16/95
Date: 17 May 95 05:15:44 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com


                    Space Access Update #51 5/16/95
                  Copyright 1995 by Space Access Society.
____________________________________________________________________________

Our apologies for the recent dearth of Updates.  There has been plenty going
on to report, but we've been tied up with problems a bit closer to home for
a while.  SAU #52 won't be as timely as we'd like, but it will be topical.
Meanwhile, one very timely item of news.  We just got back from New Mexico...
____________________________________________________________________________

                    DC-X Sixth Flight Test Successful

DC-X Test Site, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico -- The DC-X reusable
rocket low-altitude operations testbed took off under cloudy skies on its
sixth flight this morning at 9:40 MDT.  The test mission lasted just over
123 seconds, beginning with a slanted ascent to 4350 feet and 1150 feet
downrange, continuing with a horizontal translation to directly over the
landing pad (350 feet from the launch stand), and finishing with a vertical
descent to a normal landing.  

The next flight, to higher airspeeds and angle-of-attack, is scheduled for
June 2nd.  After that, there will be either one of two flight tests of the
"rotation maneuver", the end-for-end in-flight transition necessary for a
"Delta Clipper" style nose-first-reentry/tail-first-landing reusable space
transport.  These tests are only tentatively scheduled so far; if all goes
well the first of them could take place during June.

This flight had been scheduled for May 16th weeks ago, and took off within
forty minutes of the start of the nominal launch window.  The delay was to
fulfill new wind constraints imposed since last summer's external vented-
hydrogen explosion, constraints both for minimum wind speed and for wind
direction, to make sure vented engine precool hydrogen disperses harmlessly.

Preflight preparations began around 4:30 am, five hours before takeoff (we
are told there was an hour or two of slack for contingencies), and post-
flight draining of residual propellants and vehicle safing went quickly
enough that several dozen press and VIP's were allowed on the landing pad by
early afternoon.  Our main impression of the day was that DC-X operations are
getting more and more routine as experience with the system builds.

Among the notables present was David Wensley, McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace's
VP/General Manager for Reusable Launch Vehicles, the guy now in charge of
MDA's projects in this area (including their X-33 bid.) There were some NASA
people present as well, including the manager of the upcoming DC-XA vehicle
upgrade (components are already being built; the actual rebuild will get
underway once the current flight test series is done, likely in late
summer.) And in a foretaste of things to come when DC-XA takes up its role
as a flying testbed for NASA, a representative from NASA Ames was there to
check results on a couple of samples of Ames-developed thermal protection
material that flew on DC-X's base heat-shield today, exposed to engine
exhaust.  We hear one sample worked fine, one not so fine.  But that's what
experiments are for... 
____________________________________________________________________________

Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous

 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 7153
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #51.5  6/2/95
Date: 5 Jun 1995 04:47:14 -0700
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Sender: [email protected]
 
 
                    Space Access Update #51.5 6/2/95
                  Copyright 1995 by Space Access Society.
____________________________________________________________________________
 
Another quick and sketchy Update.  Trust me, y'all just don't want to know
what's been going on around here.  The good news is, there are a lot of
positive or potentially positive developments in the affordable access
field.  Here are some of the high spots. - HV
____________________________________________________________________________
 
                     DC-X Seventh Flight Postponed
 
The seventh flight of the DC-X reusable rocket low-altitude ops testbed was
scrubbed this morning at about 10:20 am MDT, due to spurious signals coming
over the vehicle telemetry channels.  The flight had been scheduled for 9
am.  The pre-flight sequence was at minus 2:03 and holding when the crew
decided the telemetry problems were bad enough they had to shut down for
the day.  Minus two minutes three seconds is the standard final hold before
tank pressurization, engine precool, and flight; it's where they generally
hold DC-X when waiting for proper wind conditions or test range flight
clearance.  
 
The ground crew has replaced a telemetry receiver on the DC-X vehicle.  The
next attempt at flight seven will be Wednesday June 7th, likely again with a
nominal 9 am MDT flight time.
 
Flight seven will feature an angle of attack sweep from 0 to 70 degrees
(with vehicle pitch up to 35 degrees off vertical), first test of the RCS
(Roll Control System) thrusters, max altitude near 6000 feet, and a fast
descent with peak speed around 200 fps.  
 
The next flight after seven will feature the first test of the end-for-end
flip maneuver required for a "Delta Clipper" style nose-first-reentry,
tail-first-landing wingless SSTO spaceship.  Flight eight should take
place in late June or early July.  
 
 
                           X-34 Developments
 
We're told that the Rockwell/OSC X-34 team has settled on the larger X-34B
version of their semi-reusable lightsat launcher, the version to be launched
from the back of one of NASA Johnson's two 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft.  
We also hear that they've gone from a one to a two-stage expendable upper
stage for the X-34.  Both changes we suspect have to do with growing vehicle
weights/reduced payload as the design is worked over by OSC's Rockwell
partner.  Both the larger X-34B booster and the two-stage upper stage would
tend to increase payload.  
 
Meanwhile, we hear the NASA portion of X-34 funding is for the moment pretty
well assured of smooth sailing, as the relevant staffers in both House and
Senate NASA oversight committees approve of the subsidy.  Announced plans
are for Orbital Sciences and Rockwell to each put up $50 million and NASA
$70 million, for a total X-34 program cost of $170 million.  Of the NASA
portion, about $12 million would go back into NASA to pay for tech support
work from various NASA centers.  The remaining $58 million would be a direct
subsidy.  
 
SAS disapproves of this subsidy, as it discourages private investment in
potential competitors in the growing commercial lightsat-launch market by
clearly signalling government selection of a favorite.  What smart investor
wants to go against a government favorite?  This is Euro-style industrial
policy, not the free market that has worked so well for the US, and is a
likely way to end up paying monopoly launch prices for lightsats.  
 
SAS is not, however, going to invest significant resources in opposing the
X-34 subsidy.  There are more important fish to fry.  (In that vein, SAS
recommends strongly against drawing conclusions about X-33 from the success
or otherwise of X-34.  Despite attempts to link the two, there is little or
no practical connection.)
 
 
                           X-33 Developments
 
There's very little specific we can say about all that's happening with X-
33 at the moment.  In general, the SSTO ops demonstrator program got off to
a rocky start, as overlooked aspects of the original X-33 program definition
(the X-33 CAN or Cooperative Agreement Notice) led the bidders to conclude
that their stockholders' interests would best be served by proposing designs
and followon plans aimed at immediately capturing the entire government
Space Shuttle launch market and cashflow.  IE, bidding "Shuttle II".
 
"Shuttle II" is not, however, what top NASA management wants out of X-33. 
There is considerable effort going into redirecting the program back toward
its original goal, one or more reusable spacegoing X-vehicles, intended to
fly as fast, high, soon, and often as possible, with intact abort capability
at all times, in order to explore and demonstrate reliable low-cost
reusable rocket operations.  More on the redirection effort soon.  
 
Our part of the redirection effort is to push for increased X-33 funding
levels, both to pay for the reduced corporate contributions to be expected
if X-33 isn't allowed to have moneymaking requirements grafted onto the
initial design, and to pay for a possible two-vehicle flyoff.  So far, this
is going well, both in the DOD and NASA budgets.  Stay tuned though, it's a
long funding season ahead yet.  Things may start getting interesting later
in June.  
 
 
                               Miscellany
 
Our Space Access '95 conference went extremely well, with briefings by all
three X-33 bidders, Dr Jack Mansfield, head of NASA Office of Space Access
and Technology, talks by a number of startup launch companies, and
presentations by experts on the political, legal, regulatory, financial, and
oh yes, technical aspects of cheap access.  Did we mention that a fellow
named Goldin was seen in the hotel Saturday?  Colonel Gary Payton, head of
X-33, was also around.  At this point, it's apparently no longer any sort of
secret that SAS was hosting some private meetings at the conference.
 
Space Access '96 will also be in Phoenix, April 24-26 1996 (Friday evening
through Sunday evening, hotel TBD) and will be a similarly intensive event,
with as much of next spring's latest developments in the technology,
politics, and economics of affordable access as we can bring together in
one place.  Don't miss it. 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 7167
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #52  6/11/95
Date: 11 Jun 1995 16:13:57 -0700
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Sender: [email protected]
 
 
                    Space Access Update #52 6/11/95
                  Copyright 1995 by Space Access Society.
____________________________________________________________________________
 
We're trying a slightly different layout this issue, moving the contents
listing up before the SAS policy boilerplate, and trimming back the policy
statement size.  The idea is to make it easier to find what interests you
in each Update.
____________________________________________________________________________
 
          Stories this issue:
 
DC-X Flight 7 Due Monday June 12, Flights 8-9 in Early July?
 
X-33 Roundup
 
   - X-33 Bidder Preferred Configurations Become Clearer As
     MDA/Boeing Finally Decides Vertical vs Horizontal Lander
 
   - DOD FY'95 Reusable Rocket $30M Hits One Last Snag
 
   - $100M for FY'96 in House Version of Defence Authorization Bill
 
   - NASA Budget Authorization Moving Forward In House
 
------------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)--------------------------
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO)
technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and thus
development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor
confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial
investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far from that point now.  
 
Our major current focus is on supporting the government's fully reusable
single-stage rocket technology programs, the low-speed DC-X, and its high-
speed followon the X-33 NASA/DOD/industry cooperative project.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying
into space repeatedly later this decade, and practical orbital transport
projects getting underway.  Join us, and help us make this happen.  
 
                 Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society
 
 
For info on joining Space Access Society or buying the DC-X/SSTO video we
have for sale (Two hours, includes footage from the first five DC-X flights,
DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, plus a G.Harry Stine/Henry Vanderbilt White
Sands Missile Range DC-X Flight Five travelogue),
      email:  [email protected] 
      or write us at:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
      DC-X Flight 7 Due Monday June 12, Flights 8-9 in Early July?
 
DC-X's seventh flight test has been rescheduled again for 9 am MDT on Monday
June 12th.  As of Sunday evening, the flight is still on.  The most recent
rescheduling (from Wednesday the 7th) was because of a combination of
continuing spurious telemetry problems, a scheduling conflict with another
project at White Sands Missile Range, and (we hear) much of the DC-X crew
wanting to be back in Huntington Beach for the meetings leading up to the
MDA/Boeing X-33 team's Friday decision on going for either a winged
horizontal lander or a wingless vertical lander X-33 configuration.
More on that in the X-33 Roundup section.  (We can be *such* a tease!)
 
Tomorrow's DC-X flight will be the last before the end-for-end "Rotation
Maneuver" test in early July.  Tomorrow's flight will include an aggressive
climbout and transition to nose-first horizontal flight, with the vehicle
reaching an angle of 60 degrees off vertical, followed by a pullup/slowdown
back to vertical hover with peak aerodynamic angle-of-attack of 70 degrees. 
The vehicle will then translate horizontally back to over the landing pad
at max altitude of around a mile, then do a rapid vertical descent with
peak velocity near 200 feet per second before decelerating and landing.  
 
After flight seven, MDA will spend a bit over three weeks analyzing 
results and feeding them back into the flight control software for flight
eight, the nose-first-horizontal-flight/tail-first-vertical-flight "flip"
maneuver required to land a Delta Clipper-style nose-first-reentry tail-
first vertical lander rocketship.
 
Flight eight should take place around a week into July.
 
We hear rumors that DC-X's current flight test program may wind up with a
flight nine rapid turnaround demo that same day.  Absent hitches or hardware
problems, it should be possible to fly DC-X twice in twelve hours or so, as
best we can tell from what we know of the preflight/postflight procedures
timing.  Such a fast turnaround demo would be a dramatic and unmistakeable
illustration of how radically DC-X has changed the entire rocket operations
paradigm, and a fitting cap to the baseline DC-X's career.  
 
DC-X is of course scheduled to be shipped back to MDA Huntington Beach after
the current flight series for conversion to the lightweight DC-X-A, for use
by NASA as a reusable materials and systems flight testbed.
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
                              X-33 Roundup
 
- X-33 Bidder Preferred Configurations Become Clearer As
  MDA/Boeing Finally Decides on Vertical vs Horizontal Lander
 
After keeping us in suspense all spring over whether they'd bid a winged
vertical-takeoff/horizontal-landing (VTHL) ship or a wingless "Delta
Clipper" style vertical lander (VTVL) for X-33, we hear that a series of
meetings between McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing managers and engineers in
Huntington Beach last week culminated in a configuration decision Friday.
 
OK, OK.  It's a Delta Clipper-type VTVL.  This isn't official yet, but
we've heard it from enough different sources that we're reasonably
confident it will be official soon.
 
Lockheed-Martin and Rockwell of course have already indicated their
preferred X-33 configurations.  Lockheed will bid a subscale version of
their "flying flatiron" VTHL "Aeroballistic Vehicle", while Rockwell will
bid a subscale version of their VTHL "winged tank" proposal.  
 
None of these choices are carved in stone, of course, with a year still
left before the downselect.  In particular, the number and type of engines
and the exact size of the X-33's to be proposed are still very much up in
the air.  The contractors will have to look carefully at engine-out
capability (which requires multiple smaller engines) versus maximum
performance in minimum size (which pushes towards a single large SSME or
RD-0120 class engine, existing smaller engines falling short of these in
performance).  More on these tradeoffs next issue.
 
 
- DOD FY'95 Reusable Rocket $30M Hits One Last Snag
 
It turns out the infamous $30 million in FY'95 reusable rocket money (held
up in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, OSD, since last fall) for
USAF Phillips Labs hit one last procedural snag after it was pried loose
from OSD last month.  It got to USAF Air Staff, but then someone read the
fine print of last year's funding bills which called for some sort of
report to be delivered to Congress before it could be spent.  
 
Several weeks later, a hastily assembled report is now waiting for the
Secretary of Defense's signature.  As soon as he signs and sends it to
Congress, USAF Air Staff should be able to finally deliver the money to
Phillips Labs.  With X-33 well underway and FY'95 ending September 30th,
time's a wasting.  
 
 
- $100M for FY'96 in House Version of Defence Authorization Bill
 
Meanwhile, Congressional support for DOD involvement in reusable rocket
work is growing.  The FY'96 House Defense Authorization bill now contains
$100 million for reusable rocket work at Phillips next year.  We hear
there's a reasonable chance the Senate will go along with this, or at least
not reduce it too much when the time comes to work out the differences in
conference.  
 
  Bill language
  From The House of Representatives'
  FY '95 Defense Department Authorization Bill (1 June 1995)
 
 H.R. 1530
 
  104th Congress, 1st Session
 
     Division A Department of Defense Authorizations
           Title II     Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
    Subtitle B  Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
     pp. 26 - 27
 
SEC. 211. SPACE LAUNCH MODERNIZATION.
 
        (a) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.---Of the amount appropriated 
pursuant to the authorizaton in section 201 (3) --
(1) $100,000,000 shall be available for evaluation of prototype 
hardware of low-cost reusable launch vehicles (PE 63401F) 
and
(2) $7,500,000 shall be available for evaluation of prototype 
hardware of low-cost expendable launch vehicles (PE 63401F).
        (b) LIMITATIONS.---Funds made available pursuant to subsection 
(a)(1) may be obligated only to the extent that the fiscal year 1996 current 
operating plan of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
allocates at least an equal amount for its Reusable Space Launch Program.
 
 
- NASA Budget Authorization Moving Forward In House
 
Menawhile, the wrangle over the separate multi-year funding bill for NASA
Space Station seems to be over.  The House Science Committee should be
marking up the rest of the FY'96 NASA Authorization bill in the next week or
two.  Going into the markup, there's $43 million for X-33.  Space
Subcommittee member Representative Dana Rohrabacher has said he'll work to
up that to $100 million, which by a remarkable coincidence is the amount
needed to meet the matching funds requirement in the House DOD reusable
rocket funding authorization.  
 
Stand by for possible action on this in the next couple weeks.  
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

rom: Donald Doughty <[email protected]>
X-Sender: doughtd@moon
To: [email protected]
Subject: ** DC-X Flight 7 Monday June 12,  Successful! **
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [email protected]


*** DC-X Flight 7 Monday June 12,  Successful! **

The DC-X lifted off 20 minutes early from its launch stand and successfully
completing the test flight.

(See the test flight description from SAS Update # 52, 11-Jun-95).

Tomorrow's DC-X flight will be the last before the end-for-end "Rotation
Maneuver" test in early July.  Tomorrow's flight will include an aggressive
climbout and transition to nose-first horizontal flight, with the vehicle
reaching an angle of 60 degrees off vertical, followed by a pullup/slowdown
back to vertical hover with peak aerodynamic angle-of-attack of 70 degrees.
The vehicle will then translate horizontally back to over the landing pad
at max altitude of around a mile, then do a rapid vertical descent with
peak velocity near 200 feet per second before decelerating and landing.

--

And just in case you missed this in SAS # 52.

- X-33 Bidder Preferred Configurations Become Clearer As
  MDA/Boeing Finally Decides Vertical vs Horizontal Lander

It's a Delta Clipper-type VTVL.  This isn't official yet, but
we've heard it from enough different sources that we're reasonably
confident it will be official soon.

--

Look like the Appropriations Funding Fight will be next. I'll keep you posted.

Don Doughty, Delta-Clipper List Manger
[email protected], 520-771-2668

Path:geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!math.ohi
o-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!news2.nea
r.net!news.delphi.com!BIX.com!hvanderbilt
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Space Access Update #52 6/11/95
Date: 13 Jun 95 16:28:16 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bix.com


DC-X flew successfully yesterday, by the way, twenty minutes ahead of the
scheduled 9 am MDT.  The vehicle was fuelled, the range was clear, the guests
and press off the bus and settled, so why not fly?  They did so.

The flight profile was fairly spectacular, by the way, with a 60 degree
pitchover straight toward the viewing site, so the ship was flying nearly
nose-first horizontal right at us, followed by a pitch-up past the vertical
to about 60 degrees off the horizontal away from us.  DC-X was flying toward
us tail-first, using the engines to brake to a stop in mid-air.  We were
looking straight up the rocket nozzles, four bright diamond-blue pinpoints,
for several seconds.

DC-X yesterday flew the most critical 120 degrees of the planned 180 degree
end-for-end "flip".  I expect the managers and crew will be a lot less nervous
come July 7th and the official first flip than they were yesterday...
                                      Henry Vanderbilt  [email protected]
                                      Executive Director, Space Access Society

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 14:19:42 -0700 (MST)
From: Donald Doughty <[email protected]>
X-Sender: doughtd@moon
To: [email protected]
Subject: X-33 in the news & congress info.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [email protected]


Thanks to Tim Kyger and Dr. Charles Lurio for workin the press.
If you like what you read here drop a note to Tim by senting it to
[email protected] and I'll pass them on.

...Don Doughty SFF-CATS, [email protected]

Here is the latest X-33 News:

NYT - Dr. Charles Lurio,
Space News - Pentagon Gives NASA's X-33 a Boost
Lt. Col. Jess Sponable, Air Force program manager advanced spacelift [at work]
Funding Dates,
Congressional Record, 
--
Kudos for Dr. Charles Lurio
by Tim Kyger

There is an article on the McDac/Boeing X-33 VL decision in Space News today.
Ditto also Aviation Week.  Both were, frankly, there because of Charles
Lurio.  Charles was also able to talk to a reporter at the New York Times
that he's chatted up for the last several years.  As a result, today there
was an article on the subject in the Times.  As a result of _that_, the NBC
Nightly News had a three line (but with picture of the X-33 ship) story on
the X-33 and the McDac/Boeing VL decision.

I might also add that Charles was responsible for picking at [on] McDac until
they released those photos to the [NY] Times, Space News, and Av Week.

Good going Charles!
--

>From Space News May 29 -- June 4, 1995 issue of _Space News_
page 17.

Pentagon Gives NASA's X-33 a Boost [Edited to shorten length]

by Ben Iannotta
Space News Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- A recent infusion of defense dollars is fueling
NASA's X-33 experimental rocket effort and keeping hopes alive
in the U.S. Air Force that the military may one day build its own
version of a reusable rocket for reconnaissance and space lift
purposes.
     Pentagon officials have now obligated a total of $75 million
for Air Force research in support of NASA's X-33 rocket project.
The X-33 will test the feasibility of replacing the space shuttle
and commercial rockets with a fully reusable, single-stage-to-orbit
rocket by 2012.
     NASA is studying potential X-33 designs under cooperative
agreements with three U.S. industry teams.  One or more of the
industry designs will be selected for a series of flight tests before
the end of the decade.
...
     In early May, Pentagon offficials bowed to pressure from Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) by releasing $30 million for defense research
on components and materials that could find their way onto the
X-33.  The money joins $35 million released by the Pentagon in
1994 after a similar battle with reusable rocket proponents in Congress.

...NASA to pursue what they need and the Defense Department to
pursue what we need in the reusable rocket arena," Lt. Col. Jess
Sponable, the Air Force program manager for advanced spacelift
technology, told _Space News_ May 22.

    ... A NASA manager said officials at Phillips Laboratory have their
work cut out for them to convince officials in Washington to let
them build their own reusable rocket.  "The [X-33] technology
is certainly applicable to both military and commercial systems,"
the NASA official said May 23.  "The central issue is that the Air
Force air staff cannot identify a need for a TAV [transatmospheric
vehicle] that cannot be met by some cheaper option."

     The SR-71, which is flown by NASA pilots as a research platform,
will play a primary role in the Air Force's effort to support the X-33.
Air Force officials at Phillips Laboratory plan to strap sections of a
new aerospike engine, built by Rocketdyne of Canoga Park, Calif.,
onto the SR-71 and test it in the spring of 1996.

     The Air Force will conduct the $8 million experiment under
NASA's cooperative agreement with Lockheed Martin Skunk Works
of Palmdale, Calif.  The company, which is one of three competitors
for the X-33 development contract, has proposed an aerospike
engine as the propulsion system for the X-33.

     Sponable said the goal of the test is to see whether thrust
vectoring -- a technique for steering a vehicle by changing the
angle of its thrust -- will be possible with the aerospike engine.
     Air Force officials also plan to ground test a Russian D-57
engine next spring to Russia.  The project would be carried out
through a cooperative agreement with Aerojet of Sacramento,
Calif., Sponable said.

     The engine, which is fueled by liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen,
is attactive to U.S. officials because it would fill a power gap between\
the RL-10 engine, which powers the DC-X suborbital rocket, and the
much larger Space Shuttle Main Engine.  Several of the D-57s could,
in theory, be used to propel the X-33, Sponable said.

--

Dates to Remember ---
by Tim Kyger

The House

The Appropriations VA/HUD/IA Subcommittee will mark on
Thursday 22 June (this Thursday).  On July 11, the Full House
Appropriations Committee wil mark VA/HUD/IA.  On July 19 this
appropriations bill will go to the House floor.

The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee will mark on
27 through 30 June, inclusive.  The full Committee will mark
the defense appropriations bill on Jully 12.  The bill will be on
the floor on July 20.


The Senate

The SASC will mark its FY '96 DoD Authorization Bill, S. 727,
during the week of 26 June.

--
Congressional Record, 
Thursday, June 15, 1995; 
In the House of Representatives; 
Page H 6012:

        Mr. SPENCE: Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. ROHRABACHER].
        Mr. ROHRABACHER.  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the 
distinguished chairman of the Military Research and Development 
Subcommittee in a colloquy.
        First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. SPENCE], and the former chair of the subcommittee, the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. SCHROEDER] for their support for 
continuing development of reusable launch vehicles.  This technology 
development will be pursued in cooperation with and support of NASA's 
Reusable Launch Vehicle Program.  As you know, this activity will be 
managed by the same DOD team which has so capably run the DC-X 
project, which had another very
successful flight on Monday.
        Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania.  Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
        Mr. ROHRABACHER.  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania.  Mr. Chairman, I would just say that 
the innovative approach being used in the DC-X project to demonstrate 
reusable rocket technology overcame bureaucratic as well as technical 
challenges.  The success of the DC-X is one of the reasons this committee 
believes that the Department of Defense should continue to play a strong 
role in reusable launch vehicle research.
        Mr. ROHRABACHER.  Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my 
understanding that the committee is authorizing $100 million in fiscal year 
1996 for developing and testing reusable launch vehicle technologies in 
support of the NASA-led X-33 advanced concept technology demonstration 
x-vehicle program.
        Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania.  That is correct.  This is pursuant to 
three administration policy plans: First, the President's space launch 
policy, which calls for the Department of Defense to cooperate with NASA 
in its Reusable Launch Vehicle Program; second, DOD's implementation 
plan for the President's policy, which calls for developing "space launch 
technologies which support DOD-unique interests in reusable launch 
vehicles;" and third, General Moorman's space launch modernization plan 
which calls for at least $120 million per year for a core space launch 
technology effort.
        Mr. ROHRABACHER.  Reclaiming my time, it is also my 
understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the committee's support for a 
cooperative DOD reusable launch technology effort is based on a clear set of 
policy goals, namely that: First, military space assets are increasingly vital 
to the warfighter, and therefore inexpensive, reliable, and frequent access 
to space is vital to national security; second, while an evolved expendable 
launch vehicle program will provide a near-term, incremental 
improvement in space access, foreseeable military and commercially 
competitive requirements for space launch can be best and most 
economically satisfied by fully reusable launch systems; and third, reusable 
rocket technologies also show great promise for space sortie and other 
global reach aircraft missions which could be performed by RV-based 
transatmospheric vehicles.
        Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania.  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman 
will yield further, the gentleman from California is indeed correct.  The 
committee is funding DOD's cooperative involvement in the NASA-led X-33 
reusable launch vehicle program first and foremost because of national 
security goals and requirements.  The committee believes that the Air 
Force's Phillips Laboratory team brings unique expertise and talent to the 
challenge of reusable launch vehicle research generally, and to the NASA-
led X-33 program specifically, a fact recognized by NASA in naming the 
Phillips Laboratory team as the X-33 deputy for flight testing and 
operations.  The committee is not attempting to use DOD funds to subsidize 
a NASA program, but rather to fund DOD personnel to strengthen and 
improve a NASA-led national effort which is vital to DOD as well as 
commercial launch interests.

#end#

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 09:58:58 -0700 (MST)
From: Donald Doughty <[email protected]>
X-Sender: doughtd@moon
To: [email protected]
Subject: One Small Step... V5, NO.6
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [email protected]





                        One Small Step for a Space Activist...
                                Allen Sherzer
                                Vol 5, No. 6

                           Changes in the X-33
      
There may be some changes afoot with respect to the X-33 program.  To 
understand these changes, we should first understand what needs to be 
changed, why, and how we should go about getting these changes to be 
made.

We have been working toward an experimental X-vehicle for several 
years now (DC-X, SX-2, and now X-33).  At the same time, we have been 
concerned that this program be executed properly so that, unlike all 
past efforts, we will see _demonstrated_ significant cost reductions 
(a factor of ten, _miniumum_), and thus a giant step toward opening up 
the final frontier.

In order to have the X-33 program done properly, we have been pushing 
for significant contractor cost sharing in the X-33, the idea being 
that if it was their money, they would work harder to make sure 
something useful comes from it.  Another major thrust has been to put 
and keep the contractors in charge of the effort; again, the idea 
being that the contractors know the market and are more likely to view 
X-33 as a stepping stone toward something they can build and make a 
buck on, not just an interesting research project which is an end in 
itself.  The theory is that the private sector knows business, and 
that the Government _doesn't_.

Both of these objectives have been met in the current X-33 program 
design, but they have had severe unintended side effects which are 
bringing about a rethinking on how the X-33 program really should be 
structured.  The most notable of these has been the desire on the part 
of some contractors to get a production vehicle out of the X-33 
instead of a true experimental spacecraft to prove the SSTO concept.  
As a result there has been a lot of fear in Congress and in the 
activist community (and in NASA as well) that X-33 may become "Shuttle 
II" and not work any better than Shuttle I did.

Perhaps we should have known better.  We cannot expect the contractors 
to invest hundreds of millions of $$$ whithout a clear payoff.  It's 
just too much risk, and we must remember that the boards of these 
companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.  In 
some cases, the contractors are literally betting their companies on 
the success of the X-33, and on their/our knowledge of just how 
elastic the demand for space access really _is_ ("IF we build it, the 
markets _will_ come..!").

So how do we get back to having the X-33 be a truly experimental 
vehicle, with little connections to markets, and without _having_ to 
have those connections?  We don't want a vehicle whoose rasion' d'etre 
is to prove out "business risks;" we want a vehicle that, instead, 
proves out the _technical_ risks and answers all of the open technical 
questions of SSTO.  What do we do to get a true "X" vehicle?

We need to do two things.  First, put NASA back into the driver's seat 
in specifying _requirements_ (note: that is _requirements_, NOT 
design).  The contractor teams need to be challenged, and putting NASA 
back in the requirements driver's seat is probably the best way to 
make that happen.  We are blessed with a NASA upper management in 
Goldin and Mansfield who honestly want to do SSTO in the right way.

Second, NASA needs to pay for more of the development costs of the 
X-33.  This will give NASA more project control (as per the preceeding 
paragraph).  At the same time, NASA must also provide creative 
financial incentives to the contractors.  My suggestion in this arena 
is to tie contractor profits/fees to the speed of the X-33.  Mach 25 
makes it to orbit, so let's pay the contractor 4% of the cost of the 
X-33 for each Mach number they are able to finally deliver.  In other 
words, if the X-33 vehicle costs, say, a billion dollars, pay the 
contractor $40 million for each Mach number of speed they deliver.  
They get the full amount if they make orbit.  Any bit under Mach 25, 
and they have to ante in at $40 million a Mach number.

These ideas for restructuring have been occuring independently in 
several places, in both the Congress and at high levels of NASA.  I 
think they show we are not looking at business as usual.  This is 
still a healthy, worthwhile program.

Now, let's have a peek at what some sources are saying that the 
contractor teams are thinking ---

Lockheed.
A lot of folks think Lockheed Skunk Works has something slick to show 
us.  Speculation is they are using X-33 to launder the technology of 
an existing similar vehicle or sheaf of experimental vehicles (call 
it/them Aurora if you like).  They have in the past implied that they 
think that SSTO is technically a no-brainer; that all one needs to do 
is to give Skunk Works the money, stand back, wait three years, and 
there it will be.  They may also come in with one of the lowest cost 
proposals to build an _operational_ SSTO.

On the downside, some feel that Lockheed Skunk Works can knock off one 
of a kind vehicles, but that large production runs are another matter. 
 But then again, in this case does it matter?  In the short run, small 
SSTO fleets are all that we'll need.  It will take a while (tens of 
years?) for markets to build.  (Maybe.)  In the meantime, Skunk Works 
must also contend with the rest of LockMart: Titan IV, Atlas, Proton, 
and LLV; all of whom are happy with the status qho.

McDonnell Douglas/Boeing.
McD/B have finally chosen to build a vertical, powered landing X-33.  
This VL decision is in large part due to the activist community, and 
to Dr. Charles Lurio's actions.  The McD/B team has been very 
responsive to activists (this is Good).  On balance McD/B may have the 
strongest commercial focus and the strongest desire to actually open 
the space frontier (and make some bucks at it, too).  Witness the 
recent McD decision to _commercially_ develop the Delta III, for 
example...

Rockwell.
At the end of May, Dan Goldin visited the X-33 contractors and was 
briefed by them.  About five minutes into the Rockwell presentation, 
Goldin stood up and reamed them out for being timid and wimpy.

This is not an good way to start a design competition.  Although I 
haven't spoken with any of Rockwell's people, several insiders and 
other observers have said that Rockwell's goal seems to be to use X-33 
to prove SSTO can't be done, and that NASA instead should simply 
upgrade the Shuttle (this same charge has, in some fairness, also been 
leveled against Boeing, too).  It is also rumored that Rockwell will 
soon buy Orbital Sciences Corporation, which Rockwell is currently 
partnered with on the X-_34_, giving them a high and low-end resuable 
capability (Shuttle, X-34).

Kistler Aerospace.
This may be a trump card for SSTO.  At this time it isn't likely that 
Kistler can get the money needed to build an SSTO.  But don't count 
them out.  Things change.  After the X-33 flies and shows that SSTO 
can actually be done, raising the necessary money will then not be out 
of the question.   A small, lean and mean company, Kistler could 
easily build and fly commercial SSTOs for a fraction of the cost of 
the big aerospace dinosaurs.  Don't snigger at Kistler.  They may get 
the last laugh.

Costs:
Sources say that the "RLV" vehicles (_not_ the X-33) weigh in at costs 
of between $6 billion and $16 billion.  This is for EVERYTHING, up to 
and including an operational fleet, and what is essentially a 
replacement of the entire existing Apollo ground infrastructure.  
Clearly this won't occur; financial realities will cause this to 
change (consider the DC-X's ground infrastructure for example).  The 
final numbers will be much smaller -- if not, we'll still be flying 
Shuttle.


                        Legislative Roundup

                           Good News
A source recently told me that at NASA and at contractor X-33 
meetings, that the expected reactions of space activists is always 
discussed as a major factor to be considered when making a program or 
technical/configuration decision.  This more than anything I have ever 
seen tells me that the hard work we have all put in *IS* paying off.  
We ARE players in the X-33 process, and we _CAN_ make a difference.

We weren't there for Station, and we weren't there for Shuttle, and we 
weren't there for Apollo.  We _are_ here, now, and for X-33.
 
                        Dates to Remember ---
                            The House
The Appropriations VA/HUD/IA Subcommittee will mark on
Thursday 22 June (this Thursday).  On July 11, the Full House
Appropriations Committee wil mark VA/HUD/IA.  On July 19 this
appropriations bill will go to the House floor.

The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee will mark on
27 through 30 June, inclusive.  The full Committee will mark
the defense appropriations bill on Jully 12.  The bill will be on
the floor on July 20.

                          The Senate
The SASC will mark its FY '96 DoD Authorization Bill, S. 727,
during the week of 26 June.


-- 
*******************************************************************************
*  Allen W. Sherzer        | "Nothing of importance happened today"           *
*  [email protected]      |   --Diary of King George III, July 4, 1776       *
*******************************************************************************

Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 08:06:59 -0700 (MST)
From: Donald Doughty <[email protected]>
X-Sender: doughtd@moon
To: [email protected]
Subject: SAS Political Alert 7/5/95 (fwd)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [email protected]



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 1995 02:38:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: SAS Political Alert 7/5/95

               Space Access Society Political Action Alert
                             July 5th, 1995

This is written in haste, in lieu of a long-overdue Update #53.  Forgive any
typos or sloppiness; it's late.

In brief, the hot non-political news is that DC-X should be taking off on
test flight #8 at 7 am MDT, Friday July 7th, to perform the long-awaited
end-for-end "rotation maneuver" test.  July 7th is, for what it's worth,
Robert A.  Heinlein's birthday.  

In politics, Congress is on recess this 4th of July week, many Congressmen
back in their home districts until Monday the 10th, when Congress goes back
in session.  The next few days are a good time to check the blue pages of
your local phone book, call your Representative's local office, and let them
know you support affordable space access and the NASA/DOD X-33 program.  Once
the weekend arrives, best bet is to go for the Washington addresses and/or
phone numbers again.

There are three key events in the coming week we need to influence.

(In brief, Congressional funding is a two-step process; "Authorizations" are
the shopping list, "Appropriations" are the checks actually written.)

First is the House Science Committee/Space Subcommittee's NASA Authorization
bill.  We need to ask members of this subcommittee to support increasing
NASA's FY'96 $43 million request for X-33 to $100 million.  Some possible
approaches: explain how reusable launchers can make space operations overall
more affordable, explain how reusable launchers can make Space Station both
cheaper to operate and far more useful in the long run, explain how getting
X-33 off to a quick start (possibly with a competitive flyoff) will bring
this nation the international competitive and domestic budget benefits of
this leapfrog technology sooner.  

Next is the House Appropriations Committee/VA-HUD Subcommittee.  They are
scheduled to mark up the NASA Appropriation at 9:30 am on Monday July 10.
Ask them to appropriate $100 million for NASA X-33, for the same reasons as
listed above.

Next is the House Appropriations Committee/National Security Subcommittee.
Ask them to match the House DOD Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Authorization
level of $100 million, and to put this in the Appropriation Bill language to
force the Administration to actually spend the money as directed - the
Administration has been foot-dragging on DOD reusable rocket work for two
years now, in defiance of the bipartisan will of the Congress, and gives
every indication of continuing to do so.  As for positive reasons why DOD
should be involved in reusable rocket work, see the attached "colloquy" from
the Congressional Record.  

Check the attached lists of members of these three subcommittees.  If
there's someone whose district you live in or near, please contact them on
this.  If not, contact the subcommittee Chairs and Ranking Minority Members.

If you write or fax, keep it to one page.  Mention right at the start what
you're writing about, tell them what you'd like to see done, then provide
supporting details -- why you think this is good for the country and so
forth.  (The person reading it will almost certainly be an overworked
underpaid staffer.  If yours is the only letter they get, it needs to be
sensible and persuasive; if yours is the hundredth, it needs to be easy to
categorize and add to their running total.)

If you phone, keep it short and polite -- you're likely talking to that same
overworked staffer.  Tell them what you're calling about, and ask them to
fund the X-33 reusable rocket testbed at a level that will allow quick
progress toward a competitive flyoff.  If they want to know more, fill them
in as best you can, otherwise thank them for their time and ring off.  


("Representative XYZ", "House of Representatives", "Washington DC 20515"
will get mail to these.)


House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

 (Chairman, Science Committee)           voice          fax
Walker, Robert S. (R-16 PA)        1-202-225-2411 1-202-225-2484

 (Ranking Minority Member, Science Committee)
Brown Jr., George E. (D-42 CA)     1-202-225-6161 1-202-225-8671

 (Chairman, Space Subcommittee)
Sensenbrenner, F. James (R-09 WI)  1-202-225-5101 1-202-225-3190

 (Ranking Minority Member, Space Subcommittee)
Hall, Ralph M. (D-04 TX)           1-202-225-6673 1-202-225-3332

Tiahrt, Todd (R-04 KS)             1-202-225-6216 1-202-225-5398
Hilleary, Van (R-04 TN)            1-202-225-6831 1-202-225-4520
Harman, Jane (D-36 CA)             1-202-225-8220 1-202-226-0684
Ward, Mike (R-03 KY)               1-202-225-5401
Calvert, Ken (R-43 CA)             1-202-225-1986 1-202-225-2004
Rohrabacher, Dana (R-45 CA)        1-202-225-2415 1-202-225-7067
Salmon, Matt (R-01 AZ)             1-202-225-2635 1-202-225-2607
Davis, Tom (R-11 VA)               1-202-225-1492 1-202-225-2274
Stockman, Steve (R-09 TX)          1-202-225-6565 1-202-225-1584
Seastrand, Andrea (R-22 CA)        1-202-225-3601 1-202-226-1015
Largent, Steve (R-01 OK)           1-202-225-2211 1-202-225-9187
Foley, Mark (R-16 FL)              1-202-225-5792 1-202-225-1860
Weldon, Dave (R-15 FL)             1-202-225-3671 1-202-225-9039
Traficant, James (D-17 OH)         1-202-225-5261 1-202-225-3719
Roemer, Tim (D-03 IN)              1-202-225-3915 1-202-225-6798
Cramer, Robert (D-05 AL)           1-202-225-4801 1-202-225-4392
Barcia, James (D-05 MI)            1-202-225-8171 1-202-225-2168
Hastings, Alcee (D-23 FL)          1-202-225-1313 1-202-225-0690
Lee, Sheila Jackson (D-18 TX)      1-202-225-3816 1-202-225-6186
Luther, William (D-06 MN)          1-202-225-2271 1-202-225-9802


House Appropriations Committee, VA-HUD (NASA oversight) Subcommittee

(Appropriations Chair)                    voice       fax
Livingston, Robert (R-01 LA)       1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739

(Appropriations Ranking Minority Member)
Obey, David R. (D-07)              1-202-225-3365 1-202-225-0561

(Subcommittee Chair)
Lewis, Jerry (R-40 CA)             1-202-225-5861 1-202-225-6498

(Subcommittee RMM)
Stokes, Louis (D-11 OH)            1-202-225-7032 1-202-225-1339

DeLay, Thomas (R-22 TX)            1-202-225-5951 1-202-225-5241
Vucanovich, Barbara (R-02 NV)      1-202-225-6155 1-202-225-2319
Walsh, James T. (R-25 NY)          1-202-225-3701 1-202-225-4042
Hobson, David L. (R-07 OH)         1-202-225-4324 1-202-225-1984
Knollenberg, Joe (R-11 MI)         1-202-225-5802 1-202-226-2356
Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-11 NJ)    1-202-225-5034 1-202-225-0658
Neumann, Mark (R-01 WI)
Mollohan, Alan B. (D-01 WV)        1-202-225-4172 1-202-225-7564
Chapman, Jim (D-01 TX)             1-202-225-3035 1-202-225-7265
Kaptur, Marcy (D-09 OH)            1-202-225-4146 1-202-225-7711


House Appropriations Committee, National Security (DOD Oversight) Subcommittee

(Appropriations Chair)                    voice       fax
Livingston, Robert (R-01 LA)       1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739

(Appropriations Ranking Minority Member)
Obey, David R. (D-07)              1-202-225-3365 1-202-225-0561

(Subcommittee Chair)
Young, C. W. Bill (R-10 FL)        1-202-225-5961 1-202-225-9764

(Subcommittee RMM)
Murtha, John P. (D-12 PA)          1-202-225-2065 1-202-225-5709

McDade, Joseph M. (R-10 PA)        1-202-225-3731 1-202-225-9594
Livingston, Robert (R-01 LA)       1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739
Lewis, Jerry (R-40 CA)             1-202-225-5861 1-202-225-6498
Skeen, Joseph (R-02 NM)            1-202-225-2365 1-202-225-9599
Hobson, David L. (R-07 OH)         1-202-225-4324 1-202-225-1984
Bonilla, Henry (R-23 TX)           1-202-225-4511 1-202-225-2237
Nethercutt, George (R-05 WA)       1-202-225-2006 1-202-225-7181
Neumann, Mark (R-01 WI)
Dicks, Norman D. (D-06 WA)         1-202-225-5916 1-202-226-1176
Wilson, Charles (D-02 TX)          1-202-225-2401 1-202-225-1764
Hefner, Bill (D-08 NC)             1-202-225-3715 1-202-225-4036
Sabo, Martin Olav (D-05 MN)        1-202-225-4755 1-202-225-4886



>From the Congressional Record, 
Thursday, June 15, 1995; 
In the House of Representatives; 
Page H 6012:

        Mr. SPENCE: Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. ROHRABACHER].
        Mr. ROHRABACHER.  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the 
distinguished chairman of the Military Research and Development 
Subcommittee in a colloquy.
        First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. SPENCE], and the former chair of the subcommittee, the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. SCHROEDER] for their support for 
continuing development of reusable launch vehicles.  This technology 
development will be pursued in cooperation with and support of NASA's 
Reusable Launch Vehicle Program.  As you know, this activity will be 
managed by the same DOD team which has so capably run the DC-X 
project, which had another very
successful flight on Monday.
        Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania.  Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
        Mr. ROHRABACHER.  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania.  Mr. Chairman, I would just say that 
the innovative approach being used in the DC-X project to demonstrate 
reusable rocket technology overcame bureaucratic as well as technical 
challenges.  The success of the DC-X is one of the reasons this committee 
believes that the Department of Defense should continue to play a strong 
role in reusable launch vehicle research.
        Mr. ROHRABACHER.  Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my 
understanding that the committee is authorizing $100 million in fiscal year 
1996 for developing and testing reusable launch vehicle technologies in 
support of the NASA-led X-33 advanced concept technology demonstration 
x-vehicle program.
        Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania.  That is correct.  This is pursuant to 
three administration policy plans: First, the President's space launch 
policy, which calls for the Department of Defense to cooperate with NASA 
in its Reusable Launch Vehicle Program; second, DOD's implementation 
plan for the President's policy, which calls for developing "space launch 
technologies which support DOD-unique interests in reusable launch 
vehicles;" and third, General Moorman's space launch modernization plan 
which calls for at least $120 million per year for a core space launch 
technology effort.
        Mr. ROHRABACHER.  Reclaiming my time, it is also my 
understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the committee's support for a 
cooperative DOD reusable launch technology effort is based on a clear set of 
policy goals, namely that: First, military space assets are increasingly vital 
to the warfighter, and therefore inexpensive, reliable, and frequent access 
to space is vital to national security; second, while an evolved expendable 
launch vehicle program will provide a near-term, incremental 
improvement in space access, foreseeable military and commercially 
competitive requirements for space launch can be best and most 
economically satisfied by fully reusable launch systems; and third, reusable 
rocket technologies also show great promise for space sortie and other 
global reach aircraft missions which could be performed by RV-based 
transatmospheric vehicles.
        Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania.  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman 
will yield further, the gentleman from California is indeed correct.  The 
committee is funding DOD's cooperative involvement in the NASA-led X-33 
reusable launch vehicle program first and foremost because of national 
security goals and requirements.  The committee believes that the Air 
Force's Phillips Laboratory team brings unique expertise and talent to the 
challenge of reusable launch vehicle research generally, and to the NASA-
led X-33 program specifically, a fact recognized by NASA in naming the 
Phillips Laboratory team as the X-33 deputy for flight testing and 
operations.  The committee is not attempting to use DOD funds to subsidize 
a NASA program, but rather to fund DOD personnel to strengthen and 
improve a NASA-led national effort which is vital to DOD as well as 
commercial launch interests.


Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous

Article: 8219
From: [email protected] (DavidA5625)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: "Swoop of Death" Flight Successful
Date: 7 Jul 1995 15:17:08 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
 
Space Frontier Foundation News Release: 7/7/95 
Contact: Rick Tumlinson @ (212) 387-7887 
 
      DC-X Spacecraft Performs "Swoop of Death" Maneuver
 
The DC-X prototype Single Stage to Orbit vehicle today 
successfully completed the most difficult mission to date in its 
test flight series, a pitchover maneuver that required the spacecraft
to fly virtually upside down before landing at its White Sands
test site. With this successful pitchover flight, the DC-X test 
flight series is now complete. 
 
The DC-X prototype was built to prove new technologies critical
to the development of totally reusable space launch vehicles,
and will serve in the near future as a testbed for NASA's X-33 
Reusable Launch Vehicle program. Among the technologies demonstrated 
by DC-X are: multiple reuse of rocket engines without the benefit 
of refurbishment, rapid turnaround between launches, vertical 
landing via rocket engine, reduced number of ground crew and mission 
controllers, and intact abort capability.  "It seems that 
every time that DC-X flies, it further disproves the 
assumption that rockets can't be operated like airliners," 
says Space Frontier Foundation President Rick Tumlinson.  
 
With the last DC-X test flight complete, the next hurdle
in producing cheap access to space is funding for X-33, 
a public/private cooperative venture aimed at proving 
Single Stage to Orbit technologies in or near low Earth 
orbit. On Monday, July 10, several Congressional
committees will consider funding for the X-33 program.
 
The Space Frontier Foundation, which coined the term "Cheap 
Access to Space",  a catch phrase for radical change in space 
circles, is a grass roots organization of American citizens 
dedicated to opening the space frontier to human settlement 
as rapidly as possible.   For more information on the 
Foundation, call 1-800-78SPACE, or E-mail: 
[email protected].
 
                            -30-
    

Article: 7260
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #53  7/10/95
Date: 10 Jul 1995 23:47:21 -0700
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Sender: [email protected]
 
 
                     Space Access Update #53 7/10/95
                  Copyright 1995 by Space Access Society.
____________________________________________________________________________
 
  DC-X Rounds Out Test Program With Major Success, Minor Disappointment
 
DC-X, as such, has flown for the last time, eight flight tests and almost
two years after "the little rocket that could" changed the world by taking
off, hovering, then landing again under micrometrically precise control,
from an austere pad in the middle of the desert, with a ground crew numbered
in dozens not thousands, on a budget counted in millions not billions.  
 
It wasn't really "the end of an era"; if anything it was more the start of
one.  Either way, a lot of people showed up to climb on the buses at 4 am on
Friday July 7th - which would have been Robert Heinlein's 88th birthday. 
There were a lot of White Sands Missile Range veterans, coincidentally in
town for the 50th anniversary of the range's founding - it seemed only
appropriate that Wehrner Von Braun's brother and Robert Goddard's chief
assistant were there that morning.  
 
McDonnell-Douglas had a lot of their own people out to see this flight. 
MDA's X-33 partner, Boeing, had some people there too, notably Livingston
Holder, overall head of the MDA/Boeing X-33 team.  There was a scattering of
political types too, including longtime SSTO supporter Representative Dana
Rohrabacher.  And heck, we at SAS even got a few of our people in.  It was
quite a crowd, estimated by one local paper at 350, milling around in the
New Mexico dawn.  
 
Here's a look at what happened last Friday between 7:02 and 7:04 am.
 
There were two main plans for the day's testing.  First and foremost was to
test the powered end-for-end vehicle rotation maneuver needed to transition
from nose-first reentry to tail-first landing of a Delta Clipper-type SSTO.
 
(By the way, this was not the "death swoop" - that was the name for a purely
aerodynamic rotation maneuver, one that would have started with the vehicle
diving steeply to near ground level, then pulling up sharply to the
equivalent of an aerobatic hammerhead stall, killing all airspeed with the
nose pointed straight up.  The engines would then be throttled up as the
vehicle began to drop tail-first toward the landing pad.  Alas, early flight
test data indicated DC-X doesn't have sufficient aerodynamic control
authority for this; some fairly large fins would have had to be added. 
MDA/Boeing elected to go with a powered-rotation X-33, [fuel is easier to
add than fins] and Friday's test was of a primarily engine-powered rotation.
The "death swoop" was dropped.  Future passengers are no doubt relieved.)
 
After a normal tank pressurization/engine precool/engine start sequence, the
rotation test started with a quick climb to about 6000 feet, then a gradual
westward noseover to horizontal flight, straight toward the viewing stands,
flying at near 8000 feet now.  Nominal maximum nose-down attitude at this
stage was ten degrees, but it was hard to tell by eye, as we were looking up
at DC-X at about a thirty degree angle, the viewing stands being about three
miles from the launch pad.  From our point of view, DC-X's nose was still
pointed somewhat above us.
 
DC-X then pulled its nose up, past the vertical and far enough beyond so
we ended up seeing the rocket nozzles pointing straight at us only briefly,
the rotation continuing until the engines were aimed above us.  
 
DC-X then did a second rotation, swinging its tail down and away from us to
the point where it was almost nose-on to us again.
 
The vehicle then swung back to a vertical attitude and began its descent
toward the landing pad.
 
All this is from memory; we don't have video of the flight.  Yet.  More on
specifics of the maneuvering in a couple days, if anything of interest shows
up on the tape.  In general, though, the DC-X team seems to have proven 
the powered rotation maneuver - the vehicle seemed under control and the
engines burning steadily (uncovering a propellant inlet would not be good,
but the internal tank baffles seem to have done the job) throughout these
radical attitude changes.  
 
The day's secondary test agenda was a "quick turnaround" demo, aiming at a
three-day turnaround (there's already been a seven-day turnaround, meeting
the X-33 CAN spec) and possibly even going for a spectacular same-day twelve
hour turnaround, if every last little thing went well.  Flight nine otherwise
would have broken little new ground; all the essential aerodynamic data was
in hand after flight eight.
 
Every last little thing didn't go well, however.  As best we can piece
together the various accounts, DC-X's flight control computer looked at radar
altimeter data at a time when the data wasn't valid, and ended up setting an
excessive descent rate, closer to 250 feet per second than the nominal 165
fps.  Previous maximum descent rate had been 200 fps, on flight seven.  The
result was a descent that was obviously faster than normal to the eye, right
down to the pad.  The landing gear seemed to come out later and closer to
the ground than usual.
 
The flight control computer apparently caught the error at the last second
and throttled the engines up to 100% just in time to brake the touchdown to
14 fps, not much under the 20 fps design max, and considerably higher than
the 4 fps goal.  The result was a considerably harder landing than usual.
 
DC-X's gear is apparently designed with two stages of crushable honeycomb
material in the gear supports; the first lower-density stage was duly
crushed.  These one-shot shock absorbers are designed to be field-replaced in
a few hours if they get used; a quick turnaround wasn't out of the question
just on this account.
 
However, the hard landing did something unexpected, cracking the aeroshell
for several feet at a point on the vehicle side where a hydrogen vent passes
through.  Then after the vehicle had sat on the ground for a time, the
aeroshell began to buckle slightly around the vehicle midsection, presumably
from stresses imposed by the overcompressed landing gear.
 
At that point, the DC-X crew did the sensible thing, scrubbed the quick
turnaround demo (NASA will fly it next year after the DC-XA conversion) and
called it a flight test program.  DC-X's next trip is back to MDA Huntington
Beach, where the conversion will get underway by the end of the summer.
 
All in all, it's been a pretty successful X-vehicle flight test program, the
result of a lot of skill and hard work, and a certain amount of luck too. 
All the data gathered and techniques demonstrated and lessons learned aside,
one thing DC-X has reemphasized is that X-programs really do need more than
one flight vehicle.  Second vehicles tend to cost only a small additional
amount over the price of the first, and they can be immensely valuable
insurance.  
 
The fact is, X-vehicles get broken sometimes.  Having a second bird available
can make the difference between going right on testing and being out of
business.  DC-X narrowly escaped severe damage on flights three (one engine
at half-thrust for takeoff) and eight, and landed despite serious damage on
flight five, after the external vented-hydrogen explosion.  As it turned out,
funding delays slowed the program more than damage repairs, but there was
some luck involved in this.  Luck is a good thing to have, but a bad thing to
count on...
 
There was only one DC-X because the funding shoestring was short even for an
X-program; DC-X from start to finish has seen about $70 million total
funding.  The extra $15-$20 million for a second copy would have been a very
wise investment - alas, the money just wan't there.  Next time, on X-33, we
need to make sure this penny-wise, pound-foolishness isn't repeated.
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
 

Article: 8334
From: "Terry Colvin" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: DC-X[?]
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 95 09:34:37 EST
Organization: Space
 
:MCDONNELL DOUGLAS WRAPS UP DC-X FLIGHT TESTS FOR 1995
 
     McDonnell Douglas completed flight tests Friday of its DC-X
experimental launch vehicle for this year when the Delta Clipper
performed a critical rotation maneuver that a vertical-landing
rocket would execute after re-entering the Earth's atmosphere, the
company said.
 
     MDC will now prime the launch vehicle for additional tests in
1996 after the integration of advanced technology components, a
company spokeswoman said.
     DC-X has undergone eight flight tests so far.  Friday's test
saw the Delta Clipper climb to 8,200 feet at a maximum ascent rate
of 240 feet per second, exceeding its previous 5,700 foot ceiling. 
Then, the vehicle's rocket set up for the rotation maneuver by
pointing its nose 10 degrees below the horizon and then it rotated
138 degrees to a base-first flight configuration.  DC-X then landed
base first using its four Pratt & Whitney RL-10 engines as brakes.
     All eight of the tests have proved that the vehicle can be
flown, operated and maintained like an aircraft, the spokeswoman
said.  It also demonstrated the feasibility of a reusable rocket
which has aircraft-like operability and maintainability.
     The 1996 tests are to demonstrate the new technologies on the
vehicle, which will then be called DC-XA.
     The Delta Clipper is to be integrated with company-designed
and developed components, including a cryogenic liquid hydrogen
tank, an intertank structure and elements of the gaseous oxygen and
gaseous hydrogen reaction control system.  In addition, reports
today's Defense Daily, a cryogenic liquid oxygen tank, made from an
advanced Russian aluminum-lithium alloy, will be integrated into
the vehicle.
 

Article: 18203
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: TSTO and NSS Policy.
Date: 14 Jul 95 03:02:00 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
 
 
This isn't strictly speaking on-topic; it has nothing to do with NSS
policy - yet (fingers crossed).  But it does, very briefly, address the
SSTO versus TSTO question that seems to be arising again.  It was sent
off yesterday to Aviation Week, in response to a letter in last week's
issue.  With luck, they may choose to publish the gist of it.  Meanwhile,
here's the text as sent.
 
Henry V
 
-----------------
 
  Dear sirs,
 
  This is in response to Noel Hughes's letter in your 7/10/95 issue, "Prove
  To Me That SSTO Is Better", in which Mr Hughes questions the current
  widespread assumption that SSTO is the way to go for affordable space
  access, and asserts that "..a multistage launch vehicle is indisputably
  more efficient and cheaper to build and operate than proposed SSTO's".  
  
  He has a point, in that we affordable access advocates, having thrashed out
  the SSTO-versus-TSTO/BDB/whatever arguments among ourselves back in the
  eighties, don't re-explain why we prefer SSTO as often as we ought to. 
  I'll try to summarize here.  
  
  - Is TSTO "more efficient"?  If you define "efficient" as maximizing
  payload as a percentage of gross liftoff weight, yes.  But that design goal
  is a relic, far more appropriate to ballistic missiles, where compactness
  is a major virtue, than to an affordable space launcher, where by
  definition low operating cost must be the prime design goal.  
  
  - Is TSTO cheaper to build?  The sort of structural weight shaving an SSTO
  requires does cost more, in development and in manufacturing.  But consider
  that a reusable TSTO involves developing and building two complete
  aerospace vehicles rather than one, moreover two complete aerospace
  vehicles that must reliably and repeatedly separate safely in high-velocity
  flight.  It is likely true that an SSTO will cost more to build than one
  stage of a TSTO.  More than both stages, though?  Perhaps not.
  
  - Is TSTO cheaper to operate?  All other things being equal, a TSTO will
  use less propellant per flight - but propellant is cheap, a tiny fraction
  of current launch costs.  Once you stop throwing away the hardware, slow
  turnaround and large groundcrew are what drive high launch costs.  The
  additional operational complexity of a TSTO - bringing the stages back
  together in one place, remating them, requalifying the separation hardware,
  every flight - will, all other things being equal, give TSTO slower
  turnaround and larger groundcrew than SSTO.  
  
  We don't pretend that a practical SSTO is easy.  Building a reusable rocket
  light enough to make orbit single-stage and rugged enough to do so
  repeatedly and reliably will take some very elegant engineering.  But the
  payoff is a far lower cost floor at high flight rates than TSTO offers. 
  And in the unlikely event that there are no design teams out there who can
  handle the challenge of a practical SSTO, the results of trying will apply
  just fine to a fallback TSTO.  
 
  SSTO has moderate risk, huge potential payoff, and a built-in TSTO fallback
  position.  We say go for it - build and fly the best X-33 we can, see how
  close to practical SSTO it gets us, and then decide what to do next.  
  
                                   sincerely,
                                   Henry Vanderbilt
                                   Executive Director,
                                   Space Access Society

    re .197
    
    Hmmm. Seems like the old "argue on paper and never build anything".
    SSTO vs. TSTO shouldn't have to be settled on paper. To do so assumes
    that we can infallibly anticipate all relevant factors when the past
    suggests that we can't.

       Keep in mind that back in the "good old days" when money was
    flowing at a higher rate, it was much easier to just go off, 
    build it, test it, and make your arguments based on empirical data.
       In todays unfortunate environment of cost-cutting, downsizing govt.,
    NASA-bashing by our elected representation, it has become much much
    more difficult to settle inevitable debates such as the SSTO vs. TSTO 
    argument.
    
    Bob

    re .199
    
    Agreed, but proceeding to build an operational fleet on the basis of
    empirical data is likely to save money rather than costing more in the
    long run.

    >Agreed, but proceeding to build an operational fleet on the basis of
    >empirical data is likely to save money rather than costing more in the
    >long run.
    
    Tell that to your Congressman, and I'm certainly not arguing that 
    point, as long as the empirical data is based on a well planned series 
    of tests consisting of prototypes etc. (the budget of which won't get 
    "squeezed" by the bureaucrats while under way). IE: propose a program 
    to evaluate the opposing technology proposals, get funding approved and 
    then leave the scientist alone to do the testing/evaluation (all within 
    the approved budget).
    Of course once the prototype phase has been completed, it then boils
    down to another struggle through todays budget climate to get approval
    for the operational fleet hardware.
    
    Bob
    [PS: I'm on NASA's side when it comes to dealing with bureaucrats, but
    also recognize that certain things may be sacrificed along this new
    bumpy road.]

    BTW, one piece of information I heard recently, sure puts things
    in perspective. I heard a NASA offical state that we spend as
    much money roughly on pizza as this past years total NASA budget.
    
    Bob

Article: 7308
From: [email protected] (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Delta Clipper Rocket Transferred to NASA
Date: 20 Jul 1995 09:46:24 -0700
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Sender: [email protected]
 
Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, DC             July 20, 1995
(Phone:  202/358-1779)
 
Dom Amatore
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL
(Phone:  205/544-0031)
 
RELEASE:  95-114
 
NASA RECEIVES "DC-XA" ROCKET FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RLV TECHNOLOGY
 
    The U.S. Air Force has transferred to NASA's Office of 
Space Access and Technology the unpiloted, single-stage rocket 
known as the Delta Clipper-Experimental (DC-X) for use in 
NASA's Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) technology program.
 
    The transfer was made after the successful completion of a 
series of test flights conducted for the Air Force by 
McDonnell Douglas at the U.S. Army's White Sands Missile Range 
in New Mexico.  The rocket, renamed the Delta Clipper-
Experimental Advanced (DC-XA) by NASA, now will be modified 
with technology intended for use in the X-33 or X-34 reusable 
launch vehicles now under development by NASA and its 
aerospace industry partners.  
 
    The DC-XA then will undergo extensive ground and flight 
testing that will provide valuable information to the X-33 and 
X-34 programs.  Flight testing could begin as early as April 
1996 at White Sands.
 
    "We plan to take these new technology components and test 
them in a real world environment," said NASA's DC-XA project 
manager Dan Dumbacher of Marshall Space Flight Center, 
Huntsville, AL.  Marshall is the host center for NASA's RLV 
technology program.  "We will demonstrate what it takes to 
support and operate this single-stage rocket and show its 
performance in the real world.  What we learn by testing the 
DC-XA will enable us to reduce hardware design changes 
downstream in the X-33 and X-34 programs.  This will save 
these programs both time and money."
 
    McDonnell Douglas will make the enhancements to the DC-XA 
in Huntington Beach, CA.  Changes include the addition of an 
aluminum-lithium liquid oxygen tank; a composite (graphite 
epoxy) liquid hydrogen tank; a composite intertank; and a 
liquid-to-gas converter assembly in the flight reaction 
control system.  McDonnell Douglas will design and develop 
most of these components and conduct the flight tests for 
NASA.  They will share some of the costs of the DC-XA.  Hardware
costs are $20 million and integration costs are $30 million.  
 
    Phillips Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base in 
Albuquerque, NM, will act as NASA's deputy for Flight Test and 
Operations for the DC-XA.  NASA field centers supporting the 
DC-XA include Marshall; Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; 
and the Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA.
 
                      - end -
 
EDITOR'S NOTE:  Images are available to media representatives 
to illustrate this release by calling the News Branch at 
202/358-1900.
 
NASA photo numbers are:  Color:  95-HC-361, 95-HC-362, 95-HC-363;
			 Black & White:  95-H-371, 95-H-372, 95-H-373.
 

Article: 7321
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #54  7/22/95
Date: 22 Jul 1995 14:11:33 -0700
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Sender: [email protected]
 
 
                     Space Access Update #54 7/22/95
                  Copyright 1995 by Space Access Society.
____________________________________________________________________________
 
          Stories this issue:
 
DC-X Wrapup, Corrections
 
NASA Funding Politics
 
X-33 Politics
 
 - X-33 Schedule
 
 - X-33 Funding Progress
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
 - Max effort alert for House Science Committee markup Tuesday:
   Increase funding for the flight program of X-33
 
------------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)--------------------------
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO)
technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and thus
development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor
confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial
investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far from that point now.  
 
Our major current focus is on supporting the government's fully reusable
single-stage rocket technology programs, the low-speed DC-X, and its high-
speed followon the X-33 NASA/DOD/industry cooperative project.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying
into space repeatedly later this decade, and practical orbital transport
projects getting underway.  Join us, and help us make this happen.  
 
                 Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society
 
 
For info on joining Space Access Society or buying the DC-X/SSTO video we
have for sale (Two hours, includes footage from the first five DC-X flights,
DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, plus a G.Harry Stine/Henry Vanderbilt White
Sands Missile Range DC-X Flight Five travelogue),
      email:  [email protected] 
      or write us at:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
                               DC-X Wrapup
 
We have some corrections to our previous descriptions of DC-X's flight 7 and
8 flight profiles.  A combination of our misinterpreting the flight profile
viewgraphs, then juggling binoculars and a sound-level meter during the
actual flights, led us into some confusion about what we saw at the start of
the "rotation maneuver" phase of the tests.  We've seen the videos now and
have a better idea what the vehicle actually did.  
 
 - Flight 7, Jun 12th.  DC-X climbed vertically for the first thirty seconds,
then gradually pitched over westwards during the next twenty seconds of the
climb, to an angle of about 15 degrees off vertical - considerably less than
we'd first reported.  This set up considerable off-axis westward velocity. 
DC-X was moving near straight toward the viewing site, but its nose was not
pointed toward us to the degree we initially reported.
 
The vehicle then spent the next twelve seconds pitching back eastwards, to a
maximum angle of about sixty degrees off vertical, braking the westward
velocity and setting DC-X back in motion toward the east.  This was the
point where we were looking straight up the tailpipes from the viewing site.
Over the next four seconds, DC-X pitched back up to vertical and stayed that
way for about six seconds, translating eastward back toward the landing pad.
DC-X then pitched westward for about ten seconds, peaking at about thirty
degrees off the vertical while braking to a stop over the landing pad.  
 
DC-X then began to descend.  About thirty-four seconds after that, the
landing gear came down.  About fourteen seconds after that, DC-X was down on
the pad, after a very gentle final descent, about two minutes twelve seconds
after liftoff.  We're told that the 2 fps touchdown led to excessive vehicle
base heating, and that flight control software gains were tweaked before
flight 8 to get back to the nominal 4 fps.
 
 - Flight 8, July 7th.  The overall pattern was similar to flight 7, with a
westward climbout at a relatively shallow angle from the vertical, followed
by a slow eastward pitchup to and past the vertical, this time continuing
until DC-X's nose was 5-10 degrees below the eastern horizon, her engines
pointed over our heads from our viewing site to the west.  This was the
nominal entry to the "rotation maneuver", where a hypothetical SSTO followon
would be in a nose-first shallow gliding descent, with the engines
hypothetically just switched on.  
 
DC-X then did a rapid pullup to and past the vertical, taking just under ten
seconds for the nose to come up through the vertical to about 40 degrees past
the vertical toward the west again.  DC-X held this westward pitch for a
couple of seconds to brake the eastward velocity picked up in the initial
eastward below-the-horizon pitchover, then took about five seconds coming
back to vertical.  DC-X by this point was back over the landing pad again. 
(The landing pad is 350 feet west of the launch stand; DC-X had reached a
maximum 2100 feet west of the launch stand at the time of the initial steep
eastward pitchover.)
 
DC-X then descended vertically toward the pad.  The descent was visibly
faster than any previous; gear was down only five seconds before touchdown,
and the touchdown, as described in Update #53, was about 10 fps over the
nominal 4 fps goal, due to flight control software misinterpretation of some
incorrect radar altimeter inputs.  
 
There was one obvious anomaly visible on the tape after touchdown: the roll
control thrusters fired a series of short bursts, six over roughly ten
seconds, post-touchdown.  We'd guess that the vehicle touched down misaligned
in roll axis from the preprogrammed goal, and that the recently-activated
thruster control algorithm lacked a weight-on-gear cutoff check.  But
that's just a guess.  The thrusters were apparently shut down manually with
no harm done.  
 
Odds and ends: 
 
 - All three flights this spring have added differential throttling to
 engine gimballing for vehicle attitude control, increasing control
 authority considerably over engine gimballing alone.  We're told the first
 five flights were done on engine gimballing alone, with all four throttles
 locked together.  One possibility this opens up is an emergency landing
 mode using differential throttling alone, should hydraulic or mechanical
 failure preclude gimballing.  This option is now in the flight software,
 but there are no current plans to flight-test it.  
 
 - DC-X's RCS (roll-axis-only Reaction Control System, or attitude jets) was
 tested for the first time flight 7, being used to do a 180 degree roll of
 the vehicle right after it came off the pad, and also (from watching the
 videotape) to stabilize the vehicle in roll axis during the high-angle
 maneuvering.  The RCS is groundbreaking in that it uses gaseous hydrogen and
 oxygen rather than the usual storable liquid propellants, potentially
 allowing an operational SSTO to tap off gas from the main propellant system
 for attitude control rather than carrying along a separate store of highly
 toxic liquids, simplifying vehicle servicing and reducing vehicle mass.
 
 - DC-X's propellant tanks need to assure that the engine feed inlets are
 submerged despite radical maneuvering at low propellant levels during the
 powered flip maneuver.  The tanks have fairly complex internal baffles to
 keep propellant from sloshing around too much during these maneuvers. 
 There's also a CFD (computational fluid dynamics) program dedicated to
 predicting where propellant will actually be at any given moment.  We're
 told that flight seven indicated that there's no need for any separate
 "propellant capture" system to start the engines for the flip maneuver,
 that internal main tank baffles will do the job, again simplifying design
 and reducing mass of any followon vehicle.  Any such followon will
 presumably do enough of an aerodynamic pitchup to get fuel to the back of
 the tanks before engine start.
 
Oh, and the sound level meter results?  Subjectively, DC-X at three miles is
about as loud as an old turbojet 707 or KC-135, not surprising given the
similar level of installed thrust.  Noisy, but nowhere near deafening - the
PA system in the viewing area is louder; the F-15 and T-38 photo planes
circling overhead for flight 8 were a LOT louder when they passed close by.
The readings we got off DC-X were in the low-to-mid 80's of decibels, "A"
weighted, using an old Radio Shack handheld sound level meter.  Apparent
sound level varied considerably depending on wind and vehicle attitude; we
couldn't watch the meter and vehicle simultaneously, alas.
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
                          NASA Funding Politics
 
There's been a great deal of sound and fury lately about future NASA funding
levels, mostly having to do with how much and where to cut.  Here's the
thumbnail version.  Last winter, in making up their proposed FY'96 Federal
budget, the White House put NASA down for a slow cutback over the next five
years, from a current fourteen-point-something billion per year to thirteen-
point-something billion a year in FY'2000.  The total amount of this cutback
adds up to either five billion over five years or seven billion over seven
years, depending on who's doing the counting.
 
Administrator Goldin wasn't thrilled, but he came up with a plan to deal
with this cutback without shutting down any major programs or closing any of
the major NASA field centers, by dint of some fairly radical trimming and
restructuring.  He frightened and/or annoyed a lot of working-level NASA
people in the process, but cutbacks are never easy for the working stiffs...
 
Closing a field center or two probably would have made things easier, but
with a tight election coming up next year, the White House hates this idea.
All the centers stayed open in Goldin's initial cutback plan, and his stock
in the White House rose considerably - as one wag put it at the time, he
became their "Reinventing Government" poster boy, for so visibly figuring out
how to get the job done with less.
 
The new Congress however wants larger cuts than the White House proposed,
across the board, and NASA is no exception.  This puts Administrator Goldin
in a bind; he works for the guy in the White House who wants no major
programs or field centers axed in an election year, but he's funded by a
Congress that wants to cut beyond the minimum he thinks lets him keep all
these things productively alive.  Goldin took a big pay cut moving from TRW
to NASA; he doesn't _need_ the job, and he's not there to preside over the
agency's decline into overstaffed underfunded paralysis.
 
But Congress can't agree on _what_ should be axed, so they're squabbling
internally, and also putting pressure on Goldin and the White House to make
these tough decisions for them.  Goldin and the White House are thus far
quite sensibly declining to do so.  _They_ aren't the ones who want to make
further cuts.  Ah, politics...
 
Major programs targeted for the axe so far are ISSA (International Space
Station Alpha) and EOS (Earth Observation System, the proposed no-sparrow-
shall-fall global environment monitoring system).  ISSA strikes a lot of
people as mainly a white-collar jobs program for Houston plus a way to bribe
Russia not to sell its rocket expertise to missile-hungry Third World
dictators; others support it with near-religious fervor.  EOS, meanwhile,
suffers because of its associations with Al Gore's "green" agenda.  On that
score, we'll venture the opinion that more data is never a bad thing; the
shortage of unambiguous data has been a notable feature of the global
climate debate thus far...  
 
Some major NASA centers mentioned for closing recently were MSFC (Marshall
Space Flight Center in Huntsville Alabama, specializing in rocket propulsion,
responsible for Shuttle main engines and solid boosters), GSFC (Goddard SFC,
in suburban Maryland, specializing in science satellites, operators of the
Hubble space telescope and home of EOS) and NASA Langley in Virginia, an
aeronautics research center.  Of the three, the only one in real danger is
Langley; Marshall and Goddard have too much powerful Congressional support in
the NASA funding committees.
 
Much of this is high-stakes poker, with plenty of bluffing going on.  Nobody
will know the final outcome until months from now, when NASA funding is
finalized in House-Senate conference and then final floor votes in both
houses.  Until then, take everything you hear about NASA program and center
cuts with a grain of salt.  
 
Meanwhile, we are in the interesting position of asking for a substantial
increase in the White House's original funding request ($43 million) for 
X-33 in the coming fiscal year.  It isn't going to be easy.
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
                              X-33 Politics
 
 - X-33 Schedule
 
The main reason we want more money than the White House requested for X-33
in the coming fiscal year (FY'96, starts October 1 '95) is that we want to do
X-33 a whole lot faster.  Last fall, when the new Administration launch
policy was being hammered out, they wanted to mandate that a decision to
start building actual X-33 hardware would wait till fall'96, AKA the next
Presidential election, after which it might well be futher delayed or even
killed entirely.  We had to fight like hell to get the working changed to "no
later than fall'96", allowing at least the possibility of an earlier start.
 
Ideally, we'd like to see an X-33 downselect before the end of 1995 rather
than in summer '96, X-33 construction start in early '96 rather than early
'97, and X-33 first flight in late '97 rather than 1998-99 or so.  The longer
it's allowed to stretch out, the more likely it is to bog down and never fly.
 
A number of people have heard us propose this accelerated schedule, turned
pale, and told us it's utterly impossible.  Maybe so - if all involved don't
work their butts off.
 
First, we have to get the additional funding it'll take to speed things up. 
After that, we'll need to fight like hell to get the money spent properly;
some people in this Administration really would rather X-33 went away, and
delay is the classic bureaucratic counter to something that can't be killed
outright.  
 
But DC-X was built and flown in less than two years.  Bureaucratic foot-
dragging then stretched out the flight test program by over a year!  We are
not about to passively accept a plan where the nominal X-33 schedule is five
years, and the actual schedule would likely lag even further.  
 
 
 -- X-33 Funding Progress --
 
The current status of FY'96 X-33 funding in the Congress...
 
DOD X-33 (Reusable Rocket) Funding: No Administration FY'96 request.
 
 - House Defense Authorization, $100 million for the DOD side at USAF
 Phillips Labs.
 
 - House Defense Appropriation, $53 million, ditto.
 
 - Senate Defense Authorization, we've been trying for a favorable X-33
 mention; no word on results out of the SASC so far.  
 
 - Senate Defense Appropriation: hasn't happened yet.
 
 
NASA X-33 Funding: $43 million administration request.
 
 - House NASA Appropriation: $43 million.
 
 - House NASA Authorization (yes, we know this is reverse order.  Don't ask):
 $43 million out of the Space Subcommittee - the full House Science Committee
 should mark this coming Tuesday.  We hope for an amendment to increase this
 amount significantly.  We need calls and faxes on this to all members of
 the full House Science Committee!  
 
 - Senate NASA Authorization: $43 million in preliminary version.
 
 - Senate NASA Appropriation: hasn't happened yet.
 
Confused?  So are we.  There are eight separate processes underway right now,
which will eventually boil down to the two (DOD and NASA) funding streams
for X-33.  We look pretty well assured of $43 million in NASA, but we'd much
rather see $100 million or so, to get X-33 off to a fast start.  We could end
up seeing anything between zero and $100 million for X-33 in DOD, depending
on how a number of things shake out in the next couple months.  
 
Our top priority is the full House Science Committee markup, currently
scheduled for the morning of Tuesday July 25th.  We understand there's a
good chance an amendment will be offered to increase X-33 flight program
funding; we don't know the details yet, but likely to $100 million.  We need
as much support for this as we can get, both to get it offered in the first
place and to get it approved by a majority of the Science Committee members.
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
                       SAS Action Recommendations
 
If you live in or near the district of a member of the House Science
Committee, please call or fax them as soon as possible (preferably by close
of business east coast Monday, failing that then first thing Tuesday
morning) and ask them to support an amendment providing increased funding
for the NASA X-33 flight program.  
 
Some possible approaches: explain how reusable launchers can make space
operations overall more affordable, explain how reusable launchers can make
Space Station both cheaper to operate and far more useful in the long run,
explain how getting X-33 off to a quick start (possibly with a competitive
flyoff) will bring this nation the international competitive and domestic
budget benefits of this leapfrog technology sooner and more certainly.
 
Check the attached House Science Committee list for members from your state.
If you're not sure which might be your Representative, check your local
phone book "blue pages", US government listings, under "congress" or
"representative", call one of the local offices listed, and ask. 
Alternatively, call your local library, ask for the reference desk, and ask
them who your local representative in Congress is.  
 
If there's someone whose district you live in or near, please contact them
on this.  There isn't time for paper mail; fax or phone their DC office.
 
If you fax, keep it to one page.  Mention right at the start what you're
writing about, (the NASA X-33 reusable rocket flight program) tell them what
you'd like to see done (increase funding to get X-33 flying sooner), then
provide supporting details -- why you think this is good for the country and
so forth.  (The person reading your fax will almost certainly be an
overworked underpaid staffer.  If yours is the only letter they get, it
needs to be sensible and persuasive; if yours is the hundredth, it needs to
be easy to categorize and add to their running total.)
 
If you phone, keep it short and polite -- you're likely talking to that same
overworked staffer.  Tell them you're calling about the NASA X-33 reusable
rocket flight program.  They may pass you on to another staffer who handles
NASA matters; you may get that staffer's voicemail.  Live or voicemail,
identify yourself briefly ("Hi, I'm John Smith, from East Podunk, Minnesota"
- it helps if East Podunk is in their boss's district...) then ask them to
support an amendment increasing funding to a level that will allow X-33 to
fly sooner than 1999 or 2000.  ("I'm calling about the NASA X-33 reusable
rocket program; I'd like to see funding increased to get it flying sooner.")
If they want to know more, fill them in as best you can, otherwise thank
them for their time and ring off.  
 
 
House Committee on Science
 
 (Chairman, Science Committee)           voice          fax
Walker, Robert S. (R-16 PA)        1-202-225-2411 1-202-225-2484
 
 (Ranking Minority Member, Science Committee)
Brown Jr., George E. (D-42 CA)     1-202-225-6161 1-202-225-8671
 
 (Chairman, Space Subcommittee)
Sensenbrenner, F. James (R-09 WI)  1-202-225-5101 1-202-225-3190
 
 (Ranking Minority Member, Space Subcommittee)
Hall, Ralph M. (D-04 TX)           1-202-225-6673 1-202-225-3332
 
Tiahrt, Todd (R-04 KS)             1-202-225-6216 1-202-225-5398
Hilleary, Van (R-04 TN)            1-202-225-6831 1-202-225-4520
Calvert, Ken (R-43 CA)             1-202-225-1986 1-202-225-2004
Rohrabacher, Dana (R-45 CA)        1-202-225-2415 1-202-225-7067
Salmon, Matt (R-01 AZ)             1-202-225-2635 1-202-225-2607
Davis, Tom (R-11 VA)               1-202-225-1492 1-202-225-2274
Stockman, Steve (R-09 TX)          1-202-225-6565 1-202-225-1584
Seastrand, Andrea (R-22 CA)        1-202-225-3601 1-202-226-1015
Largent, Steve (R-01 OK)           1-202-225-2211 1-202-225-9187
Foley, Mark (R-16 FL)              1-202-225-5792 1-202-225-1860
Weldon, Dave (R-15 FL)             1-202-225-3671 1-202-225-9039
Boehlert, Sherwood (R-23 NY)       1-202-225-3665 1-202-225-1891
Fawell, Harris W. (R-13 IL)        1-202-225-3515 1-202-225-9420
Morella, Constance (R-08 MD)       1-202-225-5341 1-202-225-1389
Weldon, Curt (R-07 PA)             1-202-225-2011 1-202-225-8137
Schiff, Steven H. (R-01 NM)        1-202-225-6316 1-202-225-4975
Barton, Joseph (R-06 TX)           1-202-225-2002 1-202-225-3052
Baker, Bill (R-10 CA)              1-202-225-1880 1-202-225-2150
Bartlett, Roscoe G. (R-06 MD)      1-202-225-2721 1-202-225-2193
Ehlers, Vernon (R-03 MI)           1-202-225-3831 1-202-225-5144
Wamp, Zach (R-03 TN)               1-202-225-3271 1-202-225-6974
Graham, Lindsey (R-03 SC)          1-202-225-5301 1-202-225-5383
Gutknecht, Gil (R-01 MN)           1-202-225-2472 1-202-225-0051
Cubin, Barbara (R WY)              1-202-225-2311 1-202-225-0726
Myrick, Sue (R-09 NC)              1-202-225-1976 1-202-225-8995
Traficant, James (D-17 OH)         1-202-225-5261 1-202-225-3719
Harman, Jane (D-36 CA)             1-202-225-8220 1-202-226-0684
Ward, Mike (D-03 KY)               1-202-225-5401 1-202-225-3511
Roemer, Tim (D-03 IN)              1-202-225-3915 1-202-225-6798
Cramer, Robert (D-05 AL)           1-202-225-4801 1-202-225-4392
Barcia, James (D-05 MI)            1-202-225-8171 1-202-225-2168
Hastings, Alcee (D-23 FL)          1-202-225-1313 1-202-225-0690
Lee, Sheila Jackson (D-18 TX)      1-202-225-3816 1-202-225-6186
Luther, William (D-06 MN)          1-202-225-2271 1-202-225-9802
Hayes, James A. (D-07 LA)          1-202-225-2031 1-202-225-1175
Tanner, John S. (D-08 TN)          1-202-225-4714 1-202-225-1765
Geren, Peter (D-12 TX)             1-202-225-5071 1-202-225-2786
McHale, Paul (D-15 PA)             1-202-225-6411 1-202-225-5320
Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D-30 TX)   1-202-225-8885 1-202-226-1477
Minge, David (D-02 MN)             1-202-225-2331 1-202-226-0836
Olver, John W. (D-01 MA)           1-202-225-5335 1-202-226-1224
Rivers, Lynn (D-13 MI)             1-202-225-6261 1-202-225-0489
McCarthy, Karen (D-05 MO)          1-202-225-4535 1-202-225-5990
Lofgren, Zoe (D-16 CA)             1-202-225-3072 1-202-225-9460
Doggett, Lloyd (D-10 TX)           1-202-225-4865 1-202-225-3018
Doyle, Michael (D-18 PA)           1-202-225-2135 1-202-225-7747
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 7454
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #55  8/24/95
Date: 24 Aug 1995 23:20:05 -0700
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Sender: [email protected]
 
 
                     Space Access Update #55 8/24/95
                  Copyright 1995 by Space Access Society.
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
What with the backlog of Reusable Launch policy questions that had built up
since spring, this Update got out of control when we decided to get caught
up, unmanageably long and horrendously overdue.  
 
We ended up splitting the issue in two, long-term policy questions in one
and recent news items in the other.  The perversity of the universe being
what it is, we discovered that we'd finished the policy pieces, but the news
items still needed work.  So here's SAU #55 with the long-term stuff first. 
With luck SAU #56 with all the short-fuse items will be out tomorrow...  
 
One quick note that shouldn't wait: Both House and Senate are in recess till
September 5th.  Many Representatives are back in their districts, many
Senators back in their states for the next two weeks.  If you want to make
an appointment to meet them and give a short talk on why they should support
increased X-33 funding in both NASA and DOD, now's the time to look up their
local offices in the phone book and give them a call.  More in SAU #56, if
you don't already know how to go about doing this. 
 
(We ask patience from people who've mailed or emailed us with routine SAS or
tape info requests.  We have a large backlog we plan to work through next
week.  We've had problems with our email provider and some mail to us may
have been lost in transit; any queries not replied to after next weekend
should be resent.  Our apologies for these delays.)
____________________________________________________________________________
 
          Stories this issue:
 
Intro: The Big Picture?  Sorry, That's Down For Repairs
 
X-33 Gets Underway - Course Corrections Needed
 
SAS Proposed X-33 CAN "Minimum Requirements" Changes
 
Potential X-33 Engines
 
      - SSME, Russian D-57, Upgraded RL-10
 
X-33 Schedule
 
X-33 Organizational Concerns
 
      - NASA Center Accounting Changes
 
      - X-33 Design Interference "Smoking Gun"
 
------------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)--------------------------
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO)
technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and thus
development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor
confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial
investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far from that point now.  
 
Our major current focus is on supporting the government's fully reusable
single-stage rocket technology programs, the low-speed DC-X, and its high-
speed followon the X-33 NASA/DOD/industry cooperative project.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying
into space well before the end of this decade, with practical orbital
transport projects getting underway.  Join us, and help us make it happen.  
 
                 Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society
 
 
For info on joining Space Access Society or buying the DC-X/SSTO video we
have for sale (Two hours, includes footage from the first five DC-X flights,
DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, plus a G.Harry Stine/Henry Vanderbilt White
Sands Missile Range DC-X Flight Five travelogue),
      email:  [email protected] 
      or write us at:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
            The Big Picture?  Sorry, That's Down For Repairs
 
Life was so much simpler a year ago.  DC-X was broken and no followon was
planned; we fought for funding to fix the DC-X, and to get a notional "SX-2"
(for Space Experimental 2, if anyone cares now) followon high-speed reusable
rocket project started.  We had few allies, few opponents, and we pretty
much knew who both were and where they were coming from.  
 
Now, well, we're far better off than we were a year ago, what with DC-X's
initial flight test program completed, and X-33 getting underway with some
real funding.  At least we think we're better off...  It's hard to say for
sure, because one of the things that's happened in the last year is that
reusable Single-Stage-To-Orbit (SSTO) space transport has attracted a huge
amount of attention, and a whole bunch of people who'd barely heard of it a
year ago are now trying to insert themselves into the process.  
 
Some of these people are just flat-out opposed, many want to "help" us by
diverting the process in their favorite direction (SSTO/RLV is now seen as
a possible hot new funding bandwagon; lots are trying to climb on), and a few
are even turning out to be genuinely helpful unexpected allies.  (At least
once they figure out what it is we're trying to do - those of us who've been
working toward cheap access since the eighties share a lot of hard-thrashed
assumptions we don't always explain to newcomers as well as we ought.)
 
We've spent the last six months trying to write up the Big Picture with no
success at all - every time we think we have it nailed, things change again. 
Here's our latest attempt, now that we've finally had a couple weeks' pause
in the action...
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
             X-33 Gets Underway - Course Corrections Needed
 
Before we start complaining about what's not right with X-33, allow us to
mention that we're pretty damn happy to have it at all.  An actual design
competition aimed at a reusable single-stage rocket space-vehicle
demonstrator would have seemed far too good to be true ten years ago.  
 
The problem is, we thought we'd gotten exactly that five years ago in the
SDIO SSRT (Single Stage Rocket Technology) program, but SSRT abruptly bogged
down in politics shortly after award of the DC-X contract.  Moreover, SSRT
bogged down in a manner we'd predicted and warned against.  Congress back
then was not going to allow SDIO to build an actual launch vehicle with an
actual payload.  When the proposed DC-Y followon went into a three-month
design "black"out as a no-payload X-vehicle and came out with a 25,000 lb
payload, Congress forbade building it.  (The DC-Y orbital followon was to
have been flying in 1996 in the original plan.)
 
At this point, we've been slugging away at getting reusable rockets flying
since 1988, we've seen one attempt go toes-up already, we've spent a
considerable amount of time kicking around the policy and technical options,
and we have one or two opinions on how to do it right this time.  
 
What follows is our recommendations to NASA on fixing what we see as some
major problems with X-33's current specifications.  The reasoning behind
these recommendations may not always be immediately obvious; we'll go into
some of that, enclosed in square brackets, [thusly].  We expect there will
still be questions...  Send queries and responses to the email or paper mail
addresses at the end of this Update.  We won't guarantee to reply to every
one, but we will read and consider all feedback.  
 
(Note: The full text of the X-33 CAN (Cooperative Agreement Notice) was
available last we looked via World Wide Web at http://procure.msfc.nasa.gov.)
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
            SAS Proposed X-33 CAN "Minimum Requirements" Changes
 
  All of these proposed X-33 CAN changes apply to the "phase 2" X-33
  "Minimum Requirements" list.  "Corresponding SSTO" minimum requirements
  shall where appropriate be changed to correspond to these X-33 changes. 
  These changes shall take precedence over any conflicting statements
  elsewhere in the CAN.  
 
    "Performance" section: 
 
  - Change "Suborbital reusable rocket-based flight system" requirement to
  "Reusable rocket-based flight system"; add "Orbital capability not
  required in initial flight vehicle, but vehicle design should not preclude
  eventual orbital capability via propulsion and other subsystem upgrades,
  "stretches", weight reductions, operating procedure refinements, etc."
 
[We want to avoid X-30 NASP "must make orbit at the start or it's no good"
syndrome; that led to endless never-fly advanced tech development.  At the
same time, we don't want to rule out eventual orbital demonstrations.  X-33
should fly as high, fast, and often as is possible soon with existing
technologies.  Once it's flying is the time to incorporate improvements, in
the initial flight vehicle or in an upgraded second airframe.  Get it
flying first - and then if possible "nickel and dime our way to orbit".]
 
    "Launch and Flight Operations" section:
 
  - Change safe abort during ascent from "goal" to "requirement"; specify
  that this means "savable".  Draft wording:  
 
  "The flight vehicle shall be 'savable', with savable defined as airliner-
  style abort capability: IE, the vehicle shall be able to return itself and
  its contents safely and intact (no jettisoning of any part of the ship or
  contents other than propellant) to the ground or to orbit despite any
  failure of one (or more where practical) propulsion module/engine at any
  point in the vehicle flight operations cycle."
 
[We happen to believe that engine-out capability is vital for a commercial
SSTO - how many single-engine jetliners are there? - and that X-33 is the
place to work out the details of monitoring and managing multiple engines on
a reusable rocket.  Intact abort must not take a back seat to performance in
the X-33.  See the "X-33 Engines" piece later in this issue.]
 
    "Operable" section:
 
  - Make "maximize robustness to adverse weather conditions" (already an X-
  33 requirement) more specific.  Draft wording:  
 
 "The flight vehicle shall demonstrate aircraft-like ability to operate
 despite suboptimal weather conditions, EG vehicle design should not
 preclude eventual ability to operate over a wide temperature range,
 through moderate precipitation, and despite significant gusts and
 crosswinds."
 
[Commercial transport vehicles make money by meeting schedules, and lose
money when they're held up waiting for weather.  A succesful commercial SSTO
has to be able to fly despite at least moderately bad weather; much of the
planet is experiencing moderately bad weather at any given moment.  It can't
be held up every time there's a bit of drizzle or a ten-knot crosswind.  X-33
doesn't need full all-weather capability right from the start, but it is the
place to explore and demonstrate these capabilities.]
 
  - Change "..capable of unplanned landing at alternate sites..." etc. from
  "goal" to "requirement".  Leave "self-ferry..." etc. as a "goal".  
 
  - Change "Equipment required to repair, process and return vehicle to
  launch site shall be transportable" from "goal" to "requirement".  
 
[Ability to make emergency landings at unprepared sites and then to
routinely recover and refly the vehicle (without specifying any particular
recovery method) would seem self-explanatory, useful both in the X-program
itself and in commercial followons.]
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                           Potential X-33 Engines
 
The X-33 CAN limits X-33 bidders to existing rocket engines.  As we
understand it, the idea is to keep the program from bogging down in a
prolonged expensive effort to develop new engines from scratch.  All-new
high-performance rocket engines typically take five to ten years; X-33 is
supposed to demonstrate high-speed reusable rocket flight quickly rather 
than perfectly.  
 
This doesn't mean that only stock version current-production engines
need apply; modifications of existing designs will likely be acceptable, as
long as the mods don't look like busting either the budget or the schedule. 
Under even the most optimistic schedules, there's a couple years available
to tinker with engines.  
 
We're seeing a distressing trend: Two out of the three bidders are talking
about building their X-33 around a single SSME, the notoriously complex,
expensive, and maintenance-intensive Space Shuttle Main Engine.  The third
bidder's design inherently can't use SSME; we're not at all sure we wouldn't
be seeing it there too otherwise.
 
The nominal reason for SSME in X-33 is to eke out a few more mach numbers
for the initial version, get it a bit closer to orbit right at the start. 
It's true that SSME has slightly better overall performance than any of the
available alternatives, but raw performance isn't everything in X-33.  We
see a number of problems here, some generic to a single large engine of any
sort, some specific to SSME.  We'd like to see some of the alternatives get a
closer look before the downselect.
 
 - Generic Single-Engine Problems
 
The chief generic problem with a single large engine to power X-33 is this:
One engine failure, one smoking hole in the ground.
 
The expendable booster world, mind, has been trending toward one large
engine per stage in order to _increase_ reliability.  The argument is that if
the mission fails anyway with the loss of one engine, minimizing the number
of engines minimizes the chance of losing one.  This is reasonable for
expendables, granted that initial assumption of no recovery from engine-out.
Adding enough performance margin to reach orbit despite an engine-out is
expensive, and an expendable that doesn't reach orbit is toast.  
 
Reusables have an additional option if something happens to prevent them
reaching orbit:  They can burn off or dump excess propellant, then land,
payload intact, to try again another day.  If, that is, they've been
designed to keep flying even after losing one engine.  If they only have one
engine, kiss that expensive reusable ship goodbye, payload and all.  
 
We believe it is vital that reusable rocket transports have multiple
engines, set up so that loss of power from any one won't prevent the ship
from climbing, burning/dumping propellant, and landing again, ship and
payload intact, even if the failure happens right after liftoff when the
ship is at minimum speed and maximum weight.  The utility for operational
SSTO tranports is obvious; it'll be hard to amortize the high initial
purchase price of such a ship if you lose it any time an engine flakes out.  
 
An argument might be made that over the limited number of flights an X-33
will be making, going single-engine is an acceptable risk.  We don't agree -
first, because we can even less afford to lose an X-33 to engine failure than
an investor can a commercial SSTO.  We might get two X-33's built, we might
not, but either way, one engine having one bad day would be a serious setback
to the program.  Second, we don't agree for the simple reason that we feel
that the safe-recovery reliability, the "savability" conferred by a properly
managed multi-engine setup, is something that should be explored in X-33 so
the experience is available for designing the commercial ships to follow.
 
 - SSME-Specific Problems
 
First off, we'll say that X-33 could probably live with SSME's cost,
complexity, and high maintenance, if there was no other choice.  The cost
would eat a significant chunk of the X-33 budget, the maintenance-
intensiveness would get in the way of the small ground crew and fast
turnaround objectives, but the difference between SSME and a practical
engine could be factored into the results obtained.  Maybe.  
 
Our generic problems with single-engine ships aside, however, SSME has a
couple of inherent characteristics that make it a bad choice - one
technical, one organizational.  
 
Technically, SSME has a slow, hard start sequence.  It takes several seconds
to be sure an SSME is running properly, and it starts with a sudden
transition to high thrust.  We've all seen the Shuttle stack "twang" at SSME
start...  SSME's start-sequence can't be casually changed - it took a lot of
test-stand runs to arrive at, some involving "rapid disassembly" of the
engine.  Doing this again would involve large amounts of time and money,
with no upfront assurance that a smoother startup is even possible.  
 
The implications for X-33 are considerable.  A lightweight portable launch
stand would be right out; the ship would need to be clamped down through the
SSME startup transient then released only after the engine is running
smoothly, implying a massive old-fashioned poured-concrete launch pad with
flame trenche and water sprays, with obvious negative implications for
operational flexibility.  At that point, we might as well fly X-33 out of
Kennedy, hand SSTO over to the existing missile-range bureaucracies and have
done with it.  Aside from that, any weight savings from using an SSME would
be at least in part offset by the extra aft ship structure needed to survive
the startup transient.  
 
Politically, SSME would bring with it a massive existing NASA/industry
bureaucracy to eat X-33's funding, slow its schedule, and interfere with its
design, construction, and operation.  SSME is not just an engine, it's a
multi-hundreds-of-millions-a-year twenty-year-old institution at this point. 
An institution moreover searching hard for new funding sources, as the
existing ones gradually dry up.  No offense, guys - but not with our project
you don't.  X-33 has to be done lean, fast, and cheap, or it won't likely
happen at all - or won't likely be much use to anyone even if not defunded
for succumbing to bureaucratic bloat.  
 
We should mention in this regard our suspicion that the current bidder
enthusiasm for SSME just may have a political component similar to last
winter's bidder enthusiasm for the winged-tank "Shuttle II" configuration. 
(See the "Smoking Gun" story for more on that.)  We don't have a smoking
gun on this one, yet.  We'll just say that _if_ there is any perception
among the contractors that including SSME improves their political chances
of winning the down-select, they should factor in the possibility that this
too will turn out not to be a factor.  
 
 - Alternative Engines
 
None of this would matter if there weren't alternatives to SSME available,
alternatives possibly more suitable to the overall purposes of the X-33.
We're reasonably well-aquainted with two such liquid-oxygen/liquid-hydrogen
(LOX/LH2) engines.
 
 - Russian D-57
 
The D-57 was designed as a high-energy upper stage engine.  Sea-level thrust
is ~70,000 lbs, vacuum thrust ~90,000 lbs, reports on throttleability vary.
Engine weight is ~2100 lbs, giving a relatively poor takeoff thrust-to-weight
of 33:1 (SSME sea-level T:W is ~50:1) but reportedly engine weight could be
relatively easily shaved to yield takeoff T:W of ~45:1.
 
Over thirty were built; reports on the number currently available vary
widely, but the Russians never throw anything away...  Between six and eight
D-57's could power an X-33 in the size range currently contemplated.  Over
150 test-stand firings took place, with total run time near ten hours.  We've
seen claims that D-57 is too prone to explosive failure for X-33 use; we
haven't seen the data those claims are based on.  We note that just about all
rocket engines blow up a few tests stands early in their test programs;
such teething problems aren't necessarily relevant to flight safety.
 
We don't assume D-57 is certain to be suitable for X-33; we do recommend
strongly that its suitability be thoroughly explored ASAP.  
 
 - Pratt & Whitney RL-10 Upgrade
 
Numerous sources indicate that the P&W RL-10 (a version of which powers DC-X)
can be relatively easily upgraded to 26,000 lbs thrust sea-level, 35,000 lbs
thrust vacuum, with total engine weight staying ~400 lbs, possibly less. 
This would yield a sea-level T:W of 65:1, actually better than SSME, though
we should note both that this would be at lower-than-SSME specific impulse
("Isp", effectively a measure of fuel-efficiency) and that the more complex
plumbing required for a multi-RL-10 installation would offset some part of
the weight saved.  Between 16 and 20 such upgraded RL-10's could power an X-
33 of the size currently being contemplated.
 
The various modifications required for SSTO suitability (increased chamber
pressure, deep throttling, extendable nozzle) have already been tested
separately.  One option for an RL-10 powered X-33 in the event of delays in
upgraded RL-10 delivery could be initial flight test using existing RL-10
versions and a reduced propellant load.  
 
We recommend strongly that work on such an enhanced RL-10 begin ASAP.
Even absent SSTO applications, numerous upper-stage applications exist for a
very similar (no deep throttling needed) engine.  We further recommend that
DC-X style lean management, lean budget, and tight schedule be applied to
this effort.  There is neither time nor money for business as usual.
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                              X-33 Schedule
                              
As we pointed out last issue, we're not happy with the rather leisurely
schedule being pursued for X-33.  All other details aside, we'd like to see
a downselect made early in calendar '96.  This would give the contractors
six months from now to prepare their bids rather than twelve, but it's not
as if all three teams haven't already had plenty of time to think about
this.  Six extra months of paper study doesn't strike us as vital to the
success of X-33, given all the years SSTO has already been studied.  As one
unkind insider put it, "90% of the work on these things gets done in panic
in the last three months anyway".  
 
The White House may then not be pleased with facing a decision on going
ahead with X-33 construction and flight a good part of a year before they'd
expected to deal with it, in December '96.  We hope they'll come to see the
merits of a fast-paced X-33 development program in the interim.  
 
In general, we believe an X-33 that doesn't fly until the end of '99 or
later is likely to end up irrelevant - the market won't wait that long.  An
X-33 that's flying in early '98 has a tight schedule to make, but it's a lot
more likely to make a positive difference for the US.  We have as little as 
three years lead on the international competition.  Time's a-wasting.
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
                              
 
                      X-33 Organizational Concerns
 
We pretty much like the X-33 organization as it stands; there seem to be
good people in charge, with a relatively lean and simple management setup. 
What mostly worries us here is the potential for would-be "helpers" to
redirect the project toward "Shuttle II" or to simply batten onto it for a
share of its funding.  However well-intentioned such "help" may be...
 
 
 - NASA Center Accounting Changes
 
We heard something frightening when we visited NASA HQ this spring,
something that at the same time explained a *lot* about the tendency of past
NASA projects to bloat out of control.  It seems that the accounting systems
at some NASA field centers (Marshall was the specific example given) were
such that center employees could charge their time to a project's budget,
without the project managers knowing until months later that they'd been
paying for this self-appointed "help".  We're told this has now changed, at
least for the new Reusable Launch Vehicle projects, X-33, X-34, and DC-XA. 
But the culture that fostered this remains, as we shall see.  
 
 
 - X-33 Design Interference "Smoking Gun"
                           
It seems that at some point last year, a bunch of people at NASA Marshall
decided to "help" X-33 by doing a massive SSTO design study and distributing
the results.  Several months and ten million dollars or so later, they had
five volumes worth of hypothetical SSTO design work in hand.
 
So what, you ask?  Well, the problem was that the SSTO configuration they'd
devoted the vast majority of their unasked-for effort to was the baseline
"Access to Space" study "winged tank", also known as "Shuttle II".  Add in
NASA's historic propensity for heavy-handed hints to bidders as to what
design NASA actually wants to buy, and release of this study to industry was
certain to be seen as a very unsubtle hint what design to bid for X-33.  
 
In theory, X-33 is supposed to be wide open to the best ideas the bidders can
come up with to do the job, a radical change from past practice.  The rogue
study group (run by a fellow name Uwe Hueter) was ordered not to send their
five volume ode to Shuttle II to the contractors, lest it send the wrong
signal.  The orders were ignored and the study was shipped to the X-33
bidders anyway, early in 1995.  
 
Competitions like X-33 tend to be decided by a "Source Selection Board" made
up (in theory) of experts on the hardware to be selected.  Where might a lot
of the experts for the X-33 Source Selection come from?  Why, NASA Marshall,
likely including many of the people who conducted this study.  The industry
bidders have been dealing with this sort of thing for a long time;
assurances that this time it'd be different rang pretty hollow in the face
of distribution of this stealth Shuttle II design spec.  
 
By this spring a number of us were really beginning to wonder what the X-33
bidders knew that we didn't, to be coming up with such conservative initial
configurations.  Then we found out about the bootleg Marshall study, figured
out the implications for X-33 source selection, and got very, very annoyed.
 
Then during a meeting in late April a high NASA official asked us if we
could tell him why the X-33 bidders were being so damn conservative, and we
told him about the against-orders distribution of the study, and explained
what we saw this implying for the source selection.  The high NASA official
also got very, very annoyed, as this was apparently the first he'd heard of
this, but not at all the first time he'd run into this sort of thing.  
 
The rest is a matter of public record.  In early May, Jack Mansfield, NASA
Associate Administrator for Space Access & Technology, circulated a memo
stating that nobody who'd been involved in the bootleg study would be
allowed on the X-33 Source Selection Board, and further that nobody who'd
participated would be allowed to do any X-33 work at all without written
authorization from NASA HQ.  This memo was then widely leaked, presumably to
make sure that everyone involved got the message: X-33 was *not* going to
be NASA business-as-usual; the winged-tank was *not* the predestined winner.
 
Any connection between this memo and the McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing team's
decision a month later to go with their innovative "Delta Clipper" wingless
vertical-lander, rather than the winged-tank horizontal lander they'd also
been looking at, is of course speculative.  
 
We should mention in passing that we sympathize with the people who worked
on that Marshall SSTO study in the sincere belief that they were helping the
process, who now find themselves in deep kimchee.  Of course it's not fair,
of course lots of others have gotten away with more in the past.  
 
The thing is, one of the classic management methods of changing some
customary-but-undesirable practice in an organization is to pick out whoever
happens to be most conspicuously out front doing it at the moment and make a
horrible example of them.  It's not nice, it's not fair - but it works.  (We
might add we didn't learn about this technique the easy way either.)
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
                                  Summary
 
We can sum up what we want for X-33 in five words: higher, faster, savable,
soon, often.  We want the best balance possible among these five qualities.
 
 - Higher and faster: X-33 should "stretch the envelope", should fly enough
higher and faster than previous reusable rockets (DC-X and X-15 before that)
to demonstrate everything needed for orbital operations.  If possible, X-33
itself should eventually be upgradeable to the point where it can make orbit.
 
 - Savable: X-33 should demonstrate the ability to recover intact from
 reasonably likely systems failures, especially from one (or more if
 possible) engine failure at any time during a mission.  Abort the mission if
 necessary, but don't lose the ship.
 
 - Soon: X-33 should be the best we can build with what we have now plus what
 we can reasonably expect to develop in the next couple of years.  No NASP-
 style delays to develop perfect technology; rather we should see what's the
 best we can do with what we have, then build from there.
 
 - Often: X-33 should fly often, with fast turnaround capability.  The
 airframe life doesn't have to be infinite between overhauls; this is an X
 vehicle and not a commercial spaceliner - but X-33 does have to fly often
 enough to teach us what we need to learn to build commercial spaceliners.
 
Are we making unreasonable demands of the X-33 program?  Quite possibly.  We
may end up settling for less than we hope for on a number of these points, if
it turns out that's the best the bidders can do with the available time,
technology and funding.  But progress often depends on unreasonable people
demanding more than is believed possible - and getting it.
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --

Article: 7479
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #56  8/30/95
Date: 30 Aug 1995 14:46:54 -0700
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Sender: [email protected]
 
 
                     Space Access Update #56 8/30/95
                  Copyright 1995 by Space Access Society.
____________________________________________________________________________
 
(We ask patience from people who've mailed or emailed us with routine SAS or
tape info requests.  We have a large backlog we plan to work through this
week.  We've also had problems with our email provider recently, and some
mail to us may have been lost in transit; any queries not replied to after
next weekend should be resent.  Our apologies for these delays.)
____________________________________________________________________________
 
          Stories this issue:
 
DC-X Wrapup
 
X-33 Funding Top-Up On Shaky Ground
 
Advice To NASA Is Growth Industry
 
New OCST Spaceport Regs In The Works
 
X-34 "Tax" Exemption?
 
Account Shuffle For DOD SSTO Work
 
One Last Chance To Vote In NSS Board Election
 
SAS Administrivia
      - Video Backorders Finally Filled
      - v 3.0 DC-X/SSTO tape due in September
      - info request backlog due for clearup this week
      - Space Access '96 on April 26-28 or May 3-5?
      - SAS needs office equipment, donations...
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
Attachments
      - House NASA Authorization RLV Report Language
      - House Colloquy On RLV in DOD
 
------------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)--------------------------
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO)
technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and thus
development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor
confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial
investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far from that point now.  
 
Our major current focus is on supporting the government's fully reusable
single-stage rocket technology programs, the low-speed DC-X, and its high-
speed followon the X-33 NASA/DOD/industry cooperative project.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying
into space well before the end of this decade, with practical orbital
transport projects getting underway.  Join us, and help us make it happen.  
 
                 Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society
 
 
For info on joining Space Access Society or buying the DC-X/SSTO video we
have for sale (Two hours, includes footage from the first five DC-X flights,
DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, plus a G.Harry Stine/Henry Vanderbilt White
Sands Missile Range DC-X Flight Five travelogue),
      email:  [email protected] 
      or write us at:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                             DC-X Wrapup
 
Now that DC-X's initial flight test program is finally finished (it took
two years, over half of that delays caused by bureaucratic roadblocking of
project funds), it's a good time to take one more quick look at what the
program accomplished.
 
  - DC-X proved it's still possible to build and fly a useful X-vehicle fast
  and cheap, given the proper (minimal) management structure and a motivated
  contractor team.  DC-X took less than two years from go-ahead to first
  flight, for less than $70 million in government funding.  
  
  - DC-X proved it's possible to fly a rocket under precise enough low-speed
  control to do powered vertical landings safely.  
  
  - DC-X proved it's possible to design and build a reusable cryo-fuelled
  rocket that can be supported and operated more like an aircraft than like
  current space launch vehicles.  DC-X flew with less than three dozen
  people total involved in operations (less than a dozen actual pad crew)
  rather than the usual cast of thousands, and demonstrated a one-week
  turnaround, with potential for a twelve-hour turnaround.  
  
DC-X is a boilerplate rocket, true, far too heavy to ever get near space on
its own.  True, but irrelevant.  Ascent to orbit and hypersonic reentry are
both already fairly well understood.  DC-X tested lean rapid development,
rocket powered vertical landings in 1 G and winds, and aircraft-like ops of
a reusable rocket -- all things that until DC-X were considered too
difficult to even try, relics of a bygone era, or both.  
 
DC-X has been extraordinary value for the astonishingly small slice of
taxpayers' money it took.  
 
 - New Data Department
 
There's no quicker way to get correct info than making a wrong guess in
public.  The RCS thruster firings after DC-X landed on flight 8 were not, as
we'd speculated, a control system glitch.  We're told by a couple of sources
that this is simply the easiest way to empty the RCS gas bottles, post
flight.  You may recall that DC-X's four roll-axis-only Reaction Control
System thrusters are innovative in being the first gaseous hydrogen/gaseous
oxygen RCS thrusters ever used on a flight vehicle.  Potentially, an
operational SSTO could tap off gas from the main cryogenic propellant tanks
to run its RCS jets, saving the weight and operational complexity of a
separate storable (highly toxic) liquid propellant RCS.  DC-X however
doesn't actually tap off gas from the main propellant tanks, but instead
uses separate pressure bottles to feed the roll-control jets.  
 
The main news on the DC-XA conversion, meanwhile (due for flight next
summer) is that the lightweight replacement liquid oxygen tank, being built
of aluminum-lithium composite by a Russian firm, continues to be behind
schedule.  We hear there are contingency plans to reuse the current plain
aluminum LOX tank if the Russians take too long to deliver.  The graphite-
epoxy liquid hydrogen tank being built in-house by McDonnell-Douglas is,
frankly, a far larger technical unknown as far as multiple reuse under
flight conditions goes.  Even if that's the only new component installed in
DC-XA (which it won't be), the followon flight test program will be
worthwhile.  Liquid hydrogen is a very low-density high-volume fluid, and
thus weight savings in durable LH2 tankage are very important for a
succesful reusable SSTO.  
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                    X-33 Funding Top-Up On Shaky Ground
 
Well, both House and Senate are in recess until September 5th.  It's a good
time to step back and look at where X-33 FY'96 funding stands.  Federal
government fiscal year '96 starts this coming October 1st, of course. 
 
Background:  The White House request for NASA FY'96 X-33 funding was $43
million; the overall request for NASA RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicle) funding
was $159 million, covering NASA work on X-33, X-34, DC-XA, and the
continuation of last spring's grab-bag of "NRA" contract RLV technology
ground demos, including lightweight materials/structures tests and
tripropellant engine components.  
 
SAS wants to see a speedup in the X-33 schedule, at least two copies of X-33
built, and a two-design flyoff; all of these cost more money up front.  (X-
33 management recently proposed a modified version of a flyoff, a "leader-
follower" arrangement where one bidder would be selected to actually build
their X-33 design, while a second would be funded at a lower level to keep
on working on their design, ready to step in should the "leader" run into
problems.  We could live with this.)  Historically, X-vehicle programs need
their largest chunk of funding early on.  SAS is pushing for a solid
increase in NASA X-33 funding, preferably to $100 million for FY'96, in order
to get the program off to a fast start.  This both improves the chances of
success and saves money in the long run.
 
Meanwhile, the White House request for DOD RLV funding was zero; the
Administration would really rather not fund such work in DOD.  In theory,
Administration future space launch policy calls for DOD to specialize in
expendables and NASA to specialize in reusables, but there are already plenty
of exceptions both ways.  There are sound national security and programmatic
reasons for DOD to remain involved in RLV development; SAS is pushing for
continued DOD funding for RLV/X-33 work.  See the attached Congressional 
"colloquy" (a formal for-the-record conversation on the floor of Congress)
for more on this.
 
So, we have two different funding streams to work, NASA and DOD.  Each
funding stream has four different Congressional processes going into it -
House Authorization, House Appropriation, Senate Authorization, Senate
Appropriation.  (Briefly, "authorization" bills are the authorized shopping
lists, "appropriation" bills are where Congress writes the actual checks.)
The House and Senate versions of each bill (NASA Authorization, NASA
Appropriation, DOD Authorization, DOD Appropriation) will then be
reconciled in House-Senate conferences, and the final versions sent to the
President for signature, sometime this fall.  
 
Things on the DOD side are fairly simple.  In the House, we've gotten $100
million authorized (HR 1530 passed 15 June) and $50 million appropriated (HR
2126 is essentially complete and should be passed in early September).  In
the Senate, we've gotten the usual: nothing, no mention, no money, and the
relevant bills (S 1026 and S 1087) while not yet passed are no longer subject
to new amendments - this mainly a result of the bitter debate over missile
defenses.  We may still get favorable comments in the Congressional Record,
which may in turn help in the House-Senate conferences.  We do have some
hints of Senate support for the House position on RLV funding when the
conferences come.  There's work to do here; in particular anyone who can talk
to a Senator on the Armed Services Committee (SASC) and/or Appropriations
Defense Subcommittee should ask them to support DOD RLV funding in the
upcoming conferences.
 
Things on the NASA end are anything but simple.  So far, all we've been able
to achieve is X-33 funding at the $43 million the White House asked for, no
more, no less.  We may have avoided cuts in this by our active support, but
we sure haven't had any luck getting it increased to date.  (We should
mention here that "we" in this case is the whole loose pro-SSTO coalition,
of which SAS is just a part, lest anyone think SAS is falling prey to the
distressing recent trend of claiming sole credit for every affordable access
advance since Goddard's first rocket.  But we digress...) 
 
In the House, we ran into problems with upping the Authorization amount in
the Space Subcommittee then House Science Committee markups, problems that
may have had more to do with turf and/or personalities than with the merits
of the case.  HR 2043 could in theory still be amended before the floor vote
in late September, but this is unlikely to happen unless something changes.
Chances are HR2043 will pass pretty much as-is, as far as X-33 funding goes.
 
The House NASA Appropriation (HR 2099) has been passed; it funds X-33 at $43
million.  
 
The Senate Authorization (S 1048) has been passed by the Senate Commerce
Committee with $43 million for X-33, and will likely be passed by the full
senate in late September.
 
The Senate HUD/VA/Independent Agencies Appropriation will be marked up by the
HUD/VA/IA Subcommittee on September 11th, and by the full Senate
Appropriations Committee on September 13th.  This is the last major X-33
action before the House-Senate conferences starting in late September; the
way things have been going, we need a solid effort here to make sure X-33
funding isn't actually reduced.
 
After that, we'll have the four conferences to work, as House and Senate
resolve their differences on these bills: DOD Authorizations and
Appropriations, NASA Authorizations and Appropriations.  It should all be
finished sometime around the end of October.
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                    Advice To NASA A Growth Industry
 
One reason we spent most of SAU #55 giving NASA free advice is that there
are so many others already lined up to do so.  Notable among these is the
NAC, NASA Advisory Council, around for a while now, and the source of an
interesting collection of opinions in a recent Space News story. 
 
NAC seems to be operating on the assumption that Shuttle should be replaced
with "..an operational rocket that would largely match the capabilities of
the Shuttle..." and that the purpose of X-33 is to be a direct precursor to
such a "Shuttle II".  
 
SAS's oft-stated position is that bundling so many capabilities into one
system is a major reason for Shuttle's complexity, fragility, and expense. 
We believe Shuttle's capabilities should be replaced one at a time with
cheaper simpler more specialized vehicles, as such become available
commercially.  We note in particular that heavy-lift to International Space
Station's orbit can in fact be accomplished with existing commercially-
available expendables, some far cheaper than a Shuttle mission, and that this
mission will not likely arise often enough to warrant the additional costs of
insisting on this capability in a new reusable space transport.
 
NAC got our attention recently when we heard they'd formed an ad-hoc
subcommittee to look at reusable launcher issues.  The subcommittee is
headed by Dr. Jack Kerrebrock of MIT, a long-time advocate of TSTO.  Our best
guess is that the output will be pressure to recast X-33 as a TSTO Shuttle II
precursor, with lots of lab research on advanced technologies before any
commitment to flying something.  (Wasn't that called "X-30"?...)
 
There's also a new player in the blue-ribbon-advice game, the recently
formed Technology & Commercialization Advisory Committee, TCAC, who also have
a reusable launch subcommittee.  Tough to say exactly what they'll come up
with at this point, but at a guess it will be a bit less respectful of
embedded NASA institutional assumptions.  
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                          New OCST Spaceport Regs?
 
The transportation Department's Office of Commercial Space Transportation,
OCST, is we hear due to be merged into the FAA (Federal Aviation
Administration) in the near future.  In the meantime, OCST has started
working on regulations for future commercial spaceports in the US.
 
All well and good, except that OCST's first pass at the problem was to hire
a consultant whose chief experience was with the coastal expendable launch
ranges.  Said consultant we hear recommended rules based on those currently
in force for expendable boosters at the coastal launch ranges.
 
Hardly appropriate for future spaceports that will be dealing with high-
reliability fully-reusable launchers rather than current expendables.  We
understand the problem is being worked and the expendable-booster regs are
unlikely to be adopted - but we thought it worth mentioning, just in case...
Few of us would ride airliners with destruct charges on board, after all.
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                         X-34 Wants "Tax" Exemption
 
Recently government R&D programs have often been charged internal "taxes", a
percentage of their budget redirected to pay for agency overhead or for some
specific "tax" funded project, EG NASA's SBIR (Small Business Innovative
Research) program.  
 
It seems the X-34 contractors forgot to allow for these "taxes" in asking for
a flat $70 million as the NASA share of their small partially reusable
booster project.  We hear there's been some talk of X-34 being made "tax-
exempt" so they can get the full $70 million (well, the full $30 million this
coming fiscal year) instead of the lesser after-"tax" amount.
 
We sympathize, some; DC-X has repeatedly lost funding to such internal
"taxes" at DOD.  The problem we see with this though is that if X-34 is
exempted, it's all too likely the shortfall will be made up elsewhere in
NASA's RLV line item.  X-33, DC-XA, and the continuing NRA technology demos
shouldn't have to pay X-34's "tax" on top of their own share.  
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                     Account Shuffle For DOD SSTO Work?
 
We hear the Air Force has decided to shuffle account numbers (Program Element
numbers, "PE" numbers) for USAF Phillips Labs reusable launcher work.  We
don't quite understand why; we were just getting used to "PE603401F", but
from what we've heard so far there's no real-world change involved. 
Presumably the new PE603302 takes effect for the coming FY'96 budget.  
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
              One Last Chance To Vote In NSS Board Election
 
You may recall that we've endorsed a slate of candidates for this year's
National Space Society Board of Directors election, in an effort to
influence NSS to adopt more effective pro-affordable-access policies.  Well,
if you're a paid-up NSS member and haven't voted yet, you have one more
chance.  It seems a lot of NSS members never received their ballots, so NSS
has extended the ballot arrival deadline to September 8th, and is offering
replacement ballots via USPS 1st class to members who contact them.  At this
point you probably want to phone or email your replacement ballot request to
NSS HQ, in order to get it in time.  Their phone number is 202 543-1900,
email [email protected].  Ballots have to physically arrive at the accountants
by September 8th, so mail them as far ahead as possible.  And don't get any
ideas - they will be checking for duplicates; try to vote twice and both
ballots will be disqualified.  
 
The "Access" Slate again: (please, vote for all eight with no substitutions.)
 
Max Hunter
Kirby Ikin
Karen Mermel
Fred Ordway
Majel Barrett Roddenberry
James Spellman
Bill Weigle
Robert Zubrin
 
plus, if you live there, Michael Wallis in Region 2 (northern California),
or Henry Vanderbilt in Region 3 (Arizona, Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Texas.)
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                             SAS Administrivia
 
Everyone backordered on the DC-X/SSTO V 2.0 videotape should have gotten it
by now; we've shipped all orders received through the end of July.  We
really hadn't absconded to Paraguay with the proceeds, honest...  We'll be
shipping another, possibly final batch of this tape around the end of the
month.  
 
We'll be discontinuing stocking the V 2.0 tape once we get V 3.0 ready
for the duplicators, but meanwhile we're still taking orders.  V 2.0 has the
first five DC-X flights, DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, and a White Sands
Missile Range travelogue featuring G.Harry Stine, two hours of material
total, VHS only, twenty dollars US, five off for SAS members, eight extra
for shipping outside the US and Canada, mail checks to the address at the
end of this Update, end of sales plug...  V 3.0 will have all eight DC-X
test flights, but will drop a good portion of the other material present on
our current tape to make room for new stuff we're even now collecting.  (Our
duplication costs climb sharply for anything beyond two hours.) Get V 2.0
while you can.  
 
Everyone who has emailed us for more information on SAS, we aren't ignoring
you and we haven't forgotten you; we will be doing a mass info emailing
before the end of this week.  Ditto all of you who've written asking for a
copy of Jerry Pournelle's testimony before Congress on the subject of US
space and technology policy - he really was doing us a favor mentioning us
in that column, honestly he was...  But what with one thing and another,
we've gotten way behind in answering email.  If you haven't gotten a reply by
the end of this coming weekend, likely our alleged email system ate your
original note; email us again if you're still interested.  
 
Our SAS office computer setup is in the process of becoming considerably
less primitive, thanks to several people who've donated equipment and
software recently.  Anyone who has a combination plain-paper fax,
laser/inkjet printer, document scanner, and photocopier to donate (or for
that matter any of the above separately), drop us a note.  And as long as
we're soliciting donations, we are once again short on cash.  Donations of
any size gratefully accepted and frugally used...
 
We're now looking at two possible weekends for SPACE ACCESS '96, our next
conference on the economics, politics, and technology of affordable access. 
We're aiming for April 26-28 1996, but we may be able to get a better hotel
deal the following weekend, May 3-5.  If you have any strong preferences, in
particular if you know of a potential conflict with another conference, drop
us a note.  (Anyone know when SSI's Princeton conference will be next year?)
 
Oh, and SAS saw its third birthday as a formal organization last July 4th. 
Time flies when you're up to your ass in alligators...  But that swamp is 
starting to drain!  (Is draining swamps still an acceptable metaphor in this
age of endangered wetlands?  It'll have to do.)
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
[The following is excerpted from an alert already circulated by the SFF. 
Our additions are in brackets, thusly.]
 
It may be the dog days of August (a slur on canines everywhere), but it's
also the "Labor Day District/State Work Period" for our humble elected
officials in the House and Senate.  That means they're spending at least
some time back home where you, the voters, can get at them.  
 
**So it's time to get at them**.  IN PARTICULAR, for constituents of any
Senator or Representative who belongs to the Senate or House APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEES...  
 
*Now* is the time to tell them that you want NASA to push Cheap Access, and
therefore you want at least full funding, and preferably a funding
INCREASE, for the X-33 Single Stage To Orbit program.  
 
Why? - because Cheap Access makes everything else make sense.  Without it,
everything else is too expensive.
 
***SPECIAL ATTENTION to Senators on the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies
Subcommittee of Senate Appropriations ***
 
That subcommittee will "mark up" the NASA Appropriation bill on September
11th.  Anything you can do to personally contact -- that means set up an
appointment (if possible with other pro-space voters) to talk about how
important this is -- one of these Senators will make a huge difference. 
Push to see them during office hours back home, or during a public event
they'll probably have scheduled.  If all else fails, write them a 1-2 page
thoughtful and concise letter which asks them to support X-33 funding
during the markup.  
 
[Write them the one pager even if you do meet them personally; you can hand
it to them to help them remember your points whether you get to talk or
just get a quick handshake and "hihowyadoin" at a Labor Day weekend picnic.]
 
Don't STOP trying to contact (and gently persuade) them until the afternoon
of the 10th.  So keep pushing...  
 
***SPECIAL ATTENTION to Senators on either the Senate Armed Services
Committee or Defense Appropriations Subcommittee ***
 
Once again the House has recommended funding for the DOD's team which ran
the DC-X program to support NASA in its X-33 project. Once again the Senate
hasn't kept pace with the House.  It is important that the Senate Armed
Services Committee meet the House authorization level of $100M at least
half-way at $50M.  It is VITAL that the Senate Defense Appropriators
completely accede to the House Defense Appropriations number of $50M.  We
don't want a compromise of $25M here; we need the whole enchilada.  And it
must be IN BILL LANGUAGE.  
 
***EVERYONE ELSE can always ask their member/Senator to support full X-33
funding during floor consideration, and to use their influence with other
Members/Senators who ARE on Appropriations, to fight for Cheap Access.  FOR
EXAMPLE, Congressman Gerald Nadler, an urban Democrat from New York who is
on NO relevant committee, has had tremendous influence on funding votes in
recent years simply because he made his opinion known to the Appropriators.
 
SO YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR NOT CONTACTING *YOUR* CONGRESSMAN AND *BOTH* OF
YOUR SENATORS DURING THIS LABOR DAY RECESS.  TRY TO DO SO IN PERSON IF AT
ALL POSSIBLE.  AT A MINIMUM, VISIT THEIR CLOSEST LOCAL OFFICE.  
 
[SAS has a special request for those of you resident in the ninth district
of Wisconsin, north of Milwaukee: Please make a special effort to contact
Representative Sensenbrenner, Chair of the House Science Committee's Space
Subcommittee, and do what you can to sell him on the benefits of increased
NASA funding for an accelerated X-33 program, in as positive and polite a
manner as possible.]
 
[OK, lists.  We're going to lead off with the full Senate Appropriations
HUD/VA/IA Subcommittee listing, including their DC phone and fax numbers,
because after September 5th you should switch from trying to contact them
back in the home state (check the local phone book "Blue Pages" government
listings US Federal section under "Senator" for their local office numbers)
to contacting them in DC again, right up until the markup September 11th.]
 
 
Address paper mail to "Senator [name], US Senate, Washington DC 20510"
                                       phone         fax
(Chair and Ranking Minority Member, full Senate Appropriations Committee)
  Sen. Hatfield, Mark (R OR)         1-202-224-3753 1-202-224-0276
 *Sen. Byrd, Robert (D WV)           1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
 
(Chair and Ranking Minority Member, HUD/VA/IA {NASA} Subcommittee)
 *Sen. Bond, Christopher (R MO)      1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149
  Sen. Mikulski, Barbara (D MD)      1-202-224-4654 1-202-224-8858
 
 *Sen. Gramm, Phil (R TX)            1-202-224-2934 1-202-228-2856
  Sen. Burns, Conrad (R MT)          1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594
 *Sen. Stevens, Ted (R AK)           1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044
  Sen. Bennett, Robert (R UT)        1-202-224-5444 1-202-224-6717
 *Sen. Shelby, Richard C. (R AL)     1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416
 *Sen. Leahy, Patrick (D VT)         1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595
  Sen. Johnston, J. Bennett (D LA)   1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952
 *Sen. Lautenberg, Frank (D NJ)      1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707
  Sen. Kerrey, Joseph R. (D NE)      1-202-224-6551 1-202-224-7645
 
"*" indicates members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
  
The rest of the Senate Appropriations Committee follows, names and states
only.
 
 *Thad Cochran, MS
 *Arlen Specter, PA
 *Pete Domenici, NM
  Slade Gorton, WA
 *Mitch McConnell, KY
 *Connie Mack, FL
  Jim Jeffords, VT
  Judd Gregg, NH
 *Daniel Inouye, HI
 *Ernest Hollings, SC
 *J.Bennett Johnston, LA
 *Dale Bumpers, AR
  Tom Harkin, IA
  Harry Reid, NV
  Herbert Kohl, WI
  Patty Murray, WA
 
Senate Armed Services Committee, names and states only
 
  Strom Thurmond, SC
  John Warner, VA
  William Cohen, ME
  John McCain, AZ
  Trent Lott, MS
  Dan Coats, IN
  Bob Smith, NH
  Dirk Kempthorne, ID
  Kay Bailey Hutchison, TX
  James Inhofe, OK
  Rick Santorum, PA
  Sam Nunn, GA
  James Exon, NE
  Carl Levin, MI
  Ted Kennedy, MA
  Jeff Bingaman, NM
  John Glenn, OH
  Robert Byrd, WV
  Charles Robb, VA
  Joseph Lieberman, CT
  Richard Bryan, NV
 
Th-th-th-th-that's all, folks!  Until after Labor Day...
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
 
********************************************************************
 
Excerpts from H. Rpt. 104-233;
the report on the House FY '96 NASA Authorization Bill
H.R. 2043
 
[page 42]
 
Sec. 102(a)(4) Space Access and Technology
 
_Committee views_
_Advanced space transportation -- in general_
 
     One of the government's goals for the Advanced Space
Transportation program is to find an economical replacement for
the nation's aging Space Shuttle fleet.  This goal must be made to
work in harmony with the nation's commercial need to develop the
world's least expensive, most reliable payload delivery system.  In
a world where even nonmarket nations have gained access to the
commercial space launch market, the most effective government
incentive for private capital infusion into next-generation reusable
launch systems is a solid technological investment to develop a
new launch system that will surpass all current systems in
terms of economy, reliability, and performance.
     Traditionally, the government has taken the lead in developing
new launch systems to meet national security requirements.  But,
as these strictly government demands have receded in recent
years, new systems must instead base their capitalized cost on a
highly competitive commercial market model.  In order to facilitate
such a large and essential private investment, NASA has been
charged by the President's National Space Transportation Policy
(released August 5, 1994) to provide up-front technological risk
reduction sufficient
 
[page 43]
 
to enable private investors to assume a reasonable business risk to
then proceed with building an operational launch vehicle.
     The development of a Space Shuttle replacement, however,
should not be confused with the risk reduction phase of this first
process.  Government requirements, including those associated
with "man-rating" a space launch vehicle, must take a back seat
to commercial launch market demands.  The replacement of the
Space Shuttle should be derived from commercial vehicles
developed by the private sector as a result of the Reusable
Launch vehicle program.  When a privately developed reusable
launch vehicle has become operational, then consideration should
be given to human space transportation services, the distinction
between developing human space flight vehicles and commercial
payload delivery systems is important at this stage to focus
NASA's RLV effort solely on reducing the risks and costs facing
industry to develop and certify a commercial RLV.
 
_The RLV programs_
 
     The Committee supports NASA's request to develop reusable
launch vehicles under the terms of the industry-led cooperative
agreements.  The Committee believes the full-scale development
and fleet operations of such vehicles, however, must be undertaken
by private companies using risk capital.  Accordingly, the business
viability of the designs is an important as technological viability.
     For several years the Committee has strongly supported
technology development specifically aimed at achieving a single-
stage-to-orbit, fully reusable launch vehicle even while NASA had
no such program underway.  Upon the successful testing of the
DC-X prototype launcher by the Air Force, however, NASA and the
Office of Science and Technology Policy determined that such a
concept, if fully developed, could hold the promise of eventually
replacing the Space Shuttle.  Beginning in fiscal year 1995,
NASA began to adopt the DC-X program for continued testing and
issued the Cooperative Agreement Notices that led to formal
agreements with industry to develop two Reusable Launch Vehicles,
the X-33 and the X-34.
     In presenting the President's request to Congress, NASA has
labored to draw a clear technological connection between the X-33
and X-34.  Although NASA has demonstrated the applicability of
the X-34's enabling technologies and business strategy to further
development of the X-33, the Committee notes the fundamental
differences that exist between the X-33 and X-34 in terms of
purpose and technological challenge.  The X-34 is a small payload
class reusable launch vehicle that employs multiple stages.  The
X-33 is planned to be a medium-payload class reusable launch
vehicle [say what!? -HV] using just one stage.  It would be inappropriate to
draw too close a connection between the X-33 and X-34 programs
or suggest those programs are in a competitive relationship.
     The Committee is aware that the model of traditional X-vehicle
programs as conducted by NASA and the Air Force is not followed
by the X-33 or the X-34.  The reason for the different programmatic
approach is due to the industry-led cooperative agreements.  These
agreements, unlike traditional X-programs, presume
 
[page 44]
 
business viability to be a leading design objective.  The Committee
notes this distinction only because NASA must strike a balance
between pursuing purely technological goals that may conflict
with market and competitive pricing requirements; which are of
paramount importance to developing a financially self-supporting
launch vehicle.
 
     _The X-34 program_
 
....
 
....The
Committee welcomes the commitment of $100 million in private
sector funding and affirms its understanding that NASA's total
investment in X-34 will not exceed $70 million.
     As a result of the cooperative agreement between NASA and
industry for the X-34, industry retains managerial control over
NASA inputs to the program.  Accordingly, industry has agreed to
pay for any unbudgeted cost increases which may occur, so long
as it retains the power to control NASA's contributions.  The
Committee welcomes the commitment of $100 million in private
sector funding and its leadership of the X-34 program.  NASA's
investment of $70 million is effectively capped as long as the
"reverse contracting" features of the cooperative agreement are
adhered to by both parties.
     The Committee believes that these commitments from NASA
and the private sector accurately reflect the potential value of
the X-34 as a commercial space launch vehicle and a technology
test bed that is complementary to the goal of the program.  The
Committee, therefore, approves the full NASA budget request of
$30 million in X-34 funding for fiscal year 1996.
 
     _The X-33 program_
 
     The Committee also approves the full NASA budget request
of $49 million in X-33 concept definition, design and demonstration
funds for fiscal year 1996.  The subprogram elements of technology
development to support the X-33 and X-34 programs are also
funded at the full amount requested.
     The X-33 program is intended to answer the central question
facing the space transportation community today: Can a launch
vehicle be developed with propulsion so efficient, and weight so
minimized, as to be able to carry a useful payload to orbit in a
single
 
[page 45]
 
stage?  In making this authorization, the Committee has expressed
its optimism that Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) launch vehicles
could reduce the cost of launching payloads of all kinds by an
order of magnitude.
     The Committee believes the best way for NASA to help
industry solve the mass fraction equation facing launch vehicles
of this type is by building ad flying experimental vehicles to test
enabling SSTO technology.  In other words, the traditional prototype
development program aimed at an end-point design would be an
unacceptable contribution from NASA.  Instead it should encourage
the contractors to demonstrate rapidly an intact abort capabiliity
throughout the flight profile, rapid turnaround for frequent flight,
and flying higher and faster with the goal of demonstrating
orbital flight.
     The Committee commends the House National Security
Committee for authorizing funds for a reusable rocket technology
program at the U.S. Air Force's Phillips Laboratory.  The Committee
joins the National Security Committee in supporting a strong
supportive role in NASA's DC-XA and X-33 programs by the
Department of Defense's highly successful Single Stage Rocket
Technology (SSRT) program team.
     The Committee commends NASA for continuing these programs
based on the DC-X prototype initiated in the Department of Defense.
The Committee further recommends that the reusable launch
vehicle program continue with complementary activities being
undertaken within the Department of Defense, as called for by
the President's Space Transportation Policy and testimony to
the Congress from senior Defense Department officials.  The
Committee believes that a complementary technology program
within the Department of Defense is necessary for successful
completion of the reusable launch vehicle program and commends
the House National Security Committee and House Appropriations
Committee for funding supportive activities within the Department
of Defense.
 
                             *end excerpts*
 
 
From the Congressional Record, 
Thursday, June 15, 1995; 
In the House of Representatives; 
Page H 6012:
 
     Mr. SPENCE: Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. ROHRABACHER].
     Mr. ROHRABACHER.  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the 
distinguished chairman of the Military Research and Development 
Subcommittee in a colloquy.
     First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. SPENCE], and the former chair of the subcommittee, the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. SCHROEDER] for their support for 
continuing development of reusable launch vehicles.  This technology 
development will be pursued in cooperation with and support of NASA's 
Reusable Launch Vehicle Program.  As you know, this activity will be 
managed by the same DOD team which has so capably run the DC-X 
project, which had another very
successful flight on Monday.
     Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania.  Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
     Mr. ROHRABACHER.  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
     Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania.  Mr. Chairman, I would just say that 
the innovative approach being used in the DC-X project to demonstrate 
reusable rocket technology overcame bureaucratic as well as technical 
challenges.  The success of the DC-X is one of the reasons this committee 
believes that the Department of Defense should continue to play a strong 
role in reusable launch vehicle research.
     Mr. ROHRABACHER.  Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my 
understanding that the committee is authorizing $100 million in fiscal year 
1996 for developing and testing reusable launch vehicle technologies in 
support of the NASA-led X-33 advanced concept technology demonstration 
x-vehicle program.
     Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania.  That is correct.  This is pursuant to 
three administration policy plans: First, the President's space launch 
policy, which calls for the Department of Defense to cooperate with NASA 
in its Reusable Launch Vehicle Program; second, DOD's implementation 
plan for the President's policy, which calls for developing "space launch 
technologies which support DOD-unique interests in reusable launch 
vehicles;" and third, General Moorman's space launch modernization plan 
which calls for at least $120 million per year for a core space launch 
technology effort.
     Mr. ROHRABACHER.  Reclaiming my time, it is also my 
understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the committee's support for a 
cooperative DOD reusable launch technology effort is based on a clear set of 
policy goals, namely that: First, military space assets are increasingly vital 
to the warfighter, and therefore inexpensive, reliable, and frequent access 
to space is vital to national security; second, while an evolved expendable 
launch vehicle program will provide a near-term, incremental 
improvement in space access, foreseeable military and commercially 
competitive requirements for space launch can be best and most 
economically satisfied by fully reusable launch systems; and third, reusable 
rocket technologies also show great promise for space sortie and other 
global reach aircraft missions which could be performed by RV-based 
transatmospheric vehicles.
     Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania.  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman 
will yield further, the gentleman from California is indeed correct.  The 
committee is funding DOD's cooperative involvement in the NASA-led X-33 
reusable launch vehicle program first and foremost because of national 
security goals and requirements.  The committee believes that the Air 
Force's Phillips Laboratory team brings unique expertise and talent to the 
challenge of reusable launch vehicle research generally, and to the NASA-
led X-33 program specifically, a fact recognized by NASA in naming the 
Phillips Laboratory team as the X-33 deputy for flight testing and 
operations.  The committee is not attempting to use DOD funds to subsidize 
a NASA program, but rather to fund DOD personnel to strengthen and 
improve a NASA-led national effort which is vital to DOD as well as 
commercial launch interests.
 
                                 *end*

Article: 7513
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #57  9/8/95
Date: 8 Sep 1995 13:24:57 -0700
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Sender: [email protected]
 
 
                     Space Access Update #57 9/8/95
                  Copyright 1995 by Space Access Society.
____________________________________________________________________________
 
          Stories this issue:
 
Updated SSTO Web Site Info
 
DOD Funding Bills to Conference Soon
 
NASA X-33 Funding Pressured From Interesting Directions
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
Attachment
 
      - NASA Advisory Council Letters to NASA Administrator
 
------------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)--------------------------
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO)
technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and thus
development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor
confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial
investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far from that point now.  
 
Our major current focus is on supporting the government's fully reusable
single-stage rocket technology programs, the low-speed DC-X, and its high-
speed followon the X-33 NASA/DOD/industry cooperative project.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying
into space well before the end of this decade, with practical orbital
transport projects getting underway.  Join us, and help us make it happen.  
 
                 Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society
 
 
For info on joining Space Access Society or buying the DC-X/SSTO video we
have for sale (Two hours, includes footage from the first five DC-X flights,
DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, plus a G.Harry Stine/Henry Vanderbilt White
Sands Missile Range DC-X Flight Five travelogue),
      email:  [email protected] 
      or write us at:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                       Updated SSTO Web Site Info
 
We have updated info on various NASA Web sites of interest to us.  Thanks to
the various people who posted these on sci.space.policy...
 
The X-33 CAN (Cooperative Agreement Notice) text can be found at
 
      http://procure.msfc.nasa.gov/coop/solicit/
 
It's around 230K as plain text, more formatted.  This is the document we
published our proposed changes to in SAU #55, with some resultant fuss.
 
We hear http://rlv.msfc.nasa.gov/ is also worth a look, and that text of the
1994 NASA "Access To Space" study is available at http://rlv.msfc.nasa.gov/
RLV_HTMLs/LIBGen.html/.
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                  DOD Funding Bills to Conference Soon
 
Department of Defense (DOD) FY'96 Authorization and Appropriation bills have
been passed in both House and Senate.  House-Senate conferences to settle the
final versions could happen as soon as next week, and the staffers from both
bodies are already working out the needed compromises.  
 
The House FY'96 DOD Authorization has $100 million for SSTO work in DOD, the
House FY'96 DOD Appropriation $50 million.  The Senate versions of both these
bills have nothing for SSTO.
 
What we're hoping for is that the Senate will "accede to", accept unchanged,
the House position on SSTO in both the Authorization and Appropriation
conference.  See our Action Recommendations for more.
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
         NASA X-33 Funding Pressured From Interesting Directions
 
We mentioned in SAU #56 that we were running into some rather surprising
opposition to topping up NASA FY'96 funding (in order to assure a rapid
start and quick completion of X-33, possibly with a second airframe as
backup.) We still don't want to say much about that while the problem is
being worked...  
 
We're now beginning to also see pressure to take the existing level of X-33
funding and divert large chunks of it to other purposes, under cover of
"improving" the program.  See the attached letters from the NASA Advisory
Council (NAC) blue-ribbon volunteer committee, wherein they give the strong
impression they want to divert X-33 funding to more ground-based advanced
technology development, and also to additional paper study of alternative
TSTO (Two Stage To Orbit) vehicle configurations.  They display no eagerness
at all to actually build and fly an X-vehicle anytime soon.
 
Needless to say, we don't agree with this approach.  X-33 is supposed to be
a fast-paced experimental flight demonstration program in support of US
commercial reusable space transport development, not a technology sandbox-
project funder, not a prototype for a government-specified Shuttle II.  We
expect some people on NAC do understand the difference, and we'd really like
to see them speak up about this - so far, a TSTO Shuttle II faction seems to
be running things at NAC.  
 
Meanwhile, the Senate NASA (HUD, VA, and Independent Agencies, technically)
Appropriation is due for subcommittee markup Tuesday the 12th, full Senate
Appropriations Committee markup Wednesday the 13th, and could be passed by
the full Senate and on to conference as soon as Friday the 15th.  Here, we
currently expect no change from the requested level of $43 million for X-33.
The main question here is what conditions may end up tied to X-33 funding
come the end of the conference.  
 
NASA Authorizations from House and Senate now look like being considerably
delayed, possibly into October - the current rush is to complete all
Appropriation bills before the start of FY'96 October 1st, as part of the
upcoming test of wills between Administration and Congress over the depth
and location of Congressional cuts - the wholesale-veto "train wreck"
threatened by the President.  We don't currently expect this to directly
affect X-33.  
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                       SAS Action Recommendations
 
The House-Senate conferences to iron out differences in their respective
versions of the Fiscal Year 1996 DOD (Defense Department) Authorizations and
Appropriations bills could start as soon as next week.  The House versions
of these bills have money for reusable SSTO work, the Senate versions do
not.  We need to ask the Senators involved to go along with, "accede to" the
House position in these two conferences.  We need to start asking now, as
the staffers involved are already doing advance work on these conferences.  
 
SASC, the Senate Armed Services Committee, will take part in the DOD
Authorizations conference.  SAC NatSec, the Senate Appropriations Committee
National Security Subcommittee, will be in the DOD Appropriations conference.
 
Look over the appended SASC and SAC NatSec lists.  Call, write or fax any
Senator there from your state and ask them to "accede to the House position"
on funding DOD reusable rocket work in the upcoming conference.  
 
If you write or fax, keep it to one page.  Mention right at the start what
you're writing about, (continued DOD participation in the NASA X-33 reusable
rocket flight program) tell them what you'd like them to do ("accede to"
<support> the House position on DOD Reusable Launch Vehicle <RLV> funding in
the conference) then provide supporting details -- why you think this is
good for the country, good for future DOD space needs, providing DOD
experience to keep the NASA program on track, and so forth.  Make as
persuasive a one-page case for DOD supporting reusable rocket work as you
can.  (The person reading your fax will almost certainly be an overworked
underpaid staffer.  If yours is the only letter they get, it needs to be
sensible and persuasive; if yours is the hundredth, it needs to be easy to
categorize and add to their running total.)
 
If you phone, keep it short and polite -- you're likely talking to that same
overworked staffer.  Tell them you're calling about DOD funding for reusable
space launch vehicle research.  They may pass you on to another staffer who
handles DOD matters; you may get that staffer's voicemail.  Live or
voicemail, identify yourself briefly ("Hi, I'm John Smith, from East Podunk,
Minnesota" - it helps if East Podunk is in their boss's state...) then ask
them to accede ("ack-seed") to the House position on reusable space launch
vehicle research funding in the upcoming DOD Appropriations (or
Authorizations if they're on SASC) conference.  
 
If they want to know more, fill them in as best you can, otherwise thank
them for their time and ring off.  
 
 
               Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) List
 
("Senator XYZ, US Senate, Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
 
Sen. Thurmond, Strom (R  SC)       1-202-224-5972 1-202-224-1300
Sen. Nunn, Sam (D GA)              1-202-224-3521 1-202-224-0072
Sen. Lott, Trent (R MS)            1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262
Sen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R TX)  1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776
Sen. Bryan, Richard H. (D NV)      1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867
Sen. McCain, John (R AZ)           1-202-224-2235 1-202-228-2862
Sen. Byrd, Robert C. (D WV)        1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
Sen. Cohen, William S. (R ME)      1-202-224-2523 1-202-224-2693
Sen. Coats, Daniel R. (R IN)       1-202-224-5623 1-202-224-8964
Sen. Smith, Robert (R NH)          1-202-224-2841 1-202-224-1353
Sen. Kempthorne, Dirk (R ID)       1-202-224-6142 1-202-224-5893
Sen. Warner, John W. (R VA)        1-202-224-2023 1-202-224-6295
Sen. Inhofe, James (R OK)          1-202-224-4721 1-202-224-????
Sen. Santorum, Rick (R PA)         1-202-224-6324 1-202-224-4161
Sen. Bingaman, Jeff (D NM)         1-202-224-5521 1-202-224-2852
Sen. Levin, Carl (D MI)            1-202-224-6221 1-202-224-1388
Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. (D MA)     1-202-224-4543 1-202-224-2417
Sen. Lieberman, Joseph I. (D CT)   1-202-224-4041 1-202-224-9750
Sen. Robb, Charles S. (D VA)       1-202-224-4024 1-202-224-8689
Sen. Glenn, John (D OH)            1-202-224-3353 1-202-224-7983
 
also talk to
 
Sen. Kyl, Jon (R AZ)               1-202-224-4521 1-202-224-2302
 
 
House Appropriations Committee, National Security (DOD Oversight) Subcommittee
 
(Appropriations Chair)                    voice       fax
Livingston, Robert (R-01 LA)       1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739
 
(Appropriations Ranking Minority Member)
Obey, David R. (D-07)              1-202-225-3365 1-202-225-0561
 
(Subcommittee Chair)
Young, C. W. Bill (R-10 FL)        1-202-225-5961 1-202-225-9764
 
(Subcommittee RMM)
Murtha, John P. (D-12 PA)          1-202-225-2065 1-202-225-5709
 
McDade, Joseph M. (R-10 PA)        1-202-225-3731 1-202-225-9594
Livingston, Robert (R-01 LA)       1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739
Lewis, Jerry (R-40 CA)             1-202-225-5861 1-202-225-6498
Skeen, Joseph (R-02 NM)            1-202-225-2365 1-202-225-9599
Hobson, David L. (R-07 OH)         1-202-225-4324 1-202-225-1984
Bonilla, Henry (R-23 TX)           1-202-225-4511 1-202-225-2237
Nethercutt, George (R-05 WA)       1-202-225-2006 1-202-225-7181
Neumann, Mark (R-01 WI)
Dicks, Norman D. (D-06 WA)         1-202-225-5916 1-202-226-1176
Wilson, Charles (D-02 TX)          1-202-225-2401 1-202-225-1764
Hefner, Bill (D-08 NC)             1-202-225-3715 1-202-225-4036
Sabo, Martin Olav (D-05 MN)        1-202-225-4755 1-202-225-4886
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
 
********************************************************************
 
 
We mentioned last issue that we had our doubts as to the direction the NASA
Advisory Council was likely to take on X-33 and SSTO.  Well, we have a lot
less doubt now - some fascinating material just came in over the transom. 
All emphasis is from the originals.
 
The following letter was on NASA Advisory Council stationary, addressed to
NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, dated 31 Aug. 1995.  
 
 
    Dear Mr. Goldin:
 
    The NASA Advisory Council is hereby forwarding, as you requested, our
    "Plan for Oversight of Reusable Launch Vehicle Program." As you know,
    the first review of the RLV was held at MSFC on May 18-19, 1995, by Bob
    Huang, Duane McRuer and Don Jacobs. The approved summary of that review
    and further actions recommended for the Council are included.
 
    The MSFC personnel were very supportive of our review, and the
    technology is exciting. It has the potential to develop some important
    options for launch vehicles.  
 
    The RLV program was the subject of a great deal of NAC discussion.  The
    Access to Space Study indicated the feasibility of an SSTO approach to
    deliver a payload of 25,000 lbs to a 220 nm orbit at 51.6 degrees
    inclination with a 15% weight margin.  Phase I of the X-33 Program has
    been set in place to validate the technologies required.  The Council
    is in agreement that this is an appropriate and prudent plan.  However,
    we are also concerned about certain aspects of this program as it is
    currently structured.  We strongly believe additional steps are
    essential to preserve future options and support ongoing NASA
    requirements.  Our discussions led to the following four unanimous
    recommendations for NASA:  
 
    1.  Any credible RLV which must support a _national_ launch need must
    be based on a crisp statement of customer requirements.  Therefore, _we
    recommend that NASA collect, integrate, and _validate_ a statement of
    total _government_ launch requirements for the years 2003 to 2023.
    Inputs from DOD, CIA, and other government users must be included with
    validated NASA requirements._ The requirements have not been credibly
    validated, either in terms of weight or frequency of launches.  It is
    these requirements that are one of the major drivers for a total system
    design. Industry could then form its payload model based on these and
    other commercial launch requirements.  
 
    2.  As currently constituted, the RLV technology program focuses
    entirely on SSTO performance technology.  While such technology _may_
    lead to enormous payoffs, it also is extremely risky. Therefore, _we
    recommend that alternative reusable launch vehicle designs be developed
    with a goal of minimizing the cost per pound in orbit (and eliminating
    further non-essential constraints). Further, the enabling technologies
    to evaluate these alternatives should be included in the NASA
    technology plans._ It is the belief of the Council that the current
    efforts on SSTO do _not_ include all the necessary technology
    investigations to examine viable alternatives.  
 
    3.  Much of the cost of current launch vehicles is in the operations,
    launch rate, and support.  For a reusable vehicle, this has proven to
    be the major driver (e.g., Shuttle).  _We recommend that a reasonably
    detailed economic model be developed that includes all the acquisition
    and operations costs; that is, total life cycle cost.  Such a model
    would be used to evaluate contending RLV concepts.  This should be
    maintained by an _independent_ studies and analysis group to help guide
    future RLV decisions._
 
    4.  _From the outset_, the RLV of the future should be designed as an
    operational vehicle.  We have not found the current program to be
    sensitive to operational issues in the same way as, say, an operational
    airline.  In our view, such sensitivity is necessary.  Therefore, _we
    recommend that a special internal review of the desired future RLV
    operational concept (including design impacts on vehicle, payload
    processing, launch pad, turnaround, operating agency, etc.) be
    conducted. Included in such a review should be an assessment of the
    necessary steps that would lead to such a streamlined operational
    concept, _not just in launch vehicle technology_.
 
    In summary, the Council concurs with and supports the current
    technology efforts.  The above recommendations are for _balance_ and
    the development of _credible alternatives_ should the SSTO technology
    not meet its promise.  This is particularly critical since the
    decisions will be forced by the end of life of Shuttle.  With your
    concurrence on the plan, we will continue to execute it and to take the
    actions recommended in the team's report.      
 
    Sincerely,
 
    Bradford W. Parkinson Chair
 
    Enclosures (2)
 
    cc: Dr. Huang Mr. Reck
 
 
 
This is a second letter from the NAC to Administrator Goldin, dated 1
September 1995, a day later.
 
 
    Dear Mr. Goldin:
 
    The NASA Advisory Council has reviewed the Reusable Launch Vehicle
    (RLV) Technology Program Decision Criteria document.  The criteria for
    four areas of critical technology are complete and in detail.  In
    several other respects, the criteria are either too narrowly focused or
    lacking altogether.  
 
    Presidential Directive NSTC-4 states that the fundamental goal of the
    U.S. Space Program is "Assuring reliable and affordable access to
    space...." The directive anticipates that future development of a
    reusable launch system will replace the Space Shuttle fleet.  While we
    understand that the decision at the end of the decade on development of
    an operational next-generation reusable launch system will be based on
    NASA's technology development and demonstration effort, which is
    focused on technologies to prove the concept of single-stage-to-orbit,
    we remain concerned that a completely reusable SSTO system may not be
    the best choice and that NASA is not considering the alternatives to
    SSTO in sufficient depth and breadth to provide a rational basis for
    selecting a SSTO launch system even if the X-33 program indicates that
    it is technically feasible.  
 
    The current Phase III decision criteria serve as a measure of success
    of the Phase II technology programs.  Our understanding is that it is
    ultimately industry's decision on whether to undertake, on its own
    funds, a full scale development and build-out of a next generation RLV
    fleet and what market to satisfy, and that it is the government's
    decision whether to accept such a proposal as the transportation
    component of replacing the Shuttle.  While technological feasibility
    and vehicle design are important, the government's criteria for such a
    decision should be concerned with whether the proposal meets national
    needs for low cost, reliable, operable, and safe space transport of
    personnel and payloads.  Such criteria would address how well the
    proposal meets all government mission needs, the performance record of
    the proposing organization, the financial strength of the proposal, the
    need for additional government development of crew and cargo modules
    compared to application of new technologies to the Shuttle, etc.  
 
    A significant concern is the apparent omission, from the listing of the
    Phase II preliminary business plan components, of an assumed payload
    traffic model on which the operations cost reductions will be
    projected.  Operations costs cannot be realistically estimated without
    a knowledge of payload requirements and flight frequency profiles based
    on market surveys.  NASA should develop a government user payload model
    that could be expressed in terms of ranges for flights per year and
    payload weights, incorporating requirements of DOD, NASA, and other
    government agencies. The payload traffic models in industry's RLV
    business plans should specify the government payload requirements and
    international or commercial user markets they incorporate.  
 
    Automated operations technologies will be important to achieving
    reduced operations costs but have been omitted from the decision
    criteria.  These are significant cost contributors in today's systems. 
    The NASA Implementation Plan for the National Space Transportation
    Policy states "The RLV program will consist of developing and
    validating vehicle, propulsion, and operations technologies.  These
    technologies will be progressively integrated and flight-demonstrated
    on three experimental test vehicles, the DC-XA, X-34 and X-33." Now,
    demonstration of the operations technologies is recognized as required
    for the RLV but is not incorporated in the X-33 technology
    demonstrator.  We strongly recommend the implementation of a key
    technologies program to bring to maturity the operational technologies
    prior to the Phase III go-ahead decision.  These technologies, which
    include the following, should have funded research components and Phase
    III decision criteria which validate affordability, reliability, and
    operability goals prior to the Phase III go-ahead decision:  
 
         1.  Automated checkout and launch
         2.  Autonomous flight control
         3.  Smart avionics, guidance and navigation
         4.  Integrated vehicle health monitoring system.
 
    The issue of human flight certification should also be addressed and
    criteria available well in advance of the Phase II decision.  RLV
    certification criteria for human passenger flight could significantly
    alter the contractor approaches for X-33.  Although the X-33 will not
    have human pilots or passengers, the SSTO RLV, whose requirements are
    flowing down the X-33 design, would.  The criteria should be developed
    for use on the assumption that the business plans for the RLV will be
    based on an intent to capture the NASA missions to Space Station.  
 
    A documented backup plan should be developed prior to the Phase II
    decision to provide information required for consideration of
    alternatives other than SSTO.  Information should be available to
    evaluate alternatives to SSTO for the Phase III decision on an equal
    basis.  
 
    We appreciate having had the opportunity to review the document and
    hope that you find our suggestions useful and constructive. 
    Development of affordable, reliable access to space is vital to the
    Nation's space program and to burgeoning space industries.  The Council
    has a keen interest in and strong support for NASA's efforts in
    attaining that goal.  We are willing to provide any further assistance
    you may request.  
 
    Sincerely,
 
    Bradford W. Parkinson Chair
 
                                  *end*

Article: 21921
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Space Access Update #57 9/8/95
Date: 12 Sep 95 02:02:00 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
 
 
Oops...  We asked people to contact members of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, National Security (DOD oversight) Subcommittee in SAU #57, but
inadvertantly included a list of the HOUSE Appropriations NatSecSub.
 
Blush.  We hope nobody has called one of these numbers and asked that House
member to "accede to the House position" on X-33 funding in the upcoming
FY'96 DOD Appropriations conference.  A pretty easy request for them to
honor, actually...
 
Anyway, here's the correct list.
 
                                          voice       fax
 Sen. Hatfield, Mark (R OR)         1-202-224-3753 1-202-224-0276
 (chair, full SAC)
 Sen. Byrd, Robert (D WV)           1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
 (RMM, full SAC)
 Sen. Stevens, Ted (R AK)           1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044
 (chair, SAC NatSec Sub)
 Sen. Inouye, Daniel (D HI)         1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747
 (RMM, SAC NatSec Sub)
 
 Sen. Cochran, Thad (R MS)          1-202-224-5054 1-202-224-3576
 Sen. Gramm, Phil (R TX)            1-202-224-2934 1-202-228-2856
 Sen. Domenici, Pete V. (R NM)      1-202-224-6621 1-202-224-7371
 Sen. McConnell, Mitch (R KY)       1-202-224-2541 1-202-224-2499
 Sen. Specter, Arlen (R PA)         1-202-224-4254 1-202-224-1893
 Sen. Bond, Christopher (R MO)      1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149
 Sen. Mack, Connie (R FL)           1-202-224-5274 1-202-224-8022
 Sen. Shelby, Richard C. (R AL)     1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416
 
 Sen. Hollings, Ernest (D SC)       1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293
 Sen. Johnston, J. Bennett (D LA)   1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952
 Sen. Leahy, Patrick (D VT)         1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595
 Sen. Harkin, Thomas (D IA)         1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-7431
 Sen. Lautenberg, Frank (D NJ)      1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707
 Sen. Harkin, Thomas (D IA)         1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-7431

Article: 7547
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #58  9/15/95
Date: 15 Sep 1995 09:46:12 -0700
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Sender: [email protected]
 
 
                     Space Access Update #58 9/14/95
                  Copyright 1995 by Space Access Society.
____________________________________________________________________________
 
          Stories this issue:
 
Senate NASA X-33 Appropriation Adds $20 Million
 
       - Now Goal Is To Preserve Gains In Conference
 
DOD SSTO Funding Still In Doubt
 
       - But Supportive Report Language, New Senate Support Bode Well
 
FY'95 DOD SSTO $30m Funding Subjected To $7.1m AF "Taxes"
 
SAS Action Recommendations
 
Attachments
 
      - NASA RLV Boss's Response To Sept 1 NAC Letter
 
      - SASC DOD Authorization Bill Report Language on SSTO
 
------------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)--------------------------
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO)
technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and thus
development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor
confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial
investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far from that point now.  
 
Our major current focus is on supporting the government's fully reusable
single-stage rocket technology programs, the low-speed DC-X, and its high-
speed followon the X-33 NASA/DOD/industry cooperative project.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying
into space well before the end of this decade, with practical orbital
transport projects getting underway.  Join us, and help us make it happen.  
 
                 Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society
 
 
For info on joining Space Access Society or buying the DC-X/SSTO video we
have for sale (Two hours, includes footage from the first five DC-X flights,
DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, plus a G.Harry Stine/Henry Vanderbilt White
Sands Missile Range DC-X Flight Five travelogue),
      email:  [email protected] 
      or write us at:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
       Senate Appropriations Committee Adds $20 Million for NASA X-33
 
The Senate version of the Fiscal Year '96 (starts October 1st) NASA 
Appropriations bill (actually the HUD/VA/Independent Agencies 
Appropriation) came out of the full Senate Appropriations Committee with 
$20 million extra for NASA's portion of the X-33 program, for a total of 
$63 million in NASA.  This raises NASA's total Reusable Launch Vehicle 
(RLV) line item from $159 million to $179 million.  Chances are very good 
that this is what the Senate will go into the HUD/VA/IA conference with. 
 
Other projects in NASA's RLV budget line are "X"-34, $30m, DC-XA, $20m, and 
various materials and engine technology projects the remainder.
 
An attempt to tie this additional $20 million to a parallel study of Two-
Stage-To-Orbit options was defeated.  X-33 is defined as an attempt to see 
how far Single-Stage rocket technology can be pushed; imposing an 
additional TSTO design study requirement now will just delay the process.  
We already know we can do TSTO; if it turns out to be needed as a fallback, 
there will be enough lightweight reusable rocket experience from X-33 to 
make a reusable TSTO design fairly straightforward.
 
The place to watch for a revival of this TSTO clause is in the upcoming 
Conference Committee, where the House and Senate will work out their 
differences on this Appropriation bill.
 
Our main concern there however is that the House accede to the Senate's $20 
million increase in NASA X-33 funding.  See the SAS Action Recommendations.
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                      DOD SSTO Funding Still In Doubt
 
It looks likely that we will see funding for reusable-rocket SSTO work in 
DOD "authorized" for FY'96.  The House Armed Services Committee has long 
supported such work as a legitimate interest of the Department of Defense, 
and now we're beginning to see support on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee (SASC) as well.  In particular, we hear that Senator Strom 
Thurmond, the Chairman of SASC, views such funding favorably these days. 
 
Getting the $50 million we're hoping for in FY'96 DOD SSTO money actually
"appropriated" may be a lot tougher though.  There's a move afoot within 
the Senate Appropriations Committee staff to prohibit any FY'96 funding, 
and also to forbid any such DOD funding of reusable rocket work in the 
future.  (Congressional "authorizations" bills are essentially authorized 
shopping lists; "appropriations" bills write the actual checks.) 
 
The House bill appropriates $50 million for DOD RLV work in FY'96.  We very 
much need the Senate DOD Appropriators to go along with this in conference.
The House-Senate conferences on both DOD funding bills, Authorizations and 
Appropriations, could start as early as next week.  Preliminary staff work 
is already well underway.
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
         FY'95 DOD SSTO $30m Funding Subjected To $7.1m AF "Taxes"
 
Meanwhile, a bad precedent is being set with last year's DOD SSTO money.  
You may recall that Administration-appointed officials in the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense held up release of the $30 million in FY'95 reusable 
rocket money all winter and spring.  Once the money finally reached the Air 
Force (USAF runs Phillips Labs, where the DOD reusable rocket effort is 
based), they took $3.6m off the top as an internal "tax" for general 
overhead, recissions, etc.  We don't like this, but there's some precedent 
for it in various other government R&D outfits such as ARPA and NASA.
 
What is as best we know unprecedented is the way a further $3.5m was 
"taxed" then divided up among various departments at Phillips Labs.  This 
looks a whole lot like diverting Congressionally appropriated funds for 
purposes entirely other than those Congress intended.  We understand that 
$1.9m has since been returned on pretty much those grounds, that keeping 
the money would have been an illegal misappropriation.
 
It's not so much that the remaining $1.6m is life or death for the future 
of SSTO, as that this is a very bad precedent to set.  The amounts diverted 
in future years will likely be larger if this is let stand. 
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                       SAS Action Recommendations
 
Three items this week, in descending order of priority, the top priority 
new, the other two continued from SAU #57 if you haven't yet done 
something about them.
 
Top priority: If you live in or near the district of a member of the House 
Appropriations Committee's HUD/VA/Independent Agencies (NASA) Subcommittee, 
call, write, or fax them, asking them to support the Senate's additional 
$20 million for NASA reusable launch vehicle (RLV) work in the upcoming 
HUD/VA/Independent Agencies Appropriations Conference. 
 
Close second priority: If you live in the state of a member of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee's National Security Subcommittee, call, write, or 
fax them, asking them to support the House's $50 million in funding for 
reusable launch vehicle work in the upcoming DOD Appropriations Conference.
 
Finally, if you live in the state of a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, call, write, or fax them, asking them to support the House's $100 
million in funding for reusable launch vehicle work in the upcoming DOD 
Authorizations Conference.  (Just because we're beginning to see some 
support in SASC is no reason to slack off.  It ain't over till it's over.)
 
(Background from last issue)
 
The House-Senate conferences to iron out differences in their respective
versions of the Fiscal Year 1996 DOD (Defense Department) Authorizations and
Appropriations bills could start as soon as next week.  The House versions
of these bills have money for reusable SSTO work, the Senate versions do
not.  We need to ask the Senators involved to go along with, "accede to" the
House position in these two conferences.  We need to start asking now, as
the staffers involved are already doing advance work on these conferences.  
 
SASC, the Senate Armed Services Committee, will take part in the DOD
Authorizations conference.  SAC NatSec, the Senate Appropriations Committee
National Security Subcommittee, will be in the DOD Appropriations conference.
 
If you write or fax, keep it to one page.  Mention right at the start what 
you're writing about, tell them what you'd like them to do then provide 
supporting details -- why you think this is good for the country, good for 
future US international aerospace competitiveness, good for future DOD 
space needs, provides DOD experience to keep the NASA program on track, 
and so forth.  Make as persuasive a one-page case as you can.  (The person 
reading your fax will almost certainly be an overworked underpaid staffer.  
If yours is the only letter they get, it needs to be sensible and 
persuasive; if yours is the hundredth, it needs to be easy to categorize 
and add to their running total.) 
 
If you phone, keep it short and polite -- you're likely talking to that same
overworked staffer.  Tell them you're calling about (NASA or DOD) funding 
for reusable space launch vehicle research.  They may pass you on to 
another staffer who handles (NASA or DOD) matters; you may get that 
staffer's voicemail.  Live or voicemail, identify yourself briefly ("Hi, 
I'm John Smith, from East Podunk, Minnesota" - it helps if East Podunk is 
in their boss's district or for a senator, state...) then give them the 
appropriate message, depending on what Conference their boss will be taking 
part in. 
 
If they want to know more, fill them in as best you can, otherwise thank
them for their time and ring off.  
 
 
House Appropriations Committee, VA-HUD (NASA oversight) Subcommittee
 
("Representative XYZ, US HoR, Washington DC 20515" will get mail to them.)
 
 (Appropriations Chair)                    voice       fax
 Livingston, Robert (R-01 LA)       1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739
 
 (Appropriations Ranking Minority Member)
 Obey, David R. (D-07)              1-202-225-3365 1-202-225-0561
 
 (Subcommittee Chair)
 Lewis, Jerry (R-40 CA)             1-202-225-5861 1-202-225-6498
 
 (Subcommittee RMM)
 Stokes, Louis (D-11 OH)            1-202-225-7032 1-202-225-1339
 
 DeLay, Thomas (R-22 TX)            1-202-225-5951 1-202-225-5241
 Vucanovich, Barbara (R-02 NV)      1-202-225-6155 1-202-225-2319
 Walsh, James T. (R-25 NY)          1-202-225-3701 1-202-225-4042
 Hobson, David L. (R-07 OH)         1-202-225-4324 1-202-225-1984
 Knollenberg, Joe (R-11 MI)         1-202-225-5802 1-202-226-2356
 Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-11 NJ)    1-202-225-5034 1-202-225-0658
 Neumann, Mark (R-01 WI)
 Mollohan, Alan B. (D-01 WV)        1-202-225-4172 1-202-225-7564
 Chapman, Jim (D-01 TX)             1-202-225-3035 1-202-225-7265
 Kaptur, Marcy (D-09 OH)            1-202-225-4146 1-202-225-7711
 
 
Senate Appropriations Committee, National Security (DOD) Subcommittee 
 
("Senator XYZ, US Senate, Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
                                          voice       fax
 Sen. Hatfield, Mark (R OR)         1-202-224-3753 1-202-224-0276
 (chair, full SAC)
 Sen. Byrd, Robert (D WV)           1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
 (RMM, full SAC)
 Sen. Stevens, Ted (R AK)           1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-2354
 (chair, SAC NatSec Sub)
 Sen. Inouye, Daniel (D HI)         1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747
 (RMM, SAC NatSec Sub)
 
 Sen. Cochran, Thad (R MS)          1-202-224-5054 1-202-224-9450
 Sen. Gramm, Phil (R TX)            1-202-224-2934 1-202-228-2138
 Sen. Domenici, Pete V. (R NM)      1-202-224-6621 1-202-224-7371
 Sen. McConnell, Mitch (R KY)       1-202-224-2541 1-202-224-2499
 Sen. Specter, Arlen (R PA)         1-202-224-4254 1-202-224-1893
 Sen. Bond, Christopher (R MO)      1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149
 Sen. Mack, Connie (R FL)           1-202-224-5274 1-202-224-8022
 Sen. Shelby, Richard C. (R AL)     1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416
 
 Sen. Hollings, Ernest (D SC)       1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293
 Sen. Johnston, J. Bennett (D LA)   1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952
 Sen. Leahy, Patrick (D VT)         1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595
 Sen. Harkin, Thomas (D IA)         1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-9369
 Sen. Lautenberg, Frank (D NJ)      1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707
 Sen. Harkin, Thomas (D IA)         1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-7431
 
 
               Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) List
 
("Senator XYZ, US Senate, Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
 
 Sen. Thurmond, Strom (R  SC)       1-202-224-5972 1-202-224-1300
 Sen. Nunn, Sam (D GA)              1-202-224-3521 1-202-224-0072
 Sen. Lott, Trent (R MS)            1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262
 Sen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R TX)  1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776
 Sen. Bryan, Richard H. (D NV)      1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867
 Sen. McCain, John (R AZ)           1-202-224-2235 1-202-228-2862
 Sen. Byrd, Robert C. (D WV)        1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
 Sen. Cohen, William S. (R ME)      1-202-224-2523 1-202-224-2693
 Sen. Coats, Daniel R. (R IN)       1-202-224-5623 1-202-224-3924
 Sen. Smith, Robert (R NH)          1-202-224-2841 1-202-224-1353
 Sen. Kempthorne, Dirk (R ID)       1-202-224-6142 1-202-224-5893
 Sen. Warner, John W. (R VA)        1-202-224-2023 1-202-224-6295
 Sen. Inhofe, James (R OK)          1-202-224-4721 1-202-224-????
 Sen. Santorum, Rick (R PA)         1-202-224-6324 1-202-224-4161
 Sen. Bingaman, Jeff (D NM)         1-202-224-5521 1-202-224-2852
 Sen. Levin, Carl (D MI)            1-202-224-6221 1-202-224-1388
 Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. (D MA)     1-202-224-4543 1-202-224-2417
 Sen. Lieberman, Joseph I. (D CT)   1-202-224-4041 1-202-224-9750
 Sen. Robb, Charles S. (D VA)       1-202-224-4024 1-202-224-8689
 Sen. Glenn, John (D OH)            1-202-224-3353 1-202-224-7983
 
also talk to
 
 Sen. Kyl, Jon (R AZ)               1-202-224-4521 1-202-224-2207
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
 
********************************************************************
 
NASA RLV Boss Gary Payton's response to some of the points raised in the 
NASA Advisory Council's 9/1/95 letter, September 13, 1995.  
 
TO: A/Administrator
FROM: XX/Director, Space Transportation Division
SUBJECT: NASA Advisory Council's (NAC) Recommendations on the Reusable 
Launch Vehicle Program 
 
Based on your agreement with OMB and OSTP, the NAC has reviewed the RLV 
program (see attachments).  While the review was generally supportive of 
the RLV program, there are exceptions noted.  A summary of the NAC 
exceptions and RLV program responses are as follows: 
 
1) NAC-- "...we remain concerned that a completely reusable SSTO system may 
not be the best choice and that NASA is not considering alternatives to 
SSTO in sufficient depth and breadth to provide a rational basis for 
selecting a SSTO launch system even if the X-33 program indicates that it 
is technically feasible." 
 
Response:  In an unlimited funding environment, NASA could pursue a wide 
variety of approaches to a low-cost space launch system.  Because we are 
constrained by the availability of resources, it was necessary to 
forumulate a space launch investment policy based on national priorities.  
A number of opposing views were weighed during the formulation of national 
policy which resulted in Presidential Decision Directive/NSTC-4, dated 
August 5, 1994.  This Presidentially approved policy dictates that we 
pursue a technology development and flight demonstration program oriented 
to an end of decade decision concerning the feasibility of rocket powered 
SSTO technology. This development path was deemed to be the most stressing, 
technologically, but holds the greatest promise for reductions in the cost 
of space launch.  Furthermore, this approach does not preempt a decision to 
use a TSTO architecture should SSTO technology be too difficult or too 
costly to achieve.  A decision to pursue a more limited TSTO would delay 
the potential benefits of SSTO systems for decades.  Our ability to deliver 
a TSTO system is not in question, even with today's technology, and 
resources to develop technology in support of TSTO, separate from SSTO, 
would be wasted effort. 
 
2.   NAC-- (Discussion of Phase III decision criteria)  "While technological 
feasibility and vehicle design are important, the Government's criteria for 
such a decision should be concerned with whether the proposal meets 
National needs for low cost, reliable, operable, and safe space transport 
of personnel and payloads.  Such criteria would address how well the 
proposal meets all Government mission needs, the performance record of the 
proposing organization, the financial strength of the proposal, the need 
for additional Government development of crew and cargo modules compared to 
application of new technologies to Shuttle, etc." 
 
Response:   All of the items mentioned above (and many more) will weigh in 
the evaluation conducted at the conclusion of the RLV program should the 
Nation decide to replace the Shuttle (which is the cost-trade benefit 
analysis mentioned in the last item).  The Phase III decision criteria 
address the flight demonstrators as part of the RLV program.  The decision 
to pursue a next-generation launch vehicle(s) in an outcome of the RLV 
program.  A deliberate review of the requirements should reveal that we 
have not ignored the important aspects above. The Phase III business plan 
that will proposed as a preliminary document will include the elements of 
the development and operational phase of the next-generation reusable 
vehicle. 
 
3)   NAC--  "A significant concern is the apparent omission from the listing 
of the Phase II preliminary business plan components, of an assumed payload 
traffic model on which the operations cost reductions will be projected.  
Operations costs cannot be realistically estimated without a knowledge of 
payload requirements and flight frequency profiles based on market surveys.  
NASA should develop a Government user payload model that could be expressed 
in terms of ranges for flights per year and payload weights, incorporating 
requirements of DoD, NASA, and other Government agencies.  The payload 
traffic models in industry's RLV business plans should specify the 
Government payload requirements and international or commercial user 
markets they incorporate." 
 
Response:   That was not an "apparent omission," it was deliberate.  The 
private sector's ability to survey and estimate potential markets far 
exceeds the Government's capability to validate a portion of this market.  
Prima facie proof the Government's lack of expertise to forecast is 
demonstrated by the continuing inability of any one Government agency to 
describe consistently its goals and budgets at the program level from year-
to-year, such [sic] less the possibility of getting an accurate assessment 
of payloads from several agencies, or more, with competing agendas, 
changing Government priorities, and constantly evolving spacecraft 
technology.  In an industry-led program, industry must feel a sense of 
ownership.  This means ownership of the vehicle design, confidence in the 
marketplace, and dedication to satisfy that marketplace.  Government 
validated, specified, and dictated mission models accomplish none of this.  
The efficacy of using the payload traffic model to drive development can be 
measured by how many ALS, NLS, and Spacelifter vehicles that are in 
operation today. 
 
4)   NAC  "...Now, demonstration of the operations technologies is 
recognized as required for the RLV but is not incorporated in the X-33 
technology demonstrator.  We strongly recommend the implementation of a key 
technologies program to bring to maturity the operational technologies 
prior to the Phase III go-ahead decision.  These technologies, which 
include the following, should have funded research components and Phase III 
decision criteria which validate the affordability, reliability, and 
operability goals prior to the Phase III go-ahead decision:" 
 
"Automated checkout and launch" "Autonomous flight control" "Smart avionics, 
guidance and navigation" "Integrated vehicle health monitoring system" 
 
Response:   The push for improved operability pervades every subsystem 
during technology development.  As such, the criteria for each RLV 
technology, structure, cryogenic tanks, thermal protection systems, 
propulsion, etc. demand improved operability.  Additionally, the TPS 
criteria demand an order of magnitude reduction in maintenance and 
inspection requirements; the propulsion criteria demand a 50 percent 
reduction in inspection time between flights; the structure criteria demand 
vehicle health monitoring capabilities be demonstrated on test articles; 
resusable cryogenic tank criteria demand experimental testing that 
demonstrates at least a 100 mission life with at least 20 missions between 
depot level inspections.  Because labor costs are the dominant factor in 
launch operations cost, the criteria wrap total vehicle operability into a 
metric of 0.5 hours of labor per pound of dry weight for each flight.  This 
is a factor of 20 improvement over most current systems.  While the 
criteria do not specifically address unique operability technologies, the 
program is investing in those technologies in order to satisfy the criteria 
that have been established. 
 
5)   NAC--  "The issue of human flight certification should also be 
addressed and criteria available well in advance of the Phase II decision.  
RLV certification criteria for human passenger flight could significantly 
alter the contractor approaches for X-33. Although the X-33 will not have 
human pilots or passengers, the SSTO RLV, whose requirements are flowing 
down to the X-33 design, would.  The criteria should be developed for use 
based on an intent to capture the NASA missions to Space Station." 
 
Response:   Well in advance of the Phase II decision would be right now.  
The program being executed for a Phase II decision is aimed at technology 
development at the component level eventuating in a decision to integrate 
and fly demonstrators of those developed technologies during Phase II.  
Once again, certification is a concern but not a this point.  These issues 
are meant to be addressed prior to an end of decade decision to proceed, 
i.e., Phase III.  We must develop the relationship between RLV and Space 
Station, but that is a task to be addressed as we near the end of Phase II. 
 
In summary, we fear the NAC, by and large, either does not accept, or has 
not been exposed to, the change in culture that this program is attempting 
to inculcate.  The era of Government-specified designs, Government 
guaranteed mission models, and never ending Government studies has stalled 
the advance of technology and emasculated the launch industry.  The RLV 
program aims to rectify this.  The Nation is on the verge of losing this 
industry.  A few of us over the next few years can reverse this loss, but 
only by focusing the meager resources available on the highest value 
development and by continuing to stress the overwhelming benefits of a lean 
and commercially driven industry. 
 
[signed]
 
Gary E. Payton
 
2 Attachments 
Ltr fr NAC to NASA dtd 9/1/95 
Ltr fr NAC to NASA dtd 8/31/95 
 
 
*************************************************************************
 
 
This is from S. Rpt. 104-112, which is the report that accompanies the 
Senate's FY '96 NASA Authorization Bill (S. 1026). 
 
[Page 299]
 
Reusable launch vehicles
 
        The Committee believes that a reusable single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) 
launch vehicle should be a high priority for the United States.  Such a 
launcher offers the potential for radically reduced costs as well as 
increased safety, reliability, and operability.  It 
 
[page 300]
 
would also make a significant contribution to restoring United States 
launch competitiveness. 
        At present, NASA is pursuing a reusable launch vehicle (RLV) known 
as the X-33.  The X-33 effort at NASA is vitally important to the 
Department of Defense and to national security since it will provide 
warfighters highly responsive access to space.  In the committee's view, 
DOD should be a direct participant in the X-33 program.  The Department of 
Defense's own Space Launch Modernization Plan recommended that DOD have an 
equity participation in NASA RLV programs.  The committee, therefore, urges 
the Secretary of Defense to consider options for participating in the NASA 
program, to include the provision of funding from the Department of Defense 
budget. 
 
                                   *end*
 

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson" 20-SEP-1995 22:35:43.52
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: Space Access Political Action Alert - Urgent - 9/20/95



Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 14:51:07 -0700 (MST)
From: Donald Doughty <[email protected]>
To: DC-X <[email protected]>
Subject: (HOT!!) Space Access Political Action Alert - Urgent - 9/20/95 (fwd)
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]



Subject: Space Access Political Action Alert - Urgent - 9/20/95

         Space Access Society Political Action Alert - Urgent -
         Please redistribute as widely and rapidly as possible!
                            Wednesday 9/20/95


The House-Senate conference to iron out differences in the House and Senate
versions of the Fiscal Year 1996 DOD (Defense Department) Appropriations
bill started Tuesday, and will nominally finish Thursday.  (It may take
longer, due to the number of controversial issues in this year's DOD budget,
but we can't count on that.)

The House version of this bill has $50 million for reusable SSTO work, the
Senate version has nothing.  We need to ask the Senators involved to go
along with, support, "accede to" the House position in this conference.

This is very urgent - there is a move afoot by a staffer of the Senate
Appropriations Committee's National Security Subcommittee to both kill the
$50 million in DOD SSTO money and forbid any DOD funding of SSTO in the
future.  (For what it's worth, we understand this guy has managed to be
"majority staff" under both the pre and post 1994 majority parties.  Neat
trick...)  We need to let the actual Senators involved know that people in
their home states do care about this issue - _now_!

If you live in the state of a member of the Senate Appropriations
Committee's National Security Subcommittee (SAC NatSec, list attached), call
or fax them _by close of business Thursday latest_, asking them to support
the House's $50 million in funding for reusable launch vehicle (RLV) work in
the DOD Appropriations Conference.

If you fax, keep it to one page.  Mention right at the start what you're
writing about, tell them what you'd like them to do, then provide supporting
details -- why you think this is good for future DOD space needs, good for
US international aerospace competitiveness, provides DOD experience to keep
the NASA X-33 program on track, and so forth.  Make as persuasive a one-page
case as you can.  (The person reading your fax will almost certainly be an
overworked underpaid staffer.  If yours is the only letter they get, it
needs to be sensible and persuasive; if yours is the hundredth, it needs to
be easy to categorize and add to their running total.)

If you phone, keep it short and polite -- you're likely talking to that same
overworked staffer.  Tell them you're calling about DOD funding for reusable
rocket space launch vehicle research.  They may pass you on to another
staffer who handles DOD matters; you may get that staffer's voicemail.  Live
or voicemail, identify yourself briefly ("Hi, I'm John Smith, from East
Podunk, Minnesota" - it helps if East Podunk is in their boss's state...)
then give them the message that you want your Senator to support the House
position on funding reusable rocket research in the DOD Appropriations
conference.

If they want to know more, fill them in as best you can, otherwise thank
them for their time and ring off.

And thanks for all the work you've done so far.  We're close to getting what
we need this year, very close...


Senate Appropriations Committee, National Security (DOD) Subcommittee

 Sen. Hatfield, Mark (R OR)         1-202-224-3753 1-202-224-0276
 (chair, full SAC)
 Sen. Byrd, Robert (D WV)           1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
 (RMM, full SAC)
 Sen. Stevens, Ted (R AK)           1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-2354
 (chair, SAC NatSec Sub)
 Sen. Inouye, Daniel (D HI)         1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747
 (RMM, SAC NatSec Sub)

 Sen. Cochran, Thad (R MS)          1-202-224-5054 1-202-224-9450
 Sen. Gramm, Phil (R TX)            1-202-224-2934 1-202-228-2138
 Sen. Domenici, Pete V. (R NM)      1-202-224-6621 1-202-224-7371
 Sen. McConnell, Mitch (R KY)       1-202-224-2541 1-202-224-2499
 Sen. Specter, Arlen (R PA)         1-202-224-4254 1-202-224-1893
 Sen. Bond, Christopher (R MO)      1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149
 Sen. Mack, Connie (R FL)           1-202-224-5274 1-202-224-8022
 Sen. Shelby, Richard C. (R AL)     1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416

 Sen. Hollings, Ernest (D SC)       1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293
 Sen. Johnston, J. Bennett (D LA)   1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952
 Sen. Leahy, Patrick (D VT)         1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595
 Sen. Harkin, Thomas (D IA)         1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-9369
 Sen. Lautenberg, Frank (D NJ)      1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707
 Sen. Harkin, Thomas (D IA)         1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-7431

__________________________________________________________________________

Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous

     *** Please redistribute as widely and quickly as possible! ***



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail2.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA28185; Wed, 20 Sep 95 22:21:04 -040
% Received: from smtp.utexas.edu by mail2.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA31179; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 19:07:34 -070
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA28424; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 20:54:58 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/SMTP-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 20 Sep 95 20:55:24 CD
% Received: from SMTP-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 20 Sep 95 20:54:53 CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Space Access Political Action Alert - Urgent - 9/20/95
% Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 20:47:55 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

    My only concern with funding any SSTO related activities from
    within the DOD's budget is that there may be some compromises
    to the SSTO design that would require some form of retro-fitting
    when the SSTO is used for non-military purposes which results in
    some signficant $$$ of spending which would then require efforts
    in negotiating for the needed funding for the alterations. I'd prefer to
    keep the SSTO efforts out of the hands of the military, and budget
    it strictly for non-military uses.
    
    Bob

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson" 25-SEP-1995 18:20:24.93
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: SAS Alert - NASA X-33 Budget (fwd)


Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 07:28:25 -0700 (MST)
From: Donald Doughty <[email protected]>
To: DC-X <[email protected]>
Subject: SAS Alert - NASA X-33 Budget (fwd)
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]


Subject: SAS Alert - NASA X-33 Budget

         Space Access Society Political Action Alert - Urgent -
         Please redistribute as widely and rapidly as possible!
                             Sunday 9/24/95


If you want to help push for adequate NASA funding for the X-33 reusable
rocket technology demonstrator, call or fax your Senator or Representative
if they are on the attached lists of NASA Appropriations Conference
participants.  Ask them to support the Senate's $20 million increase for
the X-33 reusable rocket program.  Do this before Wednesday afternoon if
you can, as soon as possible after that otherwise.

 - Background

The Defense Appropriations Conference finished Friday.  We should know
exactly what we came away with for DOD' part in X-33 early this coming
week.  We do have reason to believe we got at least some of what we were
looking for.

Meanwhile, the NASA Appropriations Conference could start as soon as this
coming Wednesday, September 27th.  This is the House-Senate conference to
iron out differences in the House and Senate versions of the Fiscal Year
1996 HUD, VA, and Independent Agencies (NASA is by far the largest of these
"Independent Agencies") Appropriations bill.

The House version of this bill, with $43 million for X-33, passed earlier
this summer.  The Senate version, with $63 million for X-33, will go to the
Senate floor for debate Monday - there will very likely be a fight over
Space Station, but we don't expect any problems for X-33 funding.  The
earliest this bill will go to a vote is Tuesday, the earliest the conference
can start is Wednesday.  Things might well be delayed a day or two, but
there's no harm and some good in making your contacts ahead of time.

If you fax, keep it to one page.  Mention right at the start what you're
writing about, tell them what you'd like them to do, then provide
supporting details -- why you think this is good for future US
international aerospace competitiveness, keeps the NASA X-33 program on the
fast track, and so forth.  Make as persuasive a one-page case as you can.
(The person reading your fax will almost certainly be an overworked
underpaid staffer.  If yours is the only letter they get, it needs to be
sensible and persuasive; if yours is the hundredth, it needs to be easy to
categorize and add to their running total.)

If you phone, keep it short and polite -- you're likely talking to that
same overworked staffer.  Tell them you're calling about NASA funding for
the X-33 reusable rocket program.  They may pass you on to another staffer
who handles NASA matters; you may get that staffer's voicemail.  Live or
voicemail, identify yourself briefly ("Hi, I'm John Smith, from East
Podunk, Minnesota" - it helps if East Podunk is in their boss's state...)
then give them the message that you want your Senator or Representative to
support the Senate's increased funding for reusable rocket research in the
NASA Appropriations conference.

If they want to know more, fill them in as best you can, otherwise thank
them for their time and ring off.


House Appropriations Committee, VA-HUD (NASA oversight) Subcommittee

("Representative XYZ, US HoR, Washington DC 20515" will get mail to them.)

   (Appropriations Chair)                    voice       fax
 Livingston, Robert (R-01 LA)       1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739
   (Appropriations Ranking Minority Member)
 Obey, David R. (D-07)              1-202-225-3365 1-202-225-0561
   (Subcommittee Chair)
 Lewis, Jerry (R-40 CA)             1-202-225-5861 1-202-225-6498
   (Subcommittee RMM)
 Stokes, Louis (D-11 OH)            1-202-225-7032 1-202-225-1339
 DeLay, Thomas (R-22 TX)            1-202-225-5951 1-202-225-5241
 Vucanovich, Barbara (R-02 NV)      1-202-225-6155 1-202-225-2319
 Walsh, James T. (R-25 NY)          1-202-225-3701 1-202-225-4042
 Hobson, David L. (R-07 OH)         1-202-225-4324 1-202-225-1984
 Knollenberg, Joe (R-11 MI)         1-202-225-5802 1-202-226-2356
 Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-11 NJ)    1-202-225-5034 1-202-225-0658
 Neumann, Mark (R-01 WI)
 Mollohan, Alan B. (D-01 WV)        1-202-225-4172 1-202-225-7564
 Chapman, Jim (D-01 TX)             1-202-225-3035 1-202-225-7265
 Kaptur, Marcy (D-09 OH)            1-202-225-4146 1-202-225-7711


Senate Appropriations Committee, HUD-VA-IA (NASA oversight) Subcommittee

 ("Senator XYZ, US Senate, Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)

   (Appropriations Chair)                    voice       fax
 Sen. Hatfield, Mark (R OR)         1-202-224-3753 1-202-224-0276
   (Appropriations Ranking Minority Member)
 Sen. Byrd, Robert (D WV)           1-202-224-3954 unpublished
   (Subcommittee Chair)
 Sen. Bond, Christopher (R MO)      1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149
   (Subcommittee RMM)
 Sen. Mikulski, Barbara (D MD)      1-202-224-4654 1-202-224-8858
 Sen. Gramm, Phil (R TX)            1-202-224-2934 1-202-228-2856
 Sen. Burns, Conrad (R MT)          1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594
 Sen. Stevens, Ted (R AK)           1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-2354
 Sen. Bennett, Robert (R UT)        1-202-224-5444 1-202-224-6717
 Sen. Shelby, Richard C. (R AL)     1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416
 Sen. Leahy, Patrick (D VT)         1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595
 Sen. Johnston, J. Bennett (D LA)   1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952
 Sen. Lautenberg, Frank (D NJ)      1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707
 Sen. Kerrey, Joseph R. (D NE)      1-202-224-6551 1-202-224-7645

__________________________________________________________________________

Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous

     *** Please redistribute as widely and quickly as possible! ***



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail2.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA11556; Mon, 25 Sep 95 17:57:22 -040
% Received: from smtp.utexas.edu by mail2.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA25117; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 14:39:35 -070
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA22305; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 16:14:48 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/SMTP-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 25 Sep 95 16:22:32 CD
% Received: from SMTP-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 25 Sep 95 16:14:42 CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: SAS Alert - NASA X-33 Budget (fwd)
% Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 15:59:15 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
    

Article: 7643
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #59  10/6/95
Date: 7 Oct 1995 00:17:42 -0700
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Sender: [email protected]
 
 
                    Space Access Update #59 10/6/95
                 Copyright 1995 by Space Access Society.
____________________________________________________________________________
 
          Stories this issue:
 
Final DOD Appropriation Has $25M For Reusable Rocket Work
 
      - But It's Not Quite 100% Final Yet
      
NASA Appropriation Conference Moved Back To Mid-October
 
      - Issue Is Still House $43M Versus Senate $63M For X-33
 
Attachments
 
      - OMB NASA Policy Analyst Job Opening - Applications Due By 10/10/95.
 
------------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)--------------------------
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication.
Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for
all, period.  We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever
point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO)
technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and thus
development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor
confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial
investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far from that point now.  
 
Our major current focus is on supporting the government's fully reusable
single-stage rocket technology programs, the low-speed DC-X, and its high-
speed followon the X-33 NASA/DOD/industry cooperative project.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying
into space well before the end of this decade, with practical orbital
transport projects getting underway.  Join us, and help us make it happen.  
 
                 Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society
 
 
To join Space Access Society or buy the SSTO/DC-X V 3.0 video we have for
sale (Two hours, includes all eight DC-X flights, X-33, DC-X and SSTO
backgrounders, aerospike engine test-stand footage, plus White Sands
Missile Range DC-X pre and post flight footage)   mail a check to:
SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  SAS membership with
direct email of Space Access Updates is $30 US per year; the SSTO V 3.0
video is $25, $5 off for SAS members, $8 extra for shipping outside the US
and Canada, VHS NTSC only.  For more info, email:  [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
  Not-Quite-Final DOD Appropriation Has $25M For Reusable Rocket Work
 
 
The House-Senate conference on the FY'96 Department of Defense (DOD)
Appropriation bill finished last week with $25 million for reusable rocket
work in support of X-33 at USAF Phillips Labs.  This is less than we'd hoped
for, given the late surge of support we've been seeing in the Senate, but
still $25 million more than the Administration originally asked for.
 
The House had voted to authorize $100 million and appropriate $50 million,
while the Senate version DOD funding bills had no reusable rocket funding
coming into the conference.  The new Senate support we've seen came too late
to add anything to the Senate versions, so we likely ended up with $25
million by a straight splitting of the difference between the House's $50
million and the Senate's zero.
 
Chances are we'll do better here next year.  We've built some foundations.
 
Meanwhile, the House, in a surprising but not unprecedented move, voted to
reject this conference committee's overall results at the end of last week.
The rejection was over a variety of issues -- Bosnia provisions, abortions
in DOD hospitals, funding of additional production for both the B-2 bomber
and Seawolf attack subs -- none of these issues SSTO related.  
 
Likely what will happen is that a new conference will take place, limited
strictly to the controversies that sank this version.  Chances of our either
gaining or losing anything from the current $25 million funding for DOD
reusable rocket work are small.  We'll be keeping an eye on things, of
course.  
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
        NASA Appropriation Conference Moved Back To Mid-October
 
Meanwhile, Congress and the White House thrashed out a six-week "Continuing
Resolution", legal authority for the government to go on spending more or
less at the current rate until mid-November, despite the start of Federal
Fiscal Year 1996 on October 1st without a new budget signed into law yet.  
This is nothing unusual in recent years.  
 
The HUD, VA, and Independent Agencies (NASA) Appropriation bill will be the
second to last of over a dozen major appropriations bills dealt with.  (The
only appropriation after it on the list is for running the District of
Columbia.)  The critical-to-X-33 HUD, VA and IA conference, last we heard,
was scheduled for October 16th.  We'd guess this will slip a bit more
before everything's taken care of.  
 
The main issue in this conference, as far as we're concerned, is still
getting the Senate's $63 million for X-33 accepted over the House's $43
million.  The previous alerts on this matter still stand; if you have a
Senator or Representative on the HUD, VA, IA Appropriations subcommittees
and you haven't yet contacted them per recent Alerts, please do so.  Just
because the formal conference is delayed doesn't mean the staffs aren't
quietly working on the issues.
 
See SAU #58 for details of the political alert, or if you can't locate it,
email [email protected] and we'll send you a copy.  
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
 -- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
 -- piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      --
 -- reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --
 
********************************************************************
 
What follows is an announcement of a job or jobs at White House OMB (Office
Of Management And Budget) doing policy analysis on civilian (NASA) space
programs.  OMB has a great deal of power when it comes to determining what
the Administration budget request will be for any particular project.
 
Getting people who understand the value of SSTO development into this slot
or slots would be a big help in getting X-33 funded properly in the future.
 
The postmark deadline for submitting applications is Tuesday October 10th.
You can likely get hold of the OF 510 form required Monday with some
dedicated telephoning of the nearest Federal office building.  Find someone
who'll fax you the form if it's not close enough to visit.  
 
Good luck.
 
     
     ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER:       OMB-95-72-LW
     ISSUE DATE:                        SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
     CLOSING DATE:                      OCTOBER 10, 1995
     
     VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT
     
                Office of Management and Budget
                Energy and Science Division
                Science and Space Programs Branch
     
     Policy Analyst
     GS-301-11/13
     ($36,174 - $67,021)
     
     Full Performance Level: GS-15
     
     MORE THAN ONE POSITION MAY BE FILLED THROUGH THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.
     
     _Area of Consideration:_   Open to All Sources.
     
     _DUTIES:_  Serves as principal analysts for the following National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration program areas: (1) space 
     transportation; (2) space technology; and (3) commercial space 
     activities.  Also reviews issues and provides budget and policy 
     analysis for other Federal programs in space, technology, and science.
     
     Incumbent [[i.e., the person who will get the job]] will also (1) 
     review and analyze legislative proposals in the assigned areas; and 
     (2) develop, review, and analyze proposals for management, 
     procurement, financial management, regulatory, and/or organization 
     improvements.
     
     _MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS REQUIREMENT:_ Applicants must have a minimum 
     of one year of specialized experience at a level of difficulty and 
     responsibility comparable to the next lower grade in the Federal 
     service.  Specialized experience is experience that is in or directly 
     related to the work of the position to be filled.  Applicants should 
     possess (1) significant experience and expertise in civil, commercial, 
     and/or national security space activities, and a demonstrated 
     motivation to explore a wide range of issues related to these 
     activities; (2) proven ability to analyze complex issues in science, 
     engineering, and technology; and (3) experience in budget and program 
     analysis, or in related work that demonstrates an understanding of the 
     Federal budget process.
     
     _SELECTIVE FACTOR:_ Knowledge and understanding of the technical and 
     policy concepts underlying the space transportation, space technology, 
     and commercial space programs of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration.  Ability to analyze broader issues related to other 
     U.S. science and technology programs.
     
     _QUALITY RANKING FACTORS:_
     
        1.      Evidence of ability to analyze complex issues in science, 
     engineering, and technology.
     
        2.      Technical, policy analysis, or administrative experience in 
     aerospace research, development, or operations.
     
        3.      Specific knowledge of National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration programs, and familiarity with space related 
     activities of other government and non-government organizations.  
     
        4.      Demonstrated ability to communicate effectively, both 
     orally and in writing.
        
        5.      Demonstrated ability to analyze and produce a large amount 
     of high quality work under pressure, both independently and as part of
     a team effort.  
     
        6.      A degree and experience in the natural sciences or 
     engineering and relevant experience in the private sector are highly
     desirable.  
     
     If you omit any of the required information specified in Optional Form 
     510, Applying for A Federal Job (copy attached), you application may 
     be rated INELIGIBLE.
     
     Users of the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) may call: 
     (202) 395-1160.
     
     HOW TO APPLY: Send (1) an Optional Application for Federal Employment 
     (OF 612); or a resume; or the SF-171, Application for Federal 
     Employment; or other written application, ensuring that all required 
     information shown in the flyer OF 510, Applying for a Federal Job, is 
     included in your application; (2) your latest SF-50 "Notification of 
     Personnel Action: and Performance Appraisal if you are a current or 
     former  Federal employee; (3) on a separate sheet, a narrative summary 
     of your experience and/or education which concisely addresses each of 
     the Selective Factors and Quality Ranking Factors, and (4) if 
     applicable, SF-15, Application for 10- point Veteran Preference.  In 
     addition, please complete the attached EOP Applicant Background Survey 
     and submit it with the above documents.  This form is voluntary and 
     optional.  It will not be part of or considered with your application. 
      It will be used for statistical purposes only.  Prohibited political 
     recommendations with respect to Federal employment will be returned to 
     the applicant in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3303.
     
     _WHERE TO APPLY:_ Completed form(s) must be sent to:
        Executive Office of the President
        Office of Administration
        Personnel Management Division
        725 17th Street, N.W., Room 4013
        New Executive Office Building
        Washington, D.C. 20503
     
     Applicants submitting applications in postage-paid Government 
     envelopes are reminded of the legal prohibition against the use of 
     such envelopes or other Government property for other than officially 
     approved activities.  These prohibitions are contained in 5 C.F.R. 
     735.205, 39 U.S.C. and 18 U.S.C.
     
     APPLICATIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED BY CLOSING DATE.
     
     APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE RETURNED.
     
     _NOTE:_ Relocation expenses will NOT be paid to the applicant 
     selected.
     
     _SECURITY CLEARANCE:_ A security clearance will be conducted.  
     Applicants selected for employment must be 18 years when appointed.
     
     _DRUG TESTING:_ The applicant selected for this position may be 
     required to submit to urinalysis to screen for illegal drug use prior 
     to appointment.  After appointment, the employee will be included in 
     the agency's random drug testing program.
     
     _AREA OF CONSIDERATION:_ Applications will be accepted from all 
     qualified persons.  Consideration will be extended without 
     discrimination for any non-merit reasons, such as race, color, 
     religion, gender, national origin, political affiliation, marital 
     status, age, membership or non- membership in employee organizations, 
     or non-disqualifying physical handicap.  Disabled applicants, Disabled 
     Veterans, or any other applicants eligible for non-competitive 
     appointment under special appointing authorities not requiring 
     competitive status are eligible to apply regardless of the area of 
     consideration and should clearly specify their special eligibility on 
     their application.
 
                                 *end*

Article: 24147
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Space Access Society Political Alert - X-33 Hearings Wed. Nov 1st
Date: 30 Oct 95 08:42:11 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
 
 
         Space Access Society Political Action Alert  10/30/95
 
 
             House Space Subcommittee To Hold X-33 Hearings
                      10 am Wednesday November 1st
 
    SAS Recommends Contacting Space Subcommittee Members Immediately
            To Ask Support For Increased Early X-33 Funding
 
As most of you likely already know, Space Access Society has been advocating
increased funding for the NASA/DOD X-33 reusable rocket testbed project for
much of the past year.  We've been doing this because we want several
changes in the project, each change improving the odds that X-33 will
quickly position US industry to make money building and operating Reusable
Launch Vehicles (RLV's), each change, alas, costing more money up front
than the original plan.  Pay a little now, save a lot later, we say.  Not
an easy sell in the current budget climate, however.  
 
 
                    SAS's Recommended X-33 Changes:
 
 - Select two of the bidders to build flight hardware rather than one, in
 order to keep the bidders on their toes via continuing competition in the
 flight test phase, and in order to increase the chances of at least one
 succesful vehicle configuration emerging.
 
 - Have each successful bidder build at least two examples of their design,
 or at minimum one example plus long-lead spares, to insure against the
 (occasionally unavoidable) loss of a vehicle during flight test.
 
 - Modify the X-33 CAN to make the flight vehicles government-owned rather
 than contractor-owned, and make it clear that expectations of contractor
 contributions to the project are reduced in line with this change.  This
 has the minor benefit of clearing up some potentially difficult flight-
 test liability problems, and the major benefit of removing residual value
 of the actual X-33 as a factor in the bidder design decisions.  
 
 In other words, if the government pays for it, owns it, and plans to put
 it in a museum after the flight test program is over, the contractors can
 concentrate on designing useful flying technology testbeds and not worry
 about the complications of additional features intended to earn an
 _immediate_ return for their stockholders.  KISS.  It's too soon to be
 designing commercial prototypes; build and fly X first, then apply those
 lessons to commercial ships.  
 
We also point out that succesful X-projects in the past have been
considerably more front-loaded funding-wise than X-33 as currently planned.
Skimping on early funding is a recipe for a drawn-out, overall more
expensive project, if not for an endless no-output-at-all project. 
Succesful X-projects tend to be driven by the goal of flying the most
capable hardware possible on a tight schedule -- the prospect of flight
concentrates minds wonderfully.  The most expensive parts of flight
vehicles tend to have the longest leadtimes, though; succesful X-projects
need a big chunk of their total funding early.  
 
 
                    Space Subcommittee X-33 Meeting
 
The House Science Committee's Space Subcommittee will be holding hearings
in room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building on Wednesday November 1st,
starting at 10 am.  These hearings are intended to look at current plans for
the X-33 program and determine whether they make sense and what, if any,
changes should be made.
 
So far this summer, the Chair of the House Space Subcommittee, James
Sensenbrenner, has been resisting efforts to increase X-33 funding over the
initial plan's funding profile.  Our best guess is that this stems from a
combination of fiscal caution and political turf protection.
 
It's vital that we get our position on the record at these one-day
hearings.  There's still a chance to get a $20 million increase in this
year's (FY'96) NASA X-33 funding, but far more important, the FY'97 X-33
budget request is even now being put together at NASA and the White House. 
Attention will be paid to what's said these hearings.  
 
 
SAS Action Recommendations:
 
If your Representative is on the House Science Committee's Space
Subcommittee (especially if he happens to be Bob Walker, Chair of the full
House Science Committee and thus an influential member of all subcommittees)
call or fax their Washington office before close of business Tuesday October
31st.  Ask them to support increased early funding for the NASA X-33
reusable rocket flight demonstrator project at the Space Subcommittee X-33
hearings Wednesday.  
 
Check the attached Space Subcommittee list for members from your state.
If you're not sure which might be your Representative, check your local
phone book "blue pages", US government listings, under "congress" or
"representative", call one of the local offices listed, and ask.  Or call
your local library, ask for the reference desk, and ask them who your local
representative in Congress is.  
 
If there's someone whose district you live in or near, please contact them
on this.  There isn't time for paper mail; fax or phone their DC office.
 
If you fax, keep it to one page.  Mention right at the start what you're
writing about, Wednesday's Space Subcommittee hearings on the NASA X-33
reusable rocket flight program, tell them what you'd like them to do
(support increased early funding to get X-33 flying sooner), then provide
supporting details - why you think X-33 is good for the country, why you
think this is good for X-33.  
 
Some possible approaches to good-for-the-country: explain how reusable
launchers can make space operations overall more affordable, explain how
reusable launchers can make Space Station both cheaper to operate and far
more useful in the long run, explain how getting X-33 off to a quick start
with a competitive flyoff will bring this nation the international
competitive and domestic economic benefits of this leapfrog technology
sooner and more certainly.  
 
For some possible approaches to good-for-X-33, see "SAS's Recommended X-33
Changes" at the start of this alert.  
 
The person reading your fax will almost certainly be an overworked
underpaid staffer.  If yours is the only letter they get, it needs to be
sensible and persuasive; if yours is the hundredth, it needs to be easy to
categorize and add to their running total.  
 
If you phone, keep it short and polite -- you're likely talking to that
same overworked staffer.  Tell them you're calling about the NASA X-33
reusable rocket flight program.  They may pass you on to another staffer
who handles NASA matters; you may get that staffer's voicemail.  Live or
voicemail, identify yourself briefly ("Hi, I'm John Smith, from East
Podunk, Minnesota" - it helps if East Podunk is in their boss's
district...) then ask them to support increased early X-33 funding in
Wednesdays's Space Subcommittee X-33 hearings.  If they want to know more,
fill them in as best you can, otherwise thank them for their time and ring
off.  
 
Oh, and all you C-Span junkies out there -- give C-Span a call Monday or
Tuesday if you can, and ask them if they might cover these hearings.  The
voice number is 202 626-7963, the email address is [email protected].  They
have a limited number of crews, and this is short notice, so be polite if
they say they can't -- but if they can, it could be interesting to watch
when they find time in the schedule to show it.
 
 
House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
 
 (Chairman, Science Committee)           voice          fax
Walker, Robert S. (R-16 PA)        1-202-225-2411 1-202-225-2484
 
 (Ranking Minority Member, Science Committee)
Brown Jr., George E. (D-42 CA)     1-202-225-6161 1-202-225-8671
 
 (Chairman, Space Subcommittee)
Sensenbrenner, F. James (R-09 WI)  1-202-225-5101 1-202-225-3190
 
 (Ranking Minority Member, Space Subcommittee)
Hall, Ralph M. (D-04 TX)           1-202-225-6673 1-202-225-3332
 
Tiahrt, Todd (R-04 KS)             1-202-225-6216 1-202-225-5398
Hilleary, Van (R-04 TN)            1-202-225-6831 1-202-225-4520
Calvert, Ken (R-43 CA)             1-202-225-1986 1-202-225-2004
Rohrabacher, Dana (R-45 CA)        1-202-225-2415 1-202-225-7067
Salmon, Matt (R-01 AZ)             1-202-225-2635 1-202-225-2607
Davis, Tom (R-11 VA)               1-202-225-1492 1-202-225-2274
Stockman, Steve (R-09 TX)          1-202-225-6565 1-202-225-1584
Seastrand, Andrea (R-22 CA)        1-202-225-3601 1-202-226-1015
Largent, Steve (R-01 OK)           1-202-225-2211 1-202-225-9187
Foley, Mark (R-16 FL)              1-202-225-5792 1-202-225-1860
Weldon, Dave (R-15 FL)             1-202-225-3671 1-202-225-9039
Traficant, James (D-17 OH)         1-202-225-5261 1-202-225-3719
Harman, Jane (D-36 CA)             1-202-225-8220 1-202-226-0684
Ward, Mike (D-03 KY)               1-202-225-5401 1-202-225-3511
Roemer, Tim (D-03 IN)              1-202-225-3915 1-202-225-6798
Cramer, Robert (D-05 AL)           1-202-225-4801 1-202-225-4392
Barcia, James (D-05 MI)            1-202-225-8171 1-202-225-2168
Hastings, Alcee (D-23 FL)          1-202-225-1313 1-202-225-0690
Lee, Sheila Jackson (D-18 TX)      1-202-225-3816 1-202-225-6186
Luther, William (D-06 MN)          1-202-225-2271 1-202-225-9802
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Henry Vanderbilt              "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society                   in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                      - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044        
602 431-9283 voice/fax                     "You can't get there from here."
([email protected])                                  - Anonymous
 
Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this piece.

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson"  4-NOV-1995 19:10:17.19
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: Testimony of McDac at Wendesday's X-33 Hearing



Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 11:29:16 -0700 (MST)
From: Donald Doughty <[email protected]>
To: DC-X <[email protected]>
Subject: Testimony of McDac at Wendesday's X-33 Hearing (fwd)
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]


Thanks to Tim Kyger <[email protected]> to get this out.

...DLD


Subject: Testimony of McDac at Wendesday's X-33 Hearing

     Testimony of
     
     Charles A. Ordahl
     Vice President -- General Manager
     New Space and Defense Programs
     McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
     
     before the
     
     Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
     Committee on Science
     United States House of Representatives
     
     Wednesday, November 1, 1995
     
     [page]
     
     Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
     
     My name is Charles A. Ordahl.  I represent the McDonnell Douglas DC-X 
     and DC-XA teams and the McDonnell Douglas/Boeing X-33 Reusable Launch 
     Vehicle team. [[notice -- X-33 is _not_ SSTO, but "RLV"]]  I 
     appreciate this opportunity to address the subject of X-33 and RLV.
     
     Let me begin by congratulating you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee 
     for your long standing of support for the single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) 
     technology development and demonstration program, and for authorizing 
     the full FY96 request for the RLV program.
     
     We believe a decision to proceed with development of an X-33 flight 
     demonstrator vehicle for SSTO technologies is the appropriate next 
     step in evolving the nation's capability to be a world leader in the 
     launch vehicle industry.  Full exploitation of the scientific, 
     technological and commercial benefits of space is dependent on 
     continued reduction in the cost of launch services and continued 
     improvement in the reliability and ease of access to space.  These 
     principles have guided the evolution of our Delta launch vehicle 
     product line consistently over more than 30 years.  Since the first 
     launch of Delta in 1960, we have dramatically increased payload lift 
     capability while continually improving vehicle reliability and 
     substantially reducing the cost per pound of the launch services.  We 
     are dedicated to continuing on this path.  But we recognize that there 
     is a limit to the economies and operational improvements that can be 
     achieved with expendable launch vehicles.  We believe that, 
     ultimately, there will be a fully reusable launch vehicle system 
     capable of placing payloads in orbit at
     
     [page]
     
     a fraction of the cost per pound of today's expendable launch 
     vehicles.  These RLVs [[not SSTOs, eh?]] will be capable of operating 
     more like a commercial airliner with the ability to fly again within 
     as little as 2-3 days after landing from a previous mission.  They 
     will be designed to be easily serviced and maintained.  They will be 
     capable of dozens of missions without a major overhaul.
     
     We have already proved that the concept of a fully reusable system is 
     feasible on a smaller scale.  In 1991, we entered into a contract with 
     what is now the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to build the 
     DC-X single-stage rocket.  It was the world's first fully reusable 
     vertical take-off and vertical landing rocket.  Faced with a tight 
     schedule and budget limitations, we applied a highly streamlined 
     management process using an integrated government/industry development 
     team.  With our "rapid prototyping" method of new product development, 
     this radical new vehicle was designed and built in less than 20 
     months.  Following that, we performed a test program that included a 
     series of 8 vertical take-off/vertical landing missions.  On each 
     mission we expanded the flight envelope to fly higher and faster, and 
     performed successively more complicated maneuvers.  One of our main 
     objectives was to prove the feasibility of airline-type operations 
     with a complex, cryogenically fueled rocket vehicle.  We built a 
     sophisticated flight and operations controls system using the latest 
     techniques in automation and software development technology.  We also 
     incorporated highly efficient aircraft-type maintenance and servicing 
     features throughout the total system.  The result was a vehicle that 
     requires a flight management crew of only 3 people and a ground 
     support crew of less than 15 engineers and technicians.  Although this 
     [[sic]] only a one-third scale vehicle, we concluded from our flight 
     and ground tests, that it is feasible to build a full scale RLV that 
     can be routinely and safely operated using only a handful of 
     personnel.
     
     However, with the limited scope of the DC-X program and the size of 
     the vehicle we could afford to build, we could not address the full 
     range of technology issues needed to prove the feasibility of a SSTO 
     RLV.  [[finally!  a mention of SSTO!]]  We did prove, however, that an 
     X-type vehicle is an outstanding test-bed for evaluating a wide range 
     of technology options in a realistic set of flight profile and ground 
     operating conditions.
     
     DC-X is now being modified, under NASA contract, to introduce new 
     technology that will bring us one step closer to verifying the 
     feasibility of an RLV.  We have just completed the construction of an 
     all composite material liquid hydrogen tank and an advanced technology 
     aluminum-lithium alloy liquid oxygen tank.  These high strength, 
     lightweight components, along with several other advanced technology 
     components, will be assembled to create the DC-XA which will begin its 
     series of flight tests the spring of 1996.
     
     Some of the most difficult technical hurdles are still ahead of us.  
     With the performance limitations of DC-X and DC-XA, we cannot 
     adequately test the effectiveness and the durability of the thermal 
     protection system, and we cannot adequately evaluate the scalability 
     of our design solutions and operational concepts from the small size 
     of the DC-X/DC-XA to the full size RLV.  This is why the next step, 
     the X-33, is necessary.  [[Notice that actually doing an SSTO 
     X-vehicle isn't the goal -- it's an RLV -- which may or may not be an 
     SSTO; and WILL be BIG, BIG, BIG.]]
     
     [page]
     
     The incremental path in building and testing DC-X, DC-XA and X-33, is 
     a prudent path.  The "fly-a-little, test-a-little, learn-a-lot" 
     approach employed in the nation's proud history of X-plane flying 
     laboratories is a proven approach for demonstrating new technologies 
     and concepts.
     
     The X-33 program will allow both government and industry to evaluate 
     the state of RLV technology readiness [[SSTO tech readiness anyone?]], 
     to examine the economics of RLV construction and operation in detail, 
     and to make an informed decision on whether or not to proceed with 
     full-scale RLV development.
     
     The RLV offers the potential for a dramatic reduction in the cost of 
     launch and cargo retrieval services currently being performed by the 
     space shuttle.  It is important that the RLV be designed to 
     accommodate these mission needs.  A vehicle sized to meet these 
     requirements could serve the commercial market under a wide range of 
     customer payload requirements now being served by expandable launch 
     vehicles.  [[Currently, the McDac VTVL RLV design has a GLOW of about 
     3 million pounds..!  This is because it has a cargo capability of 40k 
     lbs to a 28.5 degree 100 nm orbit, which means about 25k lbs to S.S. 
     Ralph.  Ditto its cargo bay: 40 ft by 15 ft.  Shuttle II, anyone?]]  
     Thus, there are major benefits for both government and commercial 
     users.  With sufficient versatility, combined with achievement of 
     truly low cost operations, there is also the possibility of opening 
     new commercial markets and providing a new class of military launch 
     services.
     
     In closing, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee for this 
     opportunity to express the views of McDonnell Douglas on this 
     critically important program to our nation's future in space.




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail1.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA19861; Sat, 4 Nov 95 19:09:24 -050
% Received: from smtp.utexas.edu by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA16359; Sat, 4 Nov 1995 16:00:51 -080
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by smtp.utexas.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA18309; Sat, 4 Nov 1995 17:46:28 -0600
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/SMTP-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 4 Nov 95 17:48:23 CD
% Received: from SMTP-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 4 Nov 95 17:46:02 CDT
% From: "Chris W. Johnson" <[email protected]>
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Testimony of McDac at Wendesday's X-33 Hearing
% Date: Sat, 4 Nov 95 17:45:14 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=US-ASCII
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Article: 27601
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Space Access Update #60  12/24/95
Date: 26 Dec 95 21:09:42 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
 
 
                  Space Access Update #60  12/24/95 
               Copyright 1995 by Space Access Society 
 
_______________________________________________________________________ 
 
Stories this issue: 
 
 - Where Have We Been?  Where's My Tape?  When Is Space Access '96? 
   (Why *has* it been ten weeks since the last SAS Update?) 
 
 - What The Heck Is Going On Anyway? (Reusable Launch News Summary) 
 
-----------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)------------------------
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news 
publication. Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access 
to space for all, period.  We believe in concentrating our resources at 
whatever point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the 
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, 
one or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly 
build up both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To 
Orbit (SSTO) technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical 
uncertainty (and thus development risk and cost) while at the same time 
increasing investor confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense 
as a private commercial investment.  We have reason to believe we're not 
far from that point now.  
 
Our major current focus is on supporting the government's fully reusable 
single-stage rocket technology programs, the low-speed DC-XA, and its 
high-speed followon, the X-33 NASA/DOD/industry cooperative project.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds 
flying into space well before the end of this decade, with practical 
orbital transport projects getting underway.  Join us, and help us make 
it happen.  
 
            Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society 
 
 
To join Space Access Society or buy the SSTO/DC-X V 3.0 video we have 
for sale (Two hours, includes all eight DC-X flights, X-33, DC-X and 
SSTO backgrounders, aerospike engine test-stand footage, plus White 
Sands Missile Range DC-X pre and post flight footage) mail a check to: 
SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  SAS membership with 
direct email of Space Access Updates is $30 US per year; the SSTO V 3.0 
video is $25, $5 off for SAS members, $8 extra for shipping outside the 
US and Canada, VHS NTSC only.  
 
For more info on our upcoming Space Access '96 conference, email:  
      [email protected] 
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                         Winding Up The Year
 
We've been hearing questions lately, wondering if we'd left the planet 
ahead of everyone else.  (No, sci.space.policy, we haven't been 
kidnapped by the Zeta Reticulans.  A word to the wise: the _only_ way to 
make the Global Village idiots go away is ignore them utterly, no matter 
how provocative they get in their attention-grabbing tactics.)  We've 
been busy as hell with some long-term payoff work, and there's been no 
one earthshaking development in the affordable access field, so we let 
the next Update slide for a week or two...  And now it's over ten weeks, 
and the little things happening a bit at a time have begun to add up to 
some interesting trends.  It's Update time again - but for now, the 
condensed holiday version.  All the full-length news and informed 
opinion you can stand Real Soon Now... 
 
Those of you waiting for video tapes, all the backordered version 2.0 
DC-X/SSTO tapes went into the mail December 22nd.  It seems unlikely 
they'll arrive before Christmas; our apologies for the massive delay.  
You will find in them a discount certificate for the 3.0 video by way of 
amends.  The long overdue (please, no letter bombs - we bruise easily!) 
version 3.0 X-33/DC-X/SSTO video now looks like being ready to go to the 
duplicators the first week of January; backorders will be in the mail 
immediately thereafter.  Yes, we most likely got your order; we've been 
holding off cashing the checks out of the remnants of a sense of decency 
and fair play.  We hope you'll think the footage we've found is worth 
the wait.  We hope you won't march on SAS HQ with tar and feathers in 
the meantime... 
 
And it's getting toward that time of year again.  Our next annual 
conference, Space Access '96, will be happening April 26-28 1996, Friday 
evening through Sunday afternoon, once again in Phoenix Arizona.  We're 
going to go bigtime aerospace one of these years, do it during the 
working week at a posh resort at a thousand bucks a head, but not yet - 
SA'96 registration is still only $80 if postmarked before January 15th, 
when it goes up to $90, higher at the door.  SA'96 will again be at a 
hotel within easy shuttle-bus distance of the Phoenix airport; we're 
currently negotiating with several and should have one nailed down 
shortly.  Previous attendees, tell 'em - this really is worth the 
trouble to attend.  Phoenix is a hub for Southwest and America West, and 
also served by Western Pacific, Continental, United, Delta, American, 
etc.  There's no lack of cheap airfares if you plan ahead - so be here! 
 
Meanwhile, we wish you all a warm and peaceful holiday season, and we'll 
sign off on that note...  What?  Tar and feathers? 
 
 
                     Reusable Launch News Summary 
 
Oh, all right.  The capsule version of the news...  DC-XA is coming 
along OK, albeit the minor delays are piling up to the point where we'd 
guess it'll be a few weeks late flying, late spring rather than early. 
 
NASA tried to cancel X-34 at the start of November, but there was no 
wooden stake handy (actually the White House intervened), so it lives 
still, more or less - development cost is climbing, performance 
dropping, schedule slipping, and we hear that projected ops costs are 
rising to more or less the same as Pegasus.  Which makes sense, since X-
34 now has as many stages as a Pegasus - carrier aircraft, winged 
booster, two upper stages - and will likely be at least as complex to 
integrate and operate.  
 
X-33 is doing OK; the picture is beginning to firm up as to what might 
actually fly and how much it'll cost.  Much more on this next Update.  
 
The X-33 draft Phase 2 CAN (phase 2 is the actual construction and 
flight test of one or more X-33's, starting this summer) can be found 
at, among other places, http://www.space-access.org, our new under-
construction web page.  (Please, no critiques until we've actually had 
time to *do* something with the site!)
 
Comments on the draft CAN are due January 22nd; email any comments you 
have to us at [email protected] at least one week before 
that, and we'll run the interesting ones past our advisory board before 
finalizing SAS's formal comments.  After a once-over, we think it looks 
pretty good; the only "gotcha" we've spotted so far is the clause 
linking an X-33 go-ahead next summer to continued existance of X-34. 
Tsk, tsk, naughty naughty, we say - that's a pretty raw attempt to hold 
X-33 hostage to the highly dubious X-34 project on someone's part.  
 
X-33 funding for FY'96 looks fairly assured over on the NASA side, if 
the HUD/VA/Independent Agencies appropriation ever gets clear of the 
"train wreck".  In theory, there's $25m for reusable rocket work 
actually appropriated now over in DOD, but the DOD bill was signed only 
because the White House has to pay for the Bosnia expedition somehow.  
Look for a major, multi-billion DOD rescissions list in the coming 
months, and look for an attempt to put our $25m on it.  And once we beat 
that, look for months of delay in releasing the money.  This is getting 
to be a familiar fight, but it's one we've won every time so far. 
 
And both McDonnell-Douglas and Lockheed-Martin are investing around $300 
million each of private money in upgraded expendable commercial launch 
vehicles (Delta 3 and Atlas 2AR respectively), and both Kistler 
Aerospace and Kelly Space & Technology have money and are going ahead 
with their private reusable space launch ventures.  We just might get to 
the point where government funding is irrelevant to a thriving cheap 
launch industry sooner than anyone expects. 
 
Merry Christmas, y'all.  And an interesting New Year... 
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 Space Access Society       "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150                  in the Solar System." 
 Phoenix AZ 85044                               - Robert A. Heinlein 
 602 431-9283 voice/fax
   email:                                 "You can't get there from here."
 [email protected]                           - Anonymous
 
 - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this -
 - piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      -
 - reserved.  In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. -
 
 

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson" 25-JAN-1996
21:47:08.77
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: Composite hydrogen tank test completed for DC-XA



From: [email protected] (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Composite Hydrogen Tank Test Completed for DC-XA
Date: 25 Jan 1996 12:18:37 -0800
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lines: 68

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, DC                 January 25, 1996
(Phone:  202/358-1779)

Dom Amatore
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL
(Phone:  205/544-0031)

RELEASE:  96-13

COMPOSITE HYDROGEN TANK TEST COMPLETED FOR DC-XA

    A new lightweight composite hydrogen tank for the Delta
Clipper-Experimental Advanced (DC-XA) vehicle, an unpiloted,
single-stage rocket being developed by NASA and McDonnell
Douglas Aerospace, has successfully completed testing at the
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL.

    "This is really quite a breakthrough," said NASA's DC-XA
project manager Dan Dumbacher.  "This is the largest composite
hydrogen tank ever to successfully survive flight operating
conditions.  It demonstrates that composite tanks can be used
for other reusable launch vehicles in the future."

    Permeability of composite materials has been a concern for
engineers, but this tank withstood pressure testing at
cryogenic temperatures that simulated the DC-XA flight
environment without leaking hydrogen.  Composite materials are
formed by blending epoxies and various filaments to form
strong structures with a variety of aerospace uses.  NASA has
been conducting intensive research and development on
composites since the 1970s.

    The DC-XA is a flying experimental testbed that is
demonstrating technologies for NASA's Reusable Launch Vehicle
Program.  Knowledge gained in developing and test flying the
DC-XA will be used in development of the X-33 advanced
technology demonstrator and ultimately in a full-scale
reusable launch vehicle.

    The ability to use composites is important to the
development of a single-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicle
because of the weight reduction they provide.  Getting the
weight down is a key factor in launching a payload to orbit in
a single stage rocket.  DC-XA's 16-foot-tall hydrogen tank,
eight feet in diameter, is made of graphite composites and
weighs 2,020 pounds -- 1,200 pounds lighter than the tank used
in its predecessor, the DC-X.  Yet the composite tank provides
the same strength that an aluminum tank would.

    The successful on-time completion of this test is a big
step forward for the DC-XA, Dumbacher said.

    "It's a major milestone in the DC-XA program," Dumbacher
said .  "It keeps us on track to flight test the vehicle in
May.  We've shipped the tank to McDonnell Douglas Aerospace in
Huntington Beach, CA, where they will build the flight vehicle
around it."

    "This will be the first graphite epoxy cryogenic fuel tank
to undergo flight testing," said Dave Schweikle, McDonnell
Douglas DC-XA program manager.  "The tank was designed and
fabricated by McDonnell Douglas to hold liquid hydrogen at
minus 423 degrees Fahrenheit and to serve as an integral part
of the DC-XA's structure."

                         -end-




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id
AA04119; Thu, 25 Jan 96 21:35:34 -050
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id
AA20544; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 21:25:46 -050
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by
mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA09120; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 20:06:21
-0600
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 25 Jan
96 20:11:22 CST6CD
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 25 Jan 96 20:05:50 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Composite hydrogen tank test completed for DC-XA
% Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 20:03:02 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Article: 3387
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #61  3/8/96
Date: 9 Mar 1996 00:51:03 -0800
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Sender: [email protected]
 
 
                    Space Access Update #61  3/8/96
                 Copyright 1996 by Space Access Society
_______________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
Stories this issue: 
 
 - X-34 Is Dead -- Long Live X-34!  Analysis & Recommendations 
 
 
 attachment: X-34 Mark II announcement from Commerce Business Daily
      
_______________________________________________________________________ 
 
We'll have the rest of our current news out in SAU #62 over the weekend. 
We understand things are moving forward quickly with the rethinking of
X-34, however, and we want to get our two cents worth in before anything's
carved in stone.  We also don't want this Update to get too large; once 
again it's been a while since the last one.  
 
(This just in: We hear NASA has just published a proposal for a reusable
hypersonic X-vehicle in Commerce Business Daily, with NASA's share the $60
million left over from X-34 Mark I.  Call this X-34 Mark II...  We expect
our recommendations can still be of some use though, as it's a long way from
a CBD proposal to a working project.)
 
The SSTO V 3.0 tapes are in stock, by the way - backorders hit the mail
right after this goes out.  Including tapes for the four of you whose
orders got misfiled in the runup to our conference last year <blush>.
"Oops" is not even close to what we said when that paperwork surfaced.
 
And our upcoming annual conference on the technology, politics, and
economics of radically cheaper access to space, Space Access '96, is shaping
up nicely.  Friday evening April 26th through Sunday evening April 28th, at
the Safari Resort in Scottsdale Arizona.  For an autoreply info sheet on
SA'96, email: [email protected], or check out www.space-access.org.
 
-----------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)------------------------
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news 
publication. Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access 
to space for all, period.  We believe in concentrating our resources at 
whatever point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the 
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one 
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up 
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit 
(SSTO) technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and 
thus development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor 
confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial
investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far from that point now.  
 
Our major current focus is on supporting the government's fully reusable 
single-stage rocket technology programs, the low-speed DC-XA, and its 
high-speed followon, the X-33 NASA/DOD/industry cooperative project.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying
into space well before the end of this decade, with practical orbital
transport projects getting underway.  Join us, and help us make it happen.  
 
            Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society 
 
 
To join Space Access Society or buy the SSTO/DC-X V 3.0 video we have for 
sale (Two hours, includes all eight DC-X flights, X-33 animations, X-33,
DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, aerospike engine test-stand footage, plus
White Sands Missile Range DC-X ops site post flight footage) mail a check
to:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  SAS membership with
direct email of Space Access Updates is $30 US per year; the SSTO V 3.0
video is $25, $5 off for SAS members, $8 extra for shipping outside the US
and Canada, VHS NTSC only.  
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
      X-34 Is Dead -- Long Live X-34!  Analysis & Recommendations
 
 
The Orbital Sciences Corporation/Rockwell/NASA X-34 air-launched partially
reusable lightsat launcher project is dead.  The short version: The project
had ongoing weight-growth, cost-growth, and schedule problems, OSC wanted
to radically downsize the vehicle, Rockwell quit, and NASA pulled the plug.
RIP X-34, and good riddance.  (We expected this - we were pointing out
problems with the overall project and refusing to suppport it over a year
ago.  See SAU's #47 through #50, November '94 through April '95.)
 
So it will no doubt come as a surprise that SAS considers the X-34 project
to date a rousing success, and has hopes for it doing a lot of good for US
commercial reusable launch capability in the relatively near future.
 
Allow us to explain this apparent contradiction.
 
X-34 as conceived by OSC/Rockwell/NASA had two major problems that combined
to kill it.  
 
One was obvious from the start: Too many agendas.  Just to list the overt
conflicts (never mind the covert agendas that various sponsors appeared to
be pursuing), X-34 was going to experiment with new and untried NASA-
contractor cooperative management techniques, at the same time it was going
to "prove" NASA could routinely work effectively with industry in fast low-
cost X-projects.  X-34 was also going to produce a cheap near-term
hypersonic flight testbed for reusable rocket components, and at the same
time be a low-cost commercial lightsat launcher.  
 
Developing new cooperative management techniques was a good thing to do.
In fact, that's one of the reasons we're calling X-34 a success so far; not
only did the project uncover and initiate reform of a number of internal
problems at NASA, but the new setup allowed X-34 to fail for only $8
million, rather than the several hundreds of millions such a project would
have eaten under traditional arrangements.  More on that in a bit.  
 
Operational and "X" objectives, now, just don't mix well, period.  X-
vehicles should not have set payload requirements, as that tends to get in
the way of building something to fly as cheap, high, fast, and soon as
possible, something that'll return the data needed to minimize development
risk for operational payload-carrying followons.  The payload requirement
had much to do with X-34's troubles.  More on this later too.
 
The other problem was one a lot of us thought likely (but of course not
certain) given OSC and Rockwell's combined track record for cost growth,
weight growth, and schedule slippage on complex aerospace vehicle projects:
Bad management.
 
Actually, "bad management" is an exaggeration, quite unfair to the people
involved - the problem is more accurately described as the lack of
outstandingly good management of a small highly-skilled highly-integrated
development team.  We'll more accurately call what OSC and Rockwell brought
to bear ordinary government-contract aerospace management - not bad, but
not good enough to meet all the agendas, on time, on weight, and on cost.  
 
Here's why we said that failing for only $8 million from NASA is a success
for X-34: Historically, such projects when totally government-financed will
pour good money after bad for a long time, despite cost growth, weight
growth, and schedule problems.  The fact that NASA's share was fixed at $70m
and any overruns came straight out of OSC and Rockwell's pockets
concentrated their minds wonderfully when the project started going bad.  
 
It became obvious to Rockwell and OSC that they were going to lose money,
they dropped out, NASA learned a lot in the process, and still has $62
million of the original $70 million to try and do something useful with. 
That sounds like a success to us.  
 
 - OK, What To Do With $62 Million?
 
Dan Goldin asked us a year ago what NASA could do to encourage small
aerospace startups without crushing them by sheer weight of government
attention.  We didn't have a good answer for him at the time.
 
Now, we just might.  Bear with us for a bit while we lay out the logic.
Many of the pieces of the puzzle are already present in the story of X-34
Mark I's demise...  
 
History tells us that rapid cheap development of effective advanced
aircraft/aerospace vehicles tends to be done by small, highly-integrated
skillfully-led development teams.  
 
Absent wartime urgency, the post-WW II development approach of mass-assault
divide-and-conquer engineering tends to produce expensive protracted
bureaucratic bogdowns, the vehicles resulting (if any) ending up as complex,
fragile, difficult-to-operate kluges.  
 
We are conspicuously short of effective small development teams lately.  
This is because we haven't been doing much to foster such teams for a long
time now - neither encouraging the general approach, nor building many
specific projects of the sort such teams can form around and learn on.  
 
We're obviously still capable of doing this sort of thing; two recent
examples are the DC-X and Clementine developments.  Note that both teams
despite their successes have been in danger of being broken up and scattered
to the four winds - current management theory about workers all being
standard interchangeable parts is very destructive in this regard, as is the
overall lack of small/medium development projects.  
 
The US very much needs such development teams in the high-performance
aerospace vehicle field, in order to affordably exploit recent technology
advances and bring access costs down radically enough to make space an
explosively expanding US commercial sector.  The budget climate for the
forseeable future rules out any Cold War-style government-funded mass
assault on the access cost problem.  Probably just as well...  
 
It is very difficult for such a small development team to both advance the
state of the art, and at the same time produce an operational (reliable
payload-carrier) vehicle.  Imposing a rigid payload requirement while there
is still limited hands-on experience with the new technology tends to cause
the project to bloat, cost and weight-wise.  Large unknowns require large
engineering margins, if the result must be reliably operational.  
 
Such new ground is best broken by building an X-vehicle, one designed to
explore the flight regime quickly and cheaply, with relatively high risk of
initial performance shortfalls and operational difficulties an acceptable
tradeoff for getting results fast on a tight budget.
 
Once a small development team has explored the new flight regime with an 
X-vehicle, they're ready to move on and produce an efficient operational
followon, quickly, cheaply, and with relatively low development risk.  
 
But such an X-vehicle flies no operational missions, carries no payloads,
makes no money for anyone.  Profits come only after the second 2-3 year
design-build-fly iteration.  There's no payoff for at least 5-6 high-risk
years from cold start, so commercial funding isn't available for projects
that require advancing the state of the art.  And X-34 Mark I has again
demonstrated the unwisdom of trying to compress the process into one design
iteration.
 
It is more than a little ironic that successful development of affordable
single-stage reusable space vehicles requires going back to the traditional
multi-stage advanced development project...
 
 - So What Should NASA Be Doing?
 
SAS believes it is a legitimate role for NASA to sponsor relatively small 
X-projects, with the specific purpose of fostering such small development
teams, allowing them to prove their management/technical competence by going
through the initial design iteration of flying an advanced X-vehicle, as a
precursor to a potential low-cost reusable operational spacecraft.  
 
SAS believes that a design team that has successfully done this will then
very likely be able to obtain commercial and/or customer funding for an
operational followon, given that they will have established relatively high
confidence that they will be able to complete the second (money-making)
design-build-fly iteration on time and on budget.  
 
 - How can NASA best do this, given $62 million in the kitty?  
 
We don't have a sure-fire formula, but our advisors have come up with some
sensible suggestions...  
 
Go for one project for now.  $62 million is likely barely enough for an
extremely lean-and-mean outfit to get one X-vehicle flying.  (One useful
possibility would be to accept a vehicle bid in tandem with a bid to build
an upgraded version of a proven engine, using some of the small-engine money
we hear will be materializing at NASA.  This allows a more ambitious vehicle
for the available money, while providing a fallback position of initial
flight with the old proven engine version if the upgrade is delayed.)
 
Do this as a small-business setaside.  Nothing against the existing outfits,
but there's already a project to foster one or more skilled reusable rocket
design teams in the existing large aerospace corporations; it's called X-33. 
This one's for the startups.  (The big guys, frankly, should be using more
of their own money to build and maintain strong design teams.)
 
Pick the winning bidder primarily on the strength of the team they've lined
up, on the balance between management, design, fabrication, and operations
skills, next on the strength of their plans to market their technology if
their X-vehicle succeeds, with their financial backing a distant third. 
We've seen there'll be little commercial money for such ventures at startup.
 
Insist on the winning team being committed to success.  They may not have
much for assets and financing, but what they have should be at risk.  Make
the CEO mortgage his house; set up the payment schedule so that if the team
is reasonably close to on-time and on-budget, he can pay it off.  Make team
members contract for the length of the project; no bailing out for a better
offer or from disgruntlement halfway through.  
 
Make the contract such that if the winning team does a decent job, they end
up with enough for a month's screaming hedonistic vacation (they'll need it)
followed by a year or two working up their operational followon design and
looking for funding and customers.  If they screw up, at most cover the
remaining debt after they sell off their assets.  
 
Monitor their technical progress and expenses closely, but supportively. 
This is critical!  We've heard from numerous entrepreneurs about bad
experiences working for the government.  Some of this of course is simple
aversion to anyone at all looking over their shoulders, to doing any
paperwork at all.  But much of it stems from being burned by letter-of-the-
law beancounters/procurement-paperwork enforcers who neither knew nor cared
what the project was trying to accomplish.  The technical and financial
oversight people should be knowledgable about the project and supportive of
its goals.  They should be there to spot problems early and work with the
development team to solve them, not to shout "gotcha!" 
 
Allow the project to fail.  There should be some slack in the schedule and
finance, as long as the reasons for using the slack are clearly understood
and under control, but if things get out of hand, don't pour good money
after bad.  Shut it down and try again elsewhere.  
 
Success or failure, follow this up with more small projects as funding can
be found.  Such projects are inherently risky; the way to ensure the big
payoff is to make multiple small bets.  
 
 
This advice is aimed at partially/fully reusable smallsat launcher
development in this particular instance, but we think it's more widely
applicable.  And that's all we have to say for now.  Until #62...
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 Space Access Society      "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere 
 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150               in the Solar System." 
 Phoenix AZ 85044                               - Robert A. Heinlein 
 602 431-9283 voice/fax 
 www.space-access.org                     "You can't get there from here." 
 [email protected]                          - Anonymous 
 
 - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this -
 - piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      -
 - reserved.  In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this    -
 - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged.  -
 
 
                      (from www.rlv.msfc.nasa.gov)
     _________________________________________________________________
   
Issue Date: 03/07/96
 
NASA, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Procurement Office, Marshall
Space Flight Center, AL  [35812]
 
Category A -- Small Reusable Booster Technology Demonstrator (X-34) SOL NRA
8-14 POC Contact Technical Representative John W. Cole/XX01, 205-544-
4290/Contracting Officer, Mark R. Stiles/GP54, 205-544-0381, Contract
Specialist, Kimberly D. Newton/GP54, 205-544-0371/4103 (fax) The X-34 Small
Reusable Booster Demonstrator NRA will solicit proposals for joint
government/industry efforts to design, build, integrate, and operate an
experimental rocket powered flight test vehicle and associated test
hardware.  This project will demonstrate key reusable launch vehicle
technologies through flight test experience beginning the third quarter of
CY98. The X-34 project as part of the Reusable Launch Vehicle Program is
intended to enable technology demonstrations in a time period, and at a
performance level between the subsonic DC-XA and the sub-orbital X-33
projects. To meet this objective, the X-34 should be a reusable vehicle
which can begin operation by the third quarter of CY98. The X-34 will
operate as a test bed to demonstrate key reusable launch vehicle
technologies which would be embedded in the basic design and construction of
the vehicle and also carried as experiments or test articles on a flight by
flight basis. The NRA will also provide an opportunity to propose low cost,
RLV technology flight experiments for the vehicle. The X-34 must be capable
of powered flight to at least 250,000 feet and should be capable of
attaining Mach 8 or greater. The vehicle must be capable of at least 25
flight tests over a period of one year, autonomous flight operations, safe
abort, landing in cross winds up to 20 knots and subsonic flight through
rain and fog.  Test results will be shared with the X-33 team. The
government has an available budget of approximately $60M for this NRA. In
addition, the government is willing to provide other resources including
analysis, design, test, fabrication, and hardware and equipment within the
capabilities and resources of the various NASA field centers. Additional
data on Reusable Launch Vehicle technology to date and points of contact at
the NASA Centers is available on the RLV home page address at
http://rlv.msfc.nasa.gov. The Government's role in any supporting design,
analysis, development, or test activities should be clearly defined and
negotiated with the appropriate installation and the task agreements
included with the proposal. The X-34 NRA will be released in the late-March
1996 timeframe. Any award is subject to availability of funds.  Proposals
will be evaluated by peer and/or technical reviews after receipt of
proposals. Written requests for copies of the NRA must be made to Kimberly
D.  Newton/GP54, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812 or by
electronic mail address [email protected]. All responsible sources
may submit a proposal which will be considered.  
 
                         ======================

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson" 19-MAR-1996
14:56:36.02
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: Help needed on X-33

Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: [email protected] (Allen Sherzer)
Subject: Help needed on X-33
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 00:31:41 GMT
Lines: 41

Next week activists from all over the nation will be in Washington DC to
brief Senators on the X-33.  This effort last year played an important
role in securing millions of additional funds for the X-33 effort.  With
luck we will be just as successful this year.

Even if you won't be there, you can still help.  We will be meeting with
Senators and staff people who know very little about this and we need to
show there in interest in their state for this project.  You can help by
writing a brief letter to your senator asking his or her support for X-33.
These letters should be written today so they arrive at the end of this
week and early next week.

This way when we go to the Senators office their staff will have received
some contact so they will be more receptive.  Below is a sample letter
with some points to hit.  Make your letter different so all the letters
don't look the same.  Your letter need not be long, we just want to make
sure X-33 is something they have in their minds when we meet with them.
   Allen

Dear Senator:

I am writing to ask for your support for the NASA X-33 effort.  This
innovative project has the potential to make significant cuts to the cost
of space access and would save billions of our tax dollars.  I hope you
will support full funding for the X-33 including enough money to build the
two vehicles NASA wants.
  Sincerely









--
*******************************************************************************
*  Allen W. Sherzer        | "Nothing of importance happened today"           *
*  [email protected]      |   --Diary of King George III, July 4, 1776       *
*******************************************************************************



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id
AA07468; Tue, 19 Mar 96 14:44:28 -050
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id
AA17987; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 14:34:43 -050
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by
mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA32631; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 13:10:09
-0600
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 19 Mar
96 13:13:49 CST6CD
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 19 Mar 96 13:10:01 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Help needed on X-33
% Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 13:09:49 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Article: 33216
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Space Access '96 preliminary schedule
Date: 17 Mar 96 20:28:35 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
 
 
                  Space Access '96 -- April 26-28 1996
 At the Safari Resort in Scottsdale Arizona, the site of Space Access '94.
 
Space Access '96 is Space Access Society's fourth annual conference on the
technology, economics, and politics of near-term radically cheaper access
to space.  We will have a cross-section of the players in the affordable
access field, including all three X-33 reusable rocketship bidders, their
NASA and DOD partners, several commercial low-cost launch startup
companies, and numerous leading lights of the affordable access movement.  
 
Confirmed speakers so far include Jack Mansfield, head of Space Access &
Technology for NASA, Bill Gaubatz of MDA, David Urie for Lockheed-Martin,
Lt.Col. Jess Sponable of USAF Phillips Labs, Maj. Mitchell Burnside Clapp,
Henry Spencer, Jordin Kare, G.Harry Stine, Jim Muncy, Max Hunter, Mike
Kelly, more.  Many others are likely but not yet 100% confirmed.  
 
                       SA'96 Preliminary Schedule
    (subject to adjustment as we confirm speakers and presentations)
 
Friday 4/26
 - 3 pm, SA'96 hospitality opens.  (Registration will be here Friday night.)
 - 6:30 pm, Intro To Affordable Access:  Mitchell Clapp, Henry Spencer, and
 Henry Vanderbilt bring you up to speed on the technical background of what
 we'll be talking about the rest of the weekend.  If you're new to all this,
 don't miss this session!
 - 8 pm to 10 pm, cash bar reception.
 - 10 pm, reusable rocket video footage.
 - ~midnight, hospitality closes.
 
Saturday 4/27  Government/Major Aerospace
 - 8:30 am - 10:30 am, X-33 session 1, followed by break.
 - 11 am - 12:45 pm, X-33 session 2.
 - 2 pm - 3:45 pm, X-33 session 3, DC-X-A, break.
 - 4:15 pm - 6 pm, Access policy, "Black Horse"/TAV presentations.
 - 8 pm - 11 pm breakout sessions, two tracks of Good Stuff.
 - ~midnight, hospitality closes.
 
Sunday 4/28
 - 8:30 am - 10:30 am, Access Politics/Economics, break.
 - 11 am - 12:45 pm, Entrepreneurial session 1
 - 2 pm - 3:45 pm, Entrepreneurial session 2, break
 - 4:15 pm - 6 pm, Wrapup session.
 - ~midnight, hospitality closes.
 
SA'96, like our previous conferences will be done on an informal basis,
with no proceedings published.  If you want to get an up-to-the-minute
picture of this fast-moving field, you need to be here.  
 
The Safari is a comfortable rambling resort-style hotel, with a good mid-
price restaurant, a 24-hour coffee shop, right next to downtown Scottsdale
with lots of shopping and fine dining a short walk away.  
 
The SA'96 room rate is $62 a night single or double, $92 for suites, good
from the previous Tuesday through the following Wednesday morning.  Reserve
early as our room block is limited, and after they're gone the rate will be
higher.  How much so depends on what the hotel thinks the traffic will
bear, so reserve early.  $62 is a smokin' deal during the tourist season in
Arizona - a typical April day is sunny and in the eighties.  
 
Call (800) 845-4356 for reservations, and tell the Safari you want the
Space Access '96 rate.  You will need to confirm your room with a credit
card or a mailed check, or they'll release it for general rental a week
beforehand.  If you need to confirm by check, ask the Safari for details.  
 
The Safari is twenty minutes from the Phoenix airport via 'Super Shuttle'
van.  Once you're there everything you need is within walking distance. 
Super Shuttle runs $12 for one, $5 each additional, 602 244-9000 for info
and reservations.  Cab rates vary, $15-$25.  Phoenix is a major airline hub
and served by several low-fare carriers; getting here can be surprisingly
affordable if you shop around and book your tickets early.  
 
SA'96 registration is $100 US in advance ($90 for SAS members), $120 at the
door, $50 for students with proof of full-time student status, day rates at
the door.  SAS membership, with emailed "Space Access Updates", is $30 for
one year (include your email address).  Mail checks to: SAS, 4855 E Warner
Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  
 
       Space Access Society exists to promote affordable reliable
                        access to space for all.
 
  Come to Space Access '96 and meet the people who are making it happen!
 
602 431-9283 voice/fax   
[email protected]
http://www.space-access.org
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
 
          SAS Membership/Space Access'96/SSTO Tape Order Form
         Checks only, no cash or credit cards.  Mail checks to:
    Space Access Society, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044
 
SAS membership rates are $30 US for a year's email Updates, $1000 for a
year's corporate membership (includes rights to unlimited internal
excerpting and redistribution of Updates), and $1000 for an individual SAS
lifetime membership.  The SAS X-33/SSTO/DC-X v3.0 video is $25 ($20 for SAS
members), add $8 to ship outside North America, 2 hours of X-33/DC-X/SSTO
material, VHS only, NTSC only.  SA'96 registration is $100 in advance ($90
for SAS members), $120 at the door, $50 student rate.
 
    SAS Membership _____ SA'96 ____ Tape ____ Donation to SAS _____
 
    Name __________________________________________________________   
 
    Organization __________________________________________________
      (optional,will appear on SA'96 badge)
 
    Address _______________________________________________________   
 
    City _______________________ State _____ Zip __________________   
 
    Email ________________________________________ (optional)
 
    Evening phone ( ___ ) ________________________ (optional)
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson" 23-APR-1996 17:10:11.39
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: SAS Action Alert 4/22/96 (fwd)



Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:30:54 -0700 (MST)
From: Donald Doughty <[email protected]>
To: DC-X <[email protected]>
Subject: SAS Action Alert 4/22/96 (fwd)


Subject: SAS Action Alert 4/22/96

           Space Access Society Political Action Alert 4/22/96

The full House Science Committee will "mark up" (review and modify) an
omnibus funding bill that includes NASA's FY'97 budget authorization.  The
markup is scheduled for this Wednesday, April 24th.

We ask that you check the attached list of Science Committee members, and
if you live in or near one's district, call or fax his or her office as
soon as possible, by Wednesday morning if possible, and ask them to
_preserve full funding for NASA's X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle program._

If you don't find anyone nearby on the list, it would be useful to call or
fax the office of George Brown (D CA), ranking Science minority member.

 - Background

Between the "train wreck" and the election coming up, time is tight in the
Congress - there was no separate Space Subcommittee markup; this markup in
the full Science Committee is it for the House version of NASA's FY'97
authorization.  FY'97 begins this October 1st.

The pre-markup version of the bill gives NASA their full request for the
X-33/RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicle) program.  There are significant cuts
from the level requested by the White House in other areas, however - in
particular, Mission To Planet Earth (MTPE) is cut from $1.4 billion to $1
billion.  There is likely to be a strong move to restore the full MTPE
funding at the expense of X-33/RLV.

We need to urgently ask Science Committee members to NOT take money from
X-33/RLV to restore Mission To Planet Earth cuts.

We have nothing against Mission To Planet Earth in principle; more and
better data is in our view always a good thing.  We prefer not to get into
the debate about how well or badly MTPE as currently planned would work.

We believe, however, that significantly reducing the cost of getting to
space ASAP should be NASA's top priority, since it would enable better
returns for money spent across the entire range of NASA's space activities,
MTPE included.

If you call, keep it short and polite - you're likely talking to an
overworked underpaid staffer.  Tell them you're calling about the NASA
X-33/Reusable Launch Vehicle program; they may then switch you over to a
space-specialist staffer, or they may ask you what they can do for you.
Either way, tell them you'd like them to preserve full funding for the
X-33/RLV program, give them a quick reason why - you feel it's important
for the future of the space program to cut access costs will do, if you're
not feeling creative.  If they have any questions, answer them as best you
can; if not, thank them for their time and ring off.

If you fax, keep it short and polite (one page max).  State your main point
right at the start, then if you feel like it give a paragraph or two in
support.  The idea is to make it easy for that same overworked underpaid
staffer - if yours is the only fax they see, it should be concise and
persuasive; if it's the hundredth, they should be able to tell at a glance
what you're asking for and add it to the totals.

Welcome to the FY'97 affordable access budget battles - and thanks in
advance for your help!


             ** House Committee on Science, Members List **

 (Chairman, full Science Committee)    voice          fax
  Walker, Robert S. (R-16 PA)        1-202-225-2411 1-202-225-2484

 (Ranking Minority Member, full Science Committee)
  Brown Jr., George E. (D-42 CA)     1-202-225-6161 1-202-225-8671

 (Chairman, Space Subcommittee)
  Sensenbrenner, F. James (R-09 WI)  1-202-225-5101 1-202-225-3190

 (Ranking Minority Member, Space Subcommittee)
  Hall, Ralph M. (D-04 TX)           1-202-225-6673 1-202-225-3332

       (alphabetical by states)
       * member of Space Subcommittee

                                       voice          fax
 *Cramer, Robert (D-05 AL)           1-202-225-4801 1-202-225-4392

 *Salmon, Matt (R-01 AZ)             1-202-225-2635 1-202-225-2607

 *Calvert, Ken (R-43 CA)             1-202-225-1986 1-202-225-2004
 *Harman, Jane (D-36 CA)             1-202-225-8220 1-202-226-0684
 *Rohrabacher, Dana (R-45 CA)        1-202-225-2415 1-202-225-7067
 *Seastrand, Andrea (R-22 CA)        1-202-225-3601 1-202-226-1015
  Baker, Bill (R-10 CA)              1-202-225-1880 1-202-225-2150
  Lofgren, Zoe (D-16 CA)             1-202-225-3072 1-202-225-9460

 *Foley, Mark (R-16 FL)              1-202-225-5792 1-202-225-1860
 *Weldon, Dave (R-15 FL)             1-202-225-3671 1-202-225-9039
 *Hastings, Alcee (D-23 FL)          1-202-225-1313 1-202-225-0690

  Fawell, Harris W. (R-13 IL)        1-202-225-3515 1-202-225-9420

 *Roemer, Tim (D-03 IN)              1-202-225-3915 1-202-225-6798

 *Tiahrt, Todd (R-04 KS)             1-202-225-6216 1-202-225-5398

 *Ward, Mike (R-03 KY)               1-202-225-5401

  Hayes, James A. (D-07 LA)          1-202-225-2031 1-202-225-1175

  Olver, John W. (D-01 MA)           1-202-225-5335 1-202-226-1224

  Morella, Constance (R-08 MD)       1-202-225-5341 1-202-225-1389
  Bartlett, Roscoe G. (R-06 MD)      1-202-225-2721 1-202-225-2193

 *Barcia, James (D-05 MI)            1-202-225-8171 1-202-225-2168
  Ehlers, Vernon (R-03 MI)           1-202-225-3831 1-202-225-5144
  Rivers, Lynn (D-13 MI)             1-202-225-6261 1-202-225-0489

 *Luther, William (D-06 MN)          1-202-225-2271 1-202-225-9802
  Gutknecht, Gil (R-01 MN)           1-202-225-2472 1-202-225-0051
  Minge, David (D-02 MN)             1-202-225-2331 1-202-226-0836

  McCarthy, Karen (D-05 MO)          1-202-225-4535 1-202-225-5990

  Myrick, Sue (R-09 NC)              1-202-225-1976 1-202-225-8995

  Schiff, Steven H. (R-01 NM)        1-202-225-6316 1-202-225-4975

  Boehlert, Sherwood (R-23 NY)       1-202-225-3665 1-202-225-1891

 *Traficant, James (D-17 OH)         1-202-225-5261 1-202-225-3719

 *Largent, Steve (R-01 OK)           1-202-225-2211 1-202-225-9187

  Weldon, Curt (R-07 PA)             1-202-225-2011 1-202-225-8137
  Doyle, Michael (D-18 PA)           1-202-225-2135 1-202-225-7747
  McHale, Paul (D-15 PA)             1-202-225-6411 1-202-225-5320

  Graham, Lindsey (R-03 SC)          1-202-225-5301 1-202-225-5383

 *Hilleary, Van (R-04 TN)            1-202-225-6831 1-202-225-4520
  Wamp, Zach (R-03 TN)               1-202-225-3271 1-202-225-6974
  Tanner, John S. (D-08 TN)          1-202-225-4714 1-202-225-1765

 *Stockman, Steve (R-09 TX)          1-202-225-6565 1-202-225-1584
 *Lee, Sheila Jackson (D-18 TX)      1-202-225-3816 1-202-225-6186
  Barton, Joseph (R-06 TX)           1-202-225-2002 1-202-225-3052
  Geren, Peter (D-12 TX)             1-202-225-5071 1-202-225-2786
  Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D-30 TX)   1-202-225-8885 1-202-226-1477
  Doggett, Lloyd (D-10 TX)           1-202-225-4865 1-202-225-3018

 *Davis, Tom (R-11 VA)               1-202-225-1492 1-202-225-2274

  Cubin, Barbara (R-WY)              1-202-225-2311 1-202-225-0726



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA27232; Tue, 23 Apr 96 15:38:18 -040
% Received: from mail13.digital.com by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA02756; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:33:02 -040
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu by mail13.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA25842; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:22:52 -040
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA12967; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 14:00:13 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 23 Apr 96 14:06:07 CST6CD
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 23 Apr 96 13:59:42 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: SAS Action Alert 4/22/96 (fwd)
% Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 13:59:26 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Space Access Update #62  4/25/96
Date: 26 Apr 1996 01:11:12 -0700
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 655


                    Space Access Update #62  4/25/96
                 Copyright 1996 by Space Access Society
_______________________________________________________________________

Time flies when you're having fun...  More than a month ago we promised a
general-news Update "this weekend" to follow our X-34-specific SAU #61.
Just to prove that time with the Jesuits is never wasted, technically
speaking it is "this weekend" as we type on this fine April Sunday.
(Of course, now it's Thursday...)

The good news is, well, most of the news we have to report here is good
news.  Or to put it bluntly, we're winning!  (So, *now* what do we do?..)

It took a trip to Rockwell's two-day "X-33 User Expo" in Downey last month
to drive the point home:  The heretical affordable access ideas of eight
years ago - of as recently as two years ago - are now gospel.

Fast-turnaround small-groundcrew high-reliability reusables, designed to
meet commercial needs and financed from commercial sources, are now the
official company line at, not to put too fine a point on it, the Great
Satan of space launch companies as far as many activists are concerned.
Folks, Rockwell has gotten religion.  Can the millenium be far off?

Of course, when a large government contractor starts vigorously promoting a
new and different approach, it's a safe bet this new approach is what the
government is now asking for.  In this case, a very safe bet - the X-33/RLV
management at NASA seems to be solidly on the new wavelength.  And NASA
Administrator Dan Goldin is repeatedly on record over the last year that
cutting access costs radically, soon, is now a top priority of his.

"We're winning" does not, however, mean "we've won".  There are still a lot
of things that can go wrong between here and "affordable reliable access to
space for all." Even with the best of intentions, NASA at the working level
has a lot of bad old ways to get over.  We expect the DC-XA and the new
X-34 will serve as litmus tests of how well NASA Marshall can implement the
new approach, for instance.  And we've still to see just who will make up
the X-33 Source Selection Board, and then there are funding questions, and
even after reusable rocket X-demonstrators are flying there are all the
legal and regulatory changes needed before routine commercial SSTO
operations can become reality...

Or as an old fighter pilot of our aquaintance told us, "Son, when the other
guy starts smoking and shedding parts, that's no time to break off and go
home.  That's the time to bore in close and blow him all to hell."

We haven't worked ourselves out of jobs quite yet.  (Oh well.)
_______________________________________________________________________

Stories this issue:

 - X-33
      - Positive Early Results In FY'97 Funding Push
      - Bids Due May 13th, Selection Made By July 1st
      - Overview of the Three Bidders

 - DC-XA Rebuilt, Rolled Out, And Back At WSMR Flight Test Site
      - Flights Due To Resume Late May/Early June

 - X-34 Mk II Hits The Ground Running - Bids Due May 10th.

 - Odds 'N Ends
      - Charles Miller's March On Washington A Major Success
      - Space Access '96 Conference Schedule Shaping Up
      (at the Safari Resort, Scottsdale Arizona, April 26-28)
      - SAS SSTO V3.0 Video In Stock, Backorders Shipped!


-----------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)------------------------

Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news
publication. Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access
to space for all, period.  We believe in concentrating our resources at
whatever point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.

Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit
(SSTO) technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and
thus development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor
confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial
investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far from that point now.

Our major current focus is on supporting the government's fully reusable
single-stage rocket technology programs, the low-speed DC-XA, and its
high-speed followon, the X-33 NASA/DOD/industry cooperative project.

With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying
into space well before the end of this decade, with practical orbital
transport projects getting underway.  Join us, and help us make it happen.

            Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society


To join Space Access Society or buy the SSTO/DC-X V 3.0 video we have for
sale (Two hours, includes all eight DC-X flights, X-33 animations, X-33,
DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, aerospike engine test-stand footage, plus
White Sands Missile Range DC-X ops site post flight footage) mail a check
to:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  SAS membership with
direct email of Space Access Updates is $30 US per year; the SSTO V 3.0
video is $25, $5 off for SAS members, $8 extra for shipping outside the US
and Canada, VHS NTSC only.
__________________________________________________________________________


                               X-33 News


              Positive Early Results In FY'97 Funding Push

The House Science Committee's Wednesday markup of the FY'97 Omnibus Science
Authorization was uneventful as far as X-33 is concerned - the anticipated
attempt to cut NASA Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) funding never occurred.
We expect one of the factors in this was the calls and faxes y'all made on
this issue - good work!  Congratulations also to the people who did a whole
bunch of Congressional briefings last month (see Odds and Ends) and to the
people who've been working this issue behind the scenes.

There are a couple matters of FY'96 funding still pending, but both look to
be under control.  NASA has been operating under a continuing resolution
for months, but the holdup is over other parts of the HUD/VA/Independent
Agencies funding bill - NASA FY'96 RLV funding isn't in dispute at all.

And the $25m in FY'96 Defense Department reusable rocket money is still
being held up in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, last we heard,
despite two letters from the USAF asking for its release.  The White
House's first major DOD rescissions list included this money, but Congress
refused to let it be cut; the second large DOD rescission list that came
out recently didn't even try.  Somebody's learning... Support for this work
is stronger than ever in Congress and seems to be slowly growing within
USAF - we expect the $25m will be released, soon rather than later.

Meanwhile, we hear that there's a growing consensus in the Congress to fund
USAF reusable rocket work at $50m for FY'97.  The real progress this year is
in Senate support; the weakest spot is in the Senate Appropriations
Committee, where someone apparently still doesn't like reusable rockets.

We understand the Defense authorizing committees (the Senate Armed Services
Committee or SASC, the House National Security Committee or HNSC) will be
marking their bills at the start of next week.  We understand there's
reason for optimism that both will authorize $50m.  Fingers crossed.


       Bids Due Mid-May, Winner Selection Planned By Early July.

The X-33 three-bidder design competition (officially, "X-33 Phase 1") is
coming down to the wire, with a downselect then construction start due
this summer.  The final version X-33 Phase 2 CAN (Cooperative Agreement
Notice, the bidding rules) was released at the start of April, and bids are
due Monday, May 13th.  The document can be found on the
http://procure.msfc.nasa.gov website, in Word 6.0 and RTF formats.

The current plan is that one X-33 contractor will be selected by the start
of July, whereupon the White House will deliver a decision on proceeding
with X-33 construction and flight.  This is close to a half-year faster than
the original schedule - we like it.  (We'd still like to see two contractors,
two flight vehicles each, but we'll likely end up settling for less - how
much less, we'll see as the new Congressional funding season develops.)

Given Administrator Goldin's and the Congress's strong support, and the
clear preponderance of good reasons to go ahead with X-33, we hope for a
timely "go" from the White House this summer.  But it is an election year,
and space has seldom been a top priority of this Administration - many
strange things might happen.  But to date X-33 has received considerable
bipartisan support; it shouldn't become a political football.  We'll see.

Meanwhile, we have a fine mix of information, rumor, and educated guesswork
about the nature of the three different X-33 bids, not to mention news of
some interesting carryings-on among the various bidders.


                          X-33 Bidder Overview

 - Lockheed-Martin

Lockheed-Martin comes first alphabetically but last for current news;
they've been keeping fairly quiet lately.  Their last major public move was
the Lockheed-Martin merger, which we understand caused pieces of their X-33
bid to be spread all over the map rather than kept concentrated at the old
Lockheed Advanced Development shop, better known as the "Skunk Works".

Handing out pieces of the project may be a plus in terms of additional
resources, and we'd think is certainly a plus in terms of political suppport
within the new enlarged organization, but it seems likely to be a minus in
terms of maintaining the proven closely-integrated Skunk Works structure.
(And another thing!  LockMart has now officially renamed LADC as "The
Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works".  Geez, guys, don't you understand that when
you make it official, the magic goes away?  Grumble, grumble...)

The one piece of solid news we have out of L-M is that there's a new project
head, Jerry Rising.  Dave Urie, the original project boss, has moved on and
now runs a consulting outfit, Technology Advantage.  He is still working
with the L-M X-33 project, however.

Our best info about what Lockheed-Martin will bid for X-33 is that it'll be
a tubby triangular lifting-body craft, vertical-takeoff, horizontal runway
landing.  From what we hear of the viewgraphs L-M has been briefing, it
will be powered by three Rocketdyne "linear aerospike" engines of 200,000+
lbs thrust each.  These engines will be hand-built using a combustor design
out of the 1970's Rocketdyne aerospike project plus turbomachinery from the
old J-2S upgrade of the J-2 Saturn 5 upper-stage engine.

Based purely on the engine thrust (which we don't know with any great
certainty) a three-engine L-M X-33 would be the largest of the competitors,
with a liftoff weight of 450,000+ lbs.  The L-M entry would also come the
closest of the three to having engine-out survivability throughout flight -
there would still likely be an unrecoverable zone right after takeoff, but
it would be much shorter than for the other two, single-main-engine X-33's.

We have heard one rumor that L-M would instead bid an X-33 also built around
a single conventional Shuttle Main Engine-class bell-nozzle engine, but
this seems unlikely, unless there are problems with the aerospike engine
project we haven't heard about.  L-M and Rocketdyne are working with NASA
Dryden to flight-test a subscale aerospike engine section mounted on top of
a NASA SR-71 supersonic jet, by the way.  The LASRE tests are due to fly in
the next month or two, and should fill in the main unknown about aerospike
engines, the efficiency in transonic and low supersonic airflow.


 - McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing

The first news about these X-33 partners is that for all practical purposes,
they aren't partners anymore.  Boeing will fulfill its obligations for
Phase 1, then drop back to the role of subcontractor for Phase 2, with
McDonnell-Douglas (MDA) taking the sole lead on X-33 from now on.

This had apparently been brewing for awhile, with disputes between Boeing
and MDA over vehicle configuration surfacing more than a year ago.  To
oversimplify grossly, MDA is partial to the wingless vertical-takeoff,
vertical-lander DC-X configuration, while Boeing has long been partial to
winged runway-lander designs.  MDA won that fight last summer (not before a
fair number of outsiders had jumped in) but judging by comments published in
Space News recently, Boeing was never really happy with the outcome.

Then last winter, merger talks between the Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas
parent corporations were hot-and-heavy for a while - then suddenly broken
off.  A month or so later, we started hearing about Boeing pulling back from
full partnership in the X-33 bid.

Our guess is that as part of the merger talks, Boeing was given management
of all commercial airliner business, while McDonnell-Douglas people would
run all space projects, that this was applied to X-33, and that it stuck
after the merger fell through.

For what it's worth, the MDA X-33 team management is now pretty much as it
was for DC-X, with Paul Klevatt boss engineer, Bill Gaubatz running the
business/marketing end, and Chuck Ordahl in overall charge.  Dave Wensley,
formerly in charge of X-33 at MDA, took early retirement over the winter.

Meanwhile, there are no huge surprises in the MDA X-33 configuration.  It
will be a conical wingless VTVL vehicle, powered by one modified SSME-class
engine plus eight deep-throttleable RL-10-a5 engines (DC-X uses four of
these) for precision control during landing.  All engines will fire for
takeoff, leading us to estimate the MDA X-33 will have a liftoff weight in
the neighborhood of 350,000 lbs.  The eight landing engines will give this
X-33 some limited ability to survive a main engine failure, but given the
relative thrusts (at sea level, all eight RL-10's together 106,000 lbs
thrust, one cut-down SSME main engine ~350,000 lbs thrust) the vehicle
will have to have burned off much of its propellant before it can survive a
main-engine shutoff.  For the scheduled 15 X-33 flight tests, the risk is
probably acceptably small - SSME's have flown ~200 engine-missions on
Shuttle with only one post-launch shutdown, that one due to a faulty sensor
and not a real engine problem.


 - Rockwell/Northrop-Grumman

Rockwell has been doing some interesting things over the last year.  They,
along with their junior partner in X-33 Northrop-Grumman, won a number of
NASA Research Agreement (NRA) contracts last spring to build and test
various bits of lightweight structure and engine components.  They were the
first of the three bidders to publicly support commercial financing of any
Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) that results from X-33, last fall at the Space
Subcommittee RLV hearings Rep. Sensenbrenner called - until then, all three
bidders had been holding out for in essence a government guarantee.

And then last month Rockwell ran a two-day "X-33 User Expo" that left us
nearly at a loss for words by the time our turn to speak came.  Literally,
all of the points we usually pound on about fast-turnaround small-groundcrew
"savable" (the word actually showed up on a Rockwell viewgraph, along with
the cogent point that you have to be able to count on enough intact flights
to pay off the vehicle mortgage) reusable commercially financed and
operated launch vehicles - all these points had already been made
repeatedly by the time we got near a mike.

(Mind, we're a bit cynical about the sincerity of any such sudden change in
any large organization's public posture - but in the long run, sincerity
doesn't matter.  Repeat something often enough, act as if you believe it
long enough, and you'll find after a while that you *do* believe it.)

Rockwell presented the outline of an RLV business plan, based on we think
over-conservative assumptions, but even so a plan they say they expect they
can make money at, building and flying commercial SSTO space transports.
They also asked the people they'd invited, potential users of every stripe
(including a number of us activist troublemakers) what *we* wanted from
them.  A revolutionary breakthrough for any outfit used to giving the
government whatever the specs say and the Congress will pay for...

Hardware, now.  We saw a lot of neat bits of structural composite, durable
thermal protection, system health monitoring, and computer design tool
technology at the expo, far too much to describe here today, alas.  Two
things that stuck out, though: Complex graphite-epoxy structural shapes
that had failed under stress-test at the spots predicted and within a
couple percent of the stress predicted, a good sign for the computer design
tools.  Thermal protection tiles and blankets that had flown through rain
at 500 knots on an F-15 with no damage - we hear the F-15 lost a lot of
paint.  We were told the tiles can be cut to final shape and size, bonded
onto a vehicle, then cured in place -  a major plus for ease of repair.

Rockwell's X-33 configuration, now, is a vertical takeoff, horizontal
lander, built around a single cut-down-nozzle SSME, long cylindrical body
with a blunt rounded nose, small swept wings and a single swept vertical
tail both mounted all the way aft.  The fuselage skin is essentially the
outside of the propellant tanks plus bonded cryo insulation then thermal
protection layers - there are a pair of rectangular ducts along the top side
of the vehicle to carry cables and such past the cryo tanks; this was easier
than trying to run things through the tanks.

The cryo propellants are going to be supercooled, "densified", as they're
loaded on board, to give more propellant mass for given size tanks.  There
was a prototype in-line cryo heat exhanger on display.  The detailed scale
model X-33 ops site they had looked somewhat more complex than the current
DC-X setup, but in essence similar, with the various cryo, pressurant, and
purge gas tank farms plus associated plumbing.  The actual launch stand had
a relatively small concrete flame bucket.

The vehicle takeoff mass we'd estimate as the smallest of the three, at
something just over 300,000 lbs.  They don't plan to run their cut-down SSME
(35:1 expansion ratio nozzle, as compared to the standard SSME's 70:1) at
much more than 80% of rated max thrust, increasing engine reliability and
time-between-overhaul considerably.  See the MDA piece for comments on
running on a single main engine for 15 flights - odds are they'll get away
with it.  We'd still prefer to see true engine-out savability being
demonstrated in X-33, but that just isn't in the cards in any of these
proposals at this point.

The joker in this deck is, just as we were heading home from the User Expo,
the Wall Street Journal printed a story saying that Rockwell International,
the parent conglomerate, is trying to reduce their dependence on government
business, and the Rockwell Aerospace division (whose major current income is
from Shuttle orbiter rebuilds and servicing) is up for sale.  We've heard
rumors that the Hughes satellite people are interested, but we thing the
most interesting possibility would be a Boeing purchase - perhaps putting
Boeing in the winged X-33 business after all.


 - Summing Up

We don't even want to try to guess who has the best X-33 proposal at this
point; we don't know enough.  Give us a week of unrestricted access to each
of the proposals and we might form an opinion...  All three look like they
could be made to work.  We'd really like to see at least two kept alive past
this summer, even if NASA can't afford to build both right away for a flyoff.

It's not carved in stone that there *won't* be two X-33's, mind.
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, second-ranking Republican on the House Space
Subcommittee, said in a speech at the Rockwell User Expo that funding a
flyoff was no sure thing, but that it might yet come out of this summer's
budget deliberations.  Stay tuned.

__________________________________________________________________________


         DC-XA Rebuilt, Rolled Out, And Back At Flight Test Site


We had a chance to tour the DC-XA rebuild project factory floor at
McDonnell-Douglas in Huntington Beach a couple months ago - this job has its
compensations at times.  Things seemed to be going well; all major core
components were bolted together, and the aeroshell was scattered about in
various stages of refinishing.

And DC-XA was in fact finished, rolled out in a public ceremony, and on its
way back to the WSMR (White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico) flight test
site late last month.  It's currently on the launch stand at the DC-X flight
test site, being worked up for first flight in the new series sometime in
late May or early June.

A quick review of the rebuild...  The graphite-epoxy liquid hydrogen tank
got back from static testing (including we hear an extended cold soak) at
NASA Marshall in good shape.  The Russian-built aluminum-lithium (AlLi,
aluminum alloy with lightweight lithium fibers embedded in it) liquid
oxygen tank also arrived in usable form, but not without some excitement en
route: It was shipped late from Russia because of problems getting it
welded together properly (welding AlLi is still a black art; there've been
problems with the new lightweight Shuttle tanks too).  And at some point
between Russia and Huntington Beach via static test at Marshall, it picked
up a fine collection of microscopic cracks in the welds.  One theory we've
seen is that Russian X-ray film is less sensitive than US and just didn't
show the cracks; one story we've heard is that an improperly installed
static test stand at Marshall put severe unplanned torque loads on the tank.

The good news is that regardless of where the cracks came from, they're too
small to be either a mechanical-strength or a leak problem.  Apparently
microcracks in a metal-fiber composite just aren't the problem that cracks
in straight metal are; the fibers tend to stop crack propagation.

DC-X's four RL-10-a5 engines, meanwhile, are back from Pratt & Whitney,
where they were torn down and inspected for wear.  P&W was understandably
interested in how they'd stood up to eight flight cycles plus a dozen or so
ground firings - we were told that worst-case wear was well under ten
percent of the max allowable.

We understand that there should be a 24-hour turnaround demo early in the
DC-XA flight test program this summer.  Stand by for details.

__________________________________________________________________________


         X-34 Mk II Hits The Ground Running - Bids Due May 10th.


NASA has published an NRA (NASA Research Agreement) offering up to $60m for
whoever comes up with the best bid to fly a mach 8, 250,000 foot altitude
reusable rocket experiemntal vehicle by the summer of '98.  There was a
bidder briefing in Huntsville in early April, and a wide variety of
established aerospace contractors and unknown startups showed up.  Orbital
Sciences Corporation, who won then screwed up (with a little help from their
friends) the original X-34 bid, were there in force, we hear.

And that's about all we know.  Everybody we talk to says they're thinking of
bidding; nobody will confirm they are or discuss details.  This program is
being run on an extreme accelerated basis; it has to be of course to have a
chance of flying in just over two years.  Bids are due at the end of the
second week in May; we'll likely know a lot more shortly thereafter.

__________________________________________________________________________


                             Odds and Ends


 - Charles Miller Takes DC By Storm (With A Little Help From His Friends)

This is the second time Charles Miller took on the job of making happen a
major team effort to brief Congressmen and staffers on SSTO and space
issues.  Last year was pretty successful in its own right, but now Chaz has
outdone himself.  Over forty volunteer briefers showed up in DC late last
month and did over 200 briefings, 120+ House and 80+ Senate.

Charles mentioned some people a while back who were major factors in
making all this work - any glaring omissions are likely our fault.  In no
particular order, Ben Muniz, Mike Heney, Susan Heney, Jim Muncy, David
Anderman, Tim Kyger, Rick Tumlinson, and various Space Subcommittee staffers
all helped considerably.  And we should mention that the Space Frontier
Foundation provided significant organizational support to the effort.

Our congratulations to everyone involved!


 - Space Access '96 Conference Schedule Shaping Up
(at the Safari Resort, Scottsdale Arizona, April 26-28)

As usual, the final schedule for our annual Space Access conference is only
nailed down a day or two beforehand.  As usual, it's a real hum-dinger if
you're interested in finding out up-to-the-minute what's happening in the
affordable access game.  As usual, we'll hear complaints about "If you could
have told me it'd be _this_ good a month ago, I would have come..."  And as
usual, we'll say: This is four years running now that we've pulled this off.
What more do you want for a track record - an entry in "The Racing Form"
maybe?  Show some faith and save some money; sign up for Space Access '97
now (late April '97, in the Phoenix AZ area) for only $50 if you mail the
check before SA'96 ends this Sunday.  Such a deal!

What, you want proof we can do what we say?  Check out the attached SA'96
program schedule.  And if you can get to Phoenix quick, you can still catch
this year's version!  We're about 12 miles from the Phoenix airport.


              SAS SSTO/Reusable Rocket Video V3.0 is Out!

This wouldn't be nearly as noteworthy an event if we weren't months late,
of course.  But we do indeed finally have the new collection edited,
duplicated, and in stock.  The backorders hit the mail a couple weeks ago,
including tapes for the four people whose V2.0 orders got misfiled in the
rush right before Space Access '95.  "Oops" is *not* what we said when that
paperwork turned up...  Two hours of cool stuff on this one, including NASA
animations of all three X-33 concepts, footage of all eight DC-X flights,
lots of interesting historical background and tech demos (including
Rocketdyne aerospike rocket engine test-stand and background footage), and
amateur video footage of DC-X post-flight processing.  Mail us a check for
$25 and you too can have a copy of this.  $20 for SAS members, $8
additional for shipping outside North America.
__________________________________________________________________________

 Space Access Society      "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150               in the Solar System."
 Phoenix AZ 85044                               - Robert A. Heinlein
 602 431-9283 voice/fax
 www.space-access.org                     "You can't get there from here."
 [email protected]                          - Anonymous

 - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this -
 - piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      -
 - reserved.  In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this    -
 - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged.  -

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     SA'96 Schedule of Events

      Friday evening April 26th through Sunday evening April 28th

At the Safari Resort, 4611 N Scottsdale Rd, Scottsdale AZ, 602 945-0721
 (one block north of Camelback Rd, opposite the "Fashion Square" mall)


Friday Evening Session: Intro To Affordable Space Access

   The rule this evening is, there's no such thing as a dumb question.
   If all this is new to you, here's your chance to get up to speed on
   what you'll be hearing about the rest of the weekend.

   6 pm - Henry Spencer on Rocket Science For Amateurs: basics of orbits,
          space vehicles, and affordable space travel.  60 minutes.

        - Panel: Affordable Access Basics.  Mitch Clapp, Henry Spencer,
          Henry Vanderbilt, others TBA.  Freewheeling discussion on why we
          think it's possible to cut access costs to 1% of current levels.
          50 minutes.

 8 pm - 10 pm - Cash Bar Reception - outside our Hospitality suite.
                The speeches will be short and the company will be stellar.


Saturday Morning Session: X-33/RLV/SSTO

 8:30 am - Welcome To Arizona - Now Stay!  Bob Walkup, Chairman of the
           Arizona Space Commission.  10 minutes.

         - The NASA X-33/RLV Program.  Ivan Bekey, head of Advanced
           Concepts for NASA's Office of Space Access & Technology.
           40 minutes.

         - The Rockwell X-33/Commercial RLV.  Allen Lowry, Rockwell.
           50 minutes

                                 break

10:30 am - X-33 Flight Test Operations.  Lt. Col. Jess Sponable,
           USAF Phillips Labs.  40 minutes.

         - Some Additional Space Transportation Considerations.  Tom Rogers,
           Space Transportation Association.  40 minutes.

         - Advanced SSTO Operating Concepts.  Ivan Bekey, NASA.  40 minutes.


                      break for lunch 12:30 - 2:00


Saturday Afternoon Session: X-33/RLV/SSTO

 2:00 pm - The Lockheed-Martin X-33/RLV.  David Urie, Lockheed-Martin.
           50 minutes.

         - Trans-Atmospheric Vehicles.  Lt. Col. Jess Sponable, USAF
           Phillips Labs.  40 minutes.

                                 break

 3:50 pm - Lean Development The Skunk Works Way - David Urie, Technology
           Advantage Corp.  40 minutes.

         - Aerial Propellant Transfer Spaceplanes: "Black Horse".  Mitchell
           Burnside Clapp.  40 minutes.

         - The McDonnell Douglas X-33/RLV: "Delta Clipper".  Bill Gaubatz,
           McDonnell Douglas.  50 minutes.

         - 1996 Space Access Awards.  5 minutes - we'll be hungry too!


                            break for dinner


Saturday Evening Sessions - Two Tracks


Track 1, Alternate Paths To Orbit

 8:00 pm - Panel: Alternative Propellants for SSTO.  Mitch Clapp, Bruce
           Dunn, Max Hunter, Jeff Greason.  60 minutes.

         - Roton.  Gary Hudson, HMX Inc.  40 minutes.

         - Laser Propulsion & New Technologies.  Jordin Kare, LLNL.
           40 minutes.

         - A Rapid Deployment Alternative.  Bill Haynes.  40 minutes.


Track 2, Amateur Rocketry Nears Orbit

 8:00 pm - Experimental Rocket Propulsion Society.  Michael Wallis and
           Kevin Bollinger.  45 minutes.

         - Reaction Research Society.  Bill Colburn.  45 minutes.

         - Micro Launch.  Charles Pooley.  45 minutes.

         - Pacific Rocket Society.  Steve Morgan, Randa Milliron.
           45 minutes.


                            Sunday Schedule:


Sunday Morning Session: Rockets, Politics, and Business

 8:30 am - Panel: Access Advocacy.  David Anderman, Charles Miller, Jim
           Muncy, Henry Vanderbilt.  50 minutes.

         - Panel: Toward A Thriving Cheap Launch Business: The Intertwined
           Finance, Political, Regulatory, and Legal Hurdles.  Stephen
           Fleming, Jim Muncy, G.Harry Stine, Les Tennen, Henry Vanderbilt
           moderator.  50 minutes.

                                 break

10:30 am - New Markets: Tourism.  Rand Simberg, Interglobal Spacelines.
           40 minutes.

         - Kelly Space & Technology.  Mike Kelly.  40 minutes.

         - The Next 50 Years: A Level Playing Field?  G.Harry Stine.
           40 minutes.


                      break for lunch 12:30 - 2:00


Sunday Afternoon Session: Rockets, Politics, and Business

 2:00 pm - Low-Cost Expendables.  James Wertz, Microcosm.  40 minutes.

         - Commercial Gas-Gun Launch.  John Hunter, JVL Inc.  40 minutes.

         - Mockingbird.  Jordin Kare.  40 minutes.

                                 break

 4:20 pm - Space, The White House, And The 104th Congress.  Jim Muncy,
           Representative Dana Rohrabacher's staff.  50 minutes.

         - Commercial Flight Test at Edwards AFB.  Susan Moore.  40 minutes.


~6 pm - formal SA'96 sessions close

~midnight - Hospitality closes

                Thanks for coming - see y'all next year!




--============_-1381573329==_============--


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA01434; Fri, 26 Apr 96 15:44:54 -040
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA30891; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:38:30 -040
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA04275; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:06:35 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 26 Apr 96 14:11:59 CST6CD
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 26 Apr 96 14:06:23 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 62
% Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:06:07 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="============_-1381573329==_============"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Article: 16735
From: [email protected] (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Delta Clipper-XA to Resume Flights This Month
Date: 8 May 1996 21:14 UT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
 
Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, DC                    May 8, 1996
(Phone:  202/358-1779)
 
Dom Amatore
Marshall Space Flight Center, Hunstville, AL
(Phone:  205/544-0031)
 
RELEASE:  96-92
 
WITH GROUND TESTS COMPLETE, DC-XA TO RESUME FLIGHTS THIS MONTH
 
     The Delta Clipper-Experimental Advanced (DC-XA), a 
single stage rocket developed by NASA and McDonnell Douglas 
Aerospace, yesterday completed a series of ground tests at 
the U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, and now 
is being readied for flight.  
 
     The DC-XA will undergo a series of five flight tests 
beginning no earlier than May 17.  The date for the first 
test will be determined later this week.
 
     "Flight testing the DC-XA will provide information about 
the performance of composite materials and other advanced 
technologies in the launch vehicle as it encounters the 
conditions of flight, such as temperature, pressure and 
noise.  This information will be very valuable for the X-33 
technology demonstrator NASA and an industry partner will 
develop in the future," said Dan Dumbacher, NASA's DC-XA 
program manager at the Marshall Space Flight Center, 
Huntsville, AL.  Marshall is the host center for NASA's 
Reusable Launch Vehicle Technology Program.  The U.S. Air 
Force's Phillips Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base, New 
Mexico, will manage flight test operations.
 
     The DC-XA evolved from the DC-X, which the U.S. Air 
Force flew eight times between August 1993 and July 1995.  
The 43-foot-high existing airframe was extensively modified 
by replacing existing systems with a composite hydrogen tank; 
a Russian-built aluminum-lithium alloy liquid oxygen tank; a 
composite intertank to connect the hydrogen and oxygen tanks; 
and an auxiliary propulsion system which includes a composite 
liquid hydrogen feedline, a composite liquid hydrogen valve, 
a liquid-to-gas conversion system reaction control system, 
and a Russian auxiliary power unit providing redundant 
hydraulic power for flight control.
 
     "When DC-XA lifts off from its launch stand, it will be 
the first time a rocket has flown with a composite hydrogen 
tank.  This innovation and the many other technology 
enhancements included in the vehicle will make its flight 
testing very challenging," said Dumbacher.  
 
     Ground testing of the DC-XA exercised all of the vehicle 
subsystems and showed the vehicle is ready for flight, 
Dumbacher said.  It  included three firings of DC-XA's main 
propulsion system, between three and 20 seconds in duration, 
and up to 95 percent thrust level.
 
     McDonnell Douglas is supported in the preparation of DC-
XA for flight by Aerojet, prime developer of the auxiliary 
propulsion system; Lockheed Martin Corporation, developer of 
the ground propellant system, and by Rockwell International, 
which provided an acoustic structural health monitoring 
system for the hydrogen tank.
 
     The DC-XA, X-34 and X-33, and related long term 
technology development efforts, comprise NASA's Reusable 
Launch Vehicle Technology Program, a partnership among NASA, 
the Air Force and private industry to develop a new 
generation of single-stage-to-orbit launch vehicles.  The X-
34, a small technology demonstrator, will undergo test flight 
in 1998 while the X-33 large technology demonstrator is 
planned for test flight in 1999.  Success of the X-33 could 
lead to a national, industry-led decision to develop a 
commercial reusable launch vehicle early next century.  Such 
a vehicle would dramatically reduce the cost of launching 
payloads into space.
 
NOTE TO REPORTERS/EDITORS:
 
     A news media briefing on DC-XA will be broadcast on NASA 
TV at 2 p.m. EDT on Monday, May 13.  The briefing will 
originate from Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL.  
Participants will be Gary Payton, Reusable Launch Vehicle 
Technology Program director; Dan Dumbacher, NASA DC-XA 
program manager; Dave Schweikle, McDonnell Douglas DC-XA 
program manager; and Lt. Col. Jess Sponable, USAF, NASA 
deputy for Flight Test Operations.
 
     Viewing of the planned May 17 flight test is not 
available to the general public.  News media representatives 
may attend by pre-registering with the White Sands Missile 
Range Public Affairs Office; accreditation must be requested 
in writing.  The mailing address is:  Public Affairs Office, 
Building 122, White Sands Missile Range, NM, 88002.  The 
office facsimile machine number is 505/678-7174.  
 
     All frequency transmissions are restricted within White 
Sands Missile Range.  Anyone using any kind of equipment 
which transmits a signal (i.e. satellite equipment, microwave 
equipment, cellular telephones, wireless microphones, etc.) 
must have prior approval from the missile range's Department 
of Defense Area Frequency Coordinator, Tom Banks, at 505/678-
1510.  Requests must be submitted no later than May 14.
 
                    - end -

    On Saturday May 18th, DC-XA flew for the first time since its refit at
    White Sands. Attempts to fly on Thursday and Friday had been scrubbed
    due to technical difficulties. Footage shown by CNN Headline News
    showed an explosion at the base during the ignition sequence, possibly
    due to accumulated H2. The areoshell appeared to be blackened at the
    base but the flight proceeded as planed. The vehicle climbed to roughly
    800 feet, transitioned horizontally across the range, and then decended
    to land on a concrete pad.
    
    More from the net as news is released.
    
    				Cheers,
    				-Abdul-
    

    According to an article in the May 17th issue of USA Today, a $10
    million prize is being offered for the first flight of a reusable
    vehicle. The conditions are:
    
    1) Vehicle must carry 3 people, though only one need fly it
    
    2) Vehicle must reach an altitude of 62 miles
    
    3) Vehicle must fly twice in a two week period
    
    4) Passenger(s) must be returned safely to earth
    
    5) Vehicle must be privately built and financed
    
    I suspect that there are more conditions but this was from USA Today.
    
    More from the net when it appears.
    
    				Cheers,
    				-Abdul-
    

Article: 37919
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Space Access Update #63  5/17/96
Date: 18 May 96 00:57:40 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
 
 
                    Space Access Update #63  5/17/96
                 Copyright 1996 by Space Access Society
_______________________________________________________________________ 
 
Our Space Access '96 conference is history now, having gone very well
indeed.  As one participant observed, "I hear far more new ideas and
new thinking here than at any three other conferences I attend."
Respectable we may not be - but a lot of our ideas will be!  Look for
SA'96 highlights in an upcoming issue.  
 
We tidied up afterwards, then shut down the office for a week's
vacation, then immediately launched onto an East Coast road trip. 
Washington DC is still there, and there's a lot happening.  Read on...
_______________________________________________________________________ 
 
Stories this issue: 
 
 - Reusable Launch Program Roundup
 
       - X-33 
       - DC-XA 
       - "Bantam" Launcher Technology Program
       
 - Activist Action Items!
 
      - DOD Reusable Launch Vehicle/Clementine 2 Funding Horse-Trade
      - White House X-33 Build-And-Fly Decision?
 
-----------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)------------------------
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news 
publication. Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access 
to space for all, period.  We believe in concentrating our resources at 
whatever point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the 
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one 
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up 
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit 
(SSTO) technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and 
thus development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor 
confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial
investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far from that point now.  
 
Our major current focus is on supporting the government's fully reusable 
single-stage rocket technology programs, the low-speed DC-XA, and its 
high-speed followon, the X-33 NASA/DOD/industry cooperative project.  
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying 
into space well before the end of this decade, with practical orbital
transport projects getting underway.  Join us, and help us make it happen.  
 
            Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society 
 
 
To join Space Access Society or buy the SSTO/DC-X V 3.0 video we have for 
sale (Two hours, includes all eight DC-X flights, X-33 animations, X-33,
DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, aerospike engine test-stand footage, plus
White Sands Missile Range DC-X ops site post flight footage) mail a check
to:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  SAS membership with
direct email of Space Access Updates is $30 US per year; the SSTO V 3.0
video is $25, $5 off for SAS members, $8 extra for shipping outside the US
and Canada, VHS NTSC only.  
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                  Reusable Launch Program Roundup
 
 
 - X-33
 
X-33 bids were in as of the start of this week, and we hear the initial
evaluation and scoring of the bids should be done around the end of
next week, largely due to all data being submitted in standard computer
formats, we are told on one CD-ROM from each bidder.  A big change from
the truckloads of bound paper such a project would have generated a few
short years ago, and a big part of why X-33 might well actually be
ready to fly three years from now.
 
All we can say about the actual content of the three bids is that there
are going to be surprises, both in technical details of X-33 vehicles
and in financial details of the bidder proposals.  This is after all a
competition; the bidders undoubtedly spent some effort in misleading
their competitors in the lead-up to last Monday's bid submissions. 
We've tried not to report anything we weren't reasonably sure was
already available to the other bidders, on the occasions when we did
stumble over something interesting in this regard.
 
One place to watch closely: Just how much of their own resources each
bidder commits to the X-33 cooperative program.  As one bidder rep said
when asked at Space Access '96 how much his company would put up to win 
X-33, "That's far more competition-sensitive than any of the technical
details of the flight vehicle."
 
 - DC-XA
 
DC-XA was supposed to do its first test hop this morning, but bad
readings from one engine's chamber-pressure sensor during liquid
hydrogen loading (when the chamber pressure is rather likely to be a
constant one atmosphere) caused a 24-hour scrub.  We'd guess the
chamber pressure is a factor in the post-lightoff, pre-flight engine
health check, so there'd have been no point in going ahead today -
likely the computer would have shut the engines down automatically
before liftoff anyway.  
 
The plan is to de-fuel the vehicle and fix things today, then go ahead
tomorrow morning (Saturday May 18th) on the same schedule - 9 am MDT
nominal flight time, with the window opening an hour earlier.
 
Today's first flight of the rebuilt DC-XA was to have been a simple
liftoff, translate to over the landing pad, land mission, lasting about
a minute and reaching less than a thousand feet up - a shakedown flight
to make sure everything's OK for future, more ambitions flights.
 
Planned DC-XA tests for this summer include a 24-hour turnaround demo
June 7th and 8th (this will be NASA's big invitational flight).  Other test
flights will include a deliberate in-flight engine shutdown and engine-out
landing, and an in-flight engine shutdown and relight.  Neither is viewed
as particularly risky, but the latter especially should quiet the people
claiming that relighting engines in flight is somehow a show-stopper for
vertical landing.  
 
 - X-34
 
Bids were due on the new X-34 (a pure x-rocket, mach 8, 250,000 feet,
reusable, fly by summer '98, $60 million government participation) by
the end of last week - and alas, we know nothing yet, not even who
actually bid.  We've been too damn busy to ask...  We expect a mix of
established aerospace companies and newcomers.  More on this when we
know more.  
 
 - "Bantam" Launcher Technology Program
 
NASA has released a pair of NRA's, NASA Research Agreements, one
calling for tech work on advanced combined-cyle (airbreathing/rocket)
engines for possible eventual use in RLV's.  
 
The other, more interesting one calls for development and
demonstration of components that could be used in a hypothetical
"Bantam" launcher, one able to put a hundred pounds into orbit at a
mission cost of a million dollars or less.  This is explicitly aimed
at small startup outfits.  
 
There's been a bit of thrashing over the Bantam NRA release - Marshall
Space Flight Center went ahead with an announcement of intent a few
weeks back without clearing it with NASA HQ first, and ended up with
egg on their face over some of the details - things that hadn't been
worked out with the White House and Congressional funders yet, and
things that were just flat-out illegal for NASA to do (paying for
development of new operational launchers.) As we understand things,
MSFC is indeed the lead NASA center for executing RLV work, but RLV
policy decisions such as what projects to commit to, when, and for how
much, remain in the hands of HQ.  This instance should serve as a
reminder of why that's wise.  
 
The current plan is that the two projects will share $40 million in
funding over the next two years.  We'd guess that "Bantam" launch will
split about half of this among a number of bidders.  Bids are due in
two waves, in June and then a second wave later this summer.
 
(See http://procure.msfc.nasa.gov for full text of these NRA's.)
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
Alert #1: House DOD Appropriations Markup, Tuesday May 21 2 pm.
 
If your Representative is on the House Appropriations Committee (see
attached list at end) we're asking you to call or fax their Washington
office before Tuesday afternoon and ask them to support two things in
the DOD Appropriations "markup": $50 million for DOD reusable rocket
work at USAF Phillips Labs, and $50 million for the "Clementine 2"
low-cost asteroid-flyby science probe.  
 
Normally we're reluctant to get involved in anything not directly
related to cheap space access, but we're making an exception for
Clementine 2 in this instance, as part of a bit of a political horse-
trade.  The House likes DOD RLV work but is lukewarm about Clementine
2, while the Senate historically has been cold to DOD RLV work but
likes Clementine 2 a lot.  If the House supports Clementine 2, chances
are we'll see more Senate support for the DOD RLV funding than we would
have otherwise.  And for what it's worth, Clementine 2 seems like a
good thing to us in its own right - it should provide useful survey
data on asteroids, soon, at a bargain price.
 
Both the Phillips Labs reusable rocket work and Clementine 2 strike us
as prime examples of "dual-use" technologies - both have potential
long-term military applications (Clementine 1 and the proposed
Clementine 2 both use(d) SDIO-developed miniaturized sensors and
components to do their science missions small, fast, and cheap) and
both have considerable economic/scientific civilian benefit.
 
How you approach your representative on these recommendations (and
whether you do) is up to you, of course.
 
As usual, if you call or fax, be brief and be polite; the overworked
staffers will appreciate it.  
 
If you call, tell them who you are ("Hi, I'm Joe Smith from <town in
their district>") and what you want ("I'm calling about a couple
things I'd like to see supported in the Defense Appropriations
markup").  They may switch you to another staffer (more likely to that
staffer's voicemail) or they may ask you what those things you want
are.  If they ask, tell them you support funding for reusable rocket
work at USAF Phillips Labs, and also for the Clementine 2 asteroid
probe.  If they have any questions, answer them as best you can; if
not, thank them for their time and ring off.  If you end up with
another staffer's voicemail, repeat the whole message of who you are,
where you want something done, and what it is you want, then thank 'em
for their time and ring off.  
 
If you fax, keep it to one page, lead off with what you want (as
above), and then follow up with a paragrapph or two of why you think
these things are worth funding if you're so inclined.
 
 
Alert #2: White House X-33 Go-Ahead
 
This one is simple: We need White House approval of actual X-33
construction and flight test, starting this summer after the downselect.
The White House needs votes in California to win an election this fall.
All three X-33 bidders are in southern California.  The program will cost
just under $1 billion over the next three years.  Any questions?
 
We're told that the (25th?) anniversary of JFK's "We will go to the Moon"
speech is May 25th.  We think anyone with contacts in the Clinton Campaign
should think about how relatively cheap and peaceful a way of pleasing
California the X-33 is, and think about what a great opportunity to look
JFK-esque announcing an X-33 go-ahead ("By making space affordable, we will
make space truly the heritage of every American" or some such) could be,
whether or not on the precise anniversary, and should let their contact know
these thoughts.
 
The rest of you, write the White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC
20500, and ask the President to approve a construction and flight go-ahead
for the NASA X-33 reusable rocket project.  Keep it to one page, say what
you want at the start, then explain briefly what you're talking about -
don't assume the poor staffer reading torrents of incoming mail has the
slightest clue what X-33 is or why we should build it.  Feel free to mention
the JFK and/or California connection too, if it suits you.  We have a good
bipartisan pproject here, and there's plenty of credit to go around - if we
can just get it built and flown.
 
We won't likely impress the White House mailroom with volume of mail, but
all we need to do is get one letter passed to the right person.  Be
eloquent, be convincing - we have a good idea here.  Sell it!  Yours may be
the one letter that makes the difference.
 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 Space Access Society      "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere 
 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150               in the Solar System." 
 Phoenix AZ 85044                               - Robert A. Heinlein 
 602 431-9283 voice/fax 
 www.space-access.org                     "You can't get there from here." 
 [email protected]                          - Anonymous 
 
 - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this -
 - piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      -
 - reserved.  In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this    -
 - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged.  -
 
  ----------------------------attachment----------------------------------
 
           House Appropriations Committee, Members List
 
( * - member of the National Security (DOD Oversight) Subcommittee)
 
(Appropriations Chair)                    voice       fax
 *Livingston, Robert (R-01 LA)       1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739
 
(Appropriations Ranking Minority Member)
  Obey, David R. (D-07)              1-202-225-3365 1-202-225-0561
 
(NatSec Subcommittee Chair)
 *Young, C. W. Bill (R-10 FL)        1-202-225-5961 1-202-225-9764
 
(NatSecSubcommittee RMM)
 *Murtha, John P. (D-12 PA)          1-202-225-2065 1-202-225-5709
 
  Bevill, Thomas (D-04 AL)           1-202-225-4876 1-202-225-0842
  Callahan, Sonny (R-01 AL)          1-202-225-4931 1-202-225-0562
  
  Thornton, Raymond (D-02 AR)        1-202-225-2506 1-202-225-9273
  Dickey, Jay (R-04 AR)              1-202-225-3772 1-202-225-8646
 
  Kolbe, James T. (R-05 AZ)          1-202-225-2542 1-202-225-0378
 
 *Lewis, Jerry (R-40 CA)             1-202-225-5861 1-202-225-6498
  Torres, Esteban E. (D-34 CA)       1-202-225-5256 1-202-225-9711
  Pelosi, Nancy (D-08 CA)            1-202-225-4965 1-202-225-8259
  Fazio, Vic (D-03 CA)               1-202-225-5716 1-202-225-0354
  Dixon, Julian C. (D-32 CA)         1-202-225-7084 1-202-225-4091
  Riggs, Frank (R-01 CA)             1-202-225-3311 1-202-225-7710
  Packard, Ronald (R-48 CA)          1-202-225-3906 1-202-225-0134
 
  Skaggs, David E. (D-02 CO)         1-202-225-2161 1-202-225-9127
 
  Miller, Dan (R-13 FL)              1-202-225-5015 1-202-226-0828
 
  Kingston, Jack (R-01 GA)           1-202-225-5831 1-202-226-2269
 
  Lightfoot, James R. (R-03 IA)      1-202-225-3806 1-202-225-6973
 
  Durbin, Richard J. (D-20 IL)       1-202-225-5271 1-202-225-0170
  Yates, Sidney R. (D-09 IL)         1-202-225-2111 1-202-225-3493
  Porter, John E. (R-10 IL)          1-202-225-4835 1-202-225-0157
 
  Visclosky, Peter J. (D-01 IN)      1-202-225-2461 1-202-225-2493
  Myers, John T. (R-07 IN)           1-202-225-5805 1-202-225-1649
 
  Rogers, Harold (R-05 KY)           1-202-225-4601 1-202-225-0940
 
 *Livingston, Robert (R-01 LA)       1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739
 
  Hoyer, Steny H. (D-05 MD)          1-202-225-4131 1-202-225-4300
 
  Knollenberg, Joe (R-11 MI)         1-202-225-5802 1-202-226-2356
 
 *Sabo, Martin Olav (D-05 MN)        1-202-225-4755 1-202-225-4886
 
  Wicker, Roger (R-01 MS)            1-202-225-4306 1-202-225-4328
 
  Taylor, Charles Hart (R-11 NC)     1-202-225-6401 1-202-251-0794
 *Hefner, Bill (D-08 NC)             1-202-225-3715 1-202-225-4036
 
  Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-11 NJ)    1-202-225-5034 1-202-225-0658
 
 *Skeen, Joseph (R-02 NM)            1-202-225-2365 1-202-225-9599
 
  Lowey, Nita M. (D-18 NY)           1-202-225-6506 1-202-225-0546
  Forbes, Michael (R-01 NY)          1-202-225-3826 1-202-225-0776
  Walsh, James T. (R-25 NY)          1-202-225-3701 1-202-225-4042
 
  Vucanovich, Barbara (R-02 NV)      1-202-225-6155 1-202-225-2319
 
  Kaptur, Marcy (D-09 OH)            1-202-225-4146 1-202-225-7711
  Stokes, Louis (D-11 OH)            1-202-225-7032 1-202-225-1339
  Regula, Ralph (R-16 OH)            1-202-225-3876 1-202-225-3059
 *Hobson, David L. (R-07 OH)         1-202-225-4324 1-202-225-1984
 
  Istook, Ernest Jim (R-05 OK)       1-202-225-2132 1-202-226-1463
 
 *McDade, Joseph M. (R-10 PA)        1-202-225-3731 1-202-225-9594
  Foglietta, Thomas M. (D-01 PA)     1-202-225-4731 1-202-225-0088
 
 *Bonilla, Henry (R-23 TX)           1-202-225-4511 1-202-225-2237
 *Wilson, Charles (D-02 TX)          1-202-225-2401 1-202-225-1764
  DeLay, Thomas (R-22 TX)            1-202-225-5951 1-202-225-5241
  Coleman, Ronald D. (D-16 TX)       1-202-225-4831 1-202-225-4825
  Chapman, Jim (D-01 TX)             1-202-225-3035 1-202-225-7265
 
  Wolf, Frank R. (R-10 VA)           1-202-225-5136 1-202-225-0437
 
 *Nethercutt, George (R-05 WA)       1-202-225-2006 1-202-225-7181
 *Dicks, Norman D. (D-06 WA)         1-202-225-5916 1-202-226-1176
 
 *Neumann, Mark (R-01 WI)            1-202-225-3031 1-202-225-3393
 
  Mollohan, Alan B. (D-01 WV)        1-202-225-4172 1-202-225-7564

    I read a short article, I think in the Worcester Telegram and Gazette
    from this past Sunday, that mentioned that the Delta Clipper had
    undergone a successful test flight, and then burst into flames.
    They were quickly extinguished and everything appeared all right, but
    I was wondering if anyone had heard anything, or knew more specifics.
    The previous article looked like it might have described something
    similar, but it was hard to tell if they were talking about the
    same thing.
    
    Thanks,
    PeterT
    

    The only thing I recall is seeing the tail end of a press conference
    last Saturday on NTV. Three guys associated with the Delta Clipper
    launch team, were being asked questions. The question got asked
    about the flames after landing. One of the team members said that
    when the DC came down for its touch-down, it may have hovered a bit
    longer than it needed to. This they said made things get a little 
    hotter than usual. something was also mentioned about some ablative
    material on the surface of the DC which is what they believe caught
    fire and burned. They said it was pretty much superficial damage,
    and they believe it was just a simple case of hovering too close to 
    the pad and getting the heat wash such that some surfaces burned.
    I didn't get to see the test flight, as I was outside working in
    the yard. I only saw the tail end of a press conference.
    
    Bob

Article: 3618
From: [email protected] (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: 2nd and Possible 3rd Flight of Delta Clipper Set for June 7
Date: 3 Jun 1996 13:46:36 -0700
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Sender: [email protected]
 
James Cast
Headquarters, Washington, DC                   June 3, 1996
(Phone: 202/358-1779)
 
David Drachlis
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL
(Phone:  205/544-0034)
 
NOTE TO EDITORS:  N96-37
 
SECOND AND POSSIBLE THIRD FLIGHT OF DELTA CLIPPER SET FOR JUNE 7
 
     The second in a series of five test flights planned for 
NASA�s Delta Clipper-Experimental Advanced (DC-XA) single-
stage rocket is scheduled for10 a.m. EDT on Friday, June 7 at 
the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. If conditions 
permit, a third flight of the DC-XA may be attempted, 
possibly as early as eight hours after completion of the 
second flight in the test series.  A decision to attempt that 
additional flight will be made about four hours after 
completion of the scheduled second test.
 
     The DC-XA, developed by McDonnell Douglas Aerospace and 
NASA under a cooperative agreement as part of the Reusable 
Launch Vehicle Technology Program, successfully completed its 
first test flight on May 18.  
 
     Media representatives may cover the tests by requesting 
accreditation from the White Sands Missile Range Public 
Affairs Office by either facsimile (505/678-7174) or calling 
(505/678-1134). Media representatives already accredited must 
still register in advance to ensure adequate transportation 
to the test site.  Media planning to view the test flight 
must be at Bldg. 122 by 7:30 a.m. EDT on flight day.
 
     On Thursday, June 6, media will have an opportunity to 
photograph the DC-XA on its launch pad and interview program 
managers.  Media wishing to participate in this event must 
report to the Public Affairs Office, Bldg. 122, by 2:45 p.m. EDT.
 
     At 7 p.m. EDT June 6, a pre-flight briefing will be held 
in the San Rafael Room of the Hilton Hotel in Las Cruces, New 
Mexico.  Officials from NASA, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, 
the U.S. Air Force Phillips Laboratory, and White Sands 
Missile Range will participate.
 
     The DC-XA flight will be carried live on NASA Television 
beginning at approximately 9:30 a.m. EDT. A post-flight media 
briefing will air approximately 30 minutes after the flight. 
 
      NASA Television is carried on C-band, Spacenet 2, 
Transponder 5, Channel 9 at 69 degrees west longitude.   The 
transponder frequency is 3880 Mhz and the audio subcarrier is 
6.8 Mhz. 
 
                    -end-
 

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson"  7-JUN-1996 18:19:37.67
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: Flight no. 2 apparently successful; DC-XA renamed


I haven't found a press release or other formal statement on the second
(today's) DC-XA flight yet, but judging from the satellite video feed, it
appears to have been a success. Chris Cooley generously volunteered to tape
and digitize this morning's flight, and the resulting images and QuickTime
movie are available from either:

        http://gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu/delta-clipper/dcxa-flight-2/index.html
        ftp://ftp.utexas.edu/pub/ssrt/images/dcxa-flight-2/

The movie is nearly 11 megabytes in size, so the Web site may well be
overloaded (I'm using some relatively low-capacity server software at the
moment), so try the FTP site if the Web site gives you any trouble.

If you need QuickTime viewer software for your platform, see:

        http://quicktime.apple.com/qt/sw/sw.html

----Chris

Chris W. Johnson

Email: [email protected]
URL:   http://gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu/

"It is only now beginning to dawn on us that an American city with its
immense freeway and parking infrastructure resembles not so much a city
of the 21st century as a city which has suffered saturation bombing."
--Wolfgang Zuckermann


---------------------------------------------------------


From: [email protected] (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: DC-XA Renamed for Space Pioneer
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
Date: 7 Jun 1996 11:28:07 -0700
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lines: 42

James Cast
Headquarters, Washington, DC             June 7, 1996
(Phone:  202/358-1779)

RELEASE:  96-114

REVOLUTIONARY NEW LAUNCH VEHICLE RENAMED FOR SPACE PIONEER

     NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin today announced
that the Agency's experimental DC-XA flight vehicle -- a
vertical takeoff and landing rocket ship -- will
be re-named "Clipper Graham" in honor of the late Lt.
General Daniel O. Graham.

     "NASA is committed to developing and demonstrating
reusable launch vehicle technologies.  Graham was a
visionary who championed the promise of fully reusable
single-stage-to-orbit vehicles at a time when the majority
of the space community were skeptics.  We're doing this in
commemoration of his vision in opening the space frontier,"
Goldin said.

      Formerly called the Delta Clipper, the four-story DC-
XA is currently conducting a series of unmanned flight tests
in New Mexico for NASA.  The project was conceived to
provide NASA's Reusable Launch Vehicle Program with an
early, small scale flight demonstration of advanced
technologies required by reusable launch vehicles.   The DC-
XA, developed by the Department of Defense, incorporates the
latest advances in technology, propulsion systems and
composite materials.

      A West Point graduate, Graham served in a number of
high military and government posts including Deputy Director
of the Central Intelligence Agency and Director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency. He also founded and became
Chairman of the Space Transportation Association to assure
continued U.S. leadership and superiority in providing
reliable, economical space transportation systems.

                        - end -




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA25426; Fri, 7 Jun 96 18:12:20 -040
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id SAA03889; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 18:08:42 -0400 (EDT
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA06734; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:09:16 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 7 Jun 96 16:11:33 CST6CD
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 7 Jun 96 16:08:56 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Flight no. 2 apparently successful; DC-XA renamed
% Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:08:37 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson" 10-JUN-1996 17:56:38.90
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: DC-XA flight 2 PR, Preliminary note on flight 3


A new version of the DC-XA flight 2 movie is available from:

        http://gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu/delta-clipper/dcxa-flight-2/index.html
        ftp://ftp.utexas.edu/pub/ssrt/images/dcxa-flight-2/

Chris Cooley has redigitized the NASA video and reduced the size of the
movie to 4.2 MB, including the soundtrack. Also to be found at those
locations is a movie of a computer simulation of flight 2 that was aired
shortly before the actual flight. That's only 1.2 MB. Both are in QuickTime
format. QuickTime implementation for Mac and Windows can be found at:

        http://quicktime.apple.com/qt/sw/sw.html

BTW, we'd also be offering the flight 3 video, but it appears that NASA TV
didn't carry it.

----Chris

Chris W. Johnson

Email: [email protected]
URL:   http://gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu/

"It is only now beginning to dawn on us that an American city with its
immense freeway and parking infrastructure resembles not so much a city
of the 21st century as a city which has suffered saturation bombing."
--Wolfgang Zuckermann


--------------------------------------------------------------


NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

Contact:  Jim Spellman (619) 379-2503 e-mail: [email protected]

DC-XA SUCCESSFULLY LAUNCHED Flight Dedicated to Lt.General Daniel
O.Graham, "father" of SSTO concept "Turnaround" Flight scheduled this
afternoon

WHITE SANDS SPACE HARBOR, NM (June 7) --  The McDonnell Douglas Delta
Clipper eXperimental Advanced (DC-XA) vehicle successfully lifted off
and flew a short test flight at 9:15 a.m. PDT this morning.  It was the
second test of the newly redesigned single stage to orbit (SSTO)
reusable launch vehicle since its last flight, which occurred May 18.

The one-minute flight -- with the callsign "Clipper Graham" in honor of
the late Lt. General Daniel O. Graham, the "father" of the SSTO concept
who passed away last December of cancer -- flew to a height of
approximately 1,600 feet, and translated (moved sideways) 350 feet
before descending to the desert floor for a soft landing under rocket
power.

Preliminary indications are that the vehicle performed flawlessly, and
is now being "turned around" (serviced) for another test flight later
this afternoon -- thereby demonstrating the DC-XA's "airline-type"
operation.

The DC-XA is an upgraded version of the DC-X, which flew eight times
between 1993 and 1995.  Developed by McDonnell Douglas Aerospace and
NASA under a cooperative agreement as part of the Reusable Launch
Vehicle Technology Program, the DC-XA is being considered for the
upcoming X-33 RLV program. The X-33 RLV's goal is to ultimately replace
the current space shuttle launch vehicles by dramatically reducing
launch costs and creating cheaper access to space.

Formerly called the Delta Clipper, the four-story DC-XA is currently
conducting a series of unmanned flight tests in New Mexico for NASA.
The project was conceived to provide NASA's Reusable Launch Vehicle
Program with an early, small scale flight demonstration of advanced
technologies required by reusable launch vehicles.   The DC-XA
incorporates the latest advances in technology, propulsion systems and
composite materials.

NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin announced today that the DC-XA
flight vehicle was re-named "Clipper Graham" in honor of the late
Lt.General Daniel O. Graham.

"NASA is committed to developing and demonstrating reusable launch
vehicle technologies.  Graham was a visionary who championed the promise
of fully reusable single-stage-to-orbit vehicles at a time when the
majority of the space community were skeptics.  We're doing this in
commemoration of his vision in opening the space frontier," Goldin said.

A West Point graduate, Graham served in a number of high military and
government posts including Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency and Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He also founded
and became Chairman of the Space Transportation Association to assure
continued U.S. leadership and superiority in providing reliable,
economical space transportation systems.


-- 30 --


--------------------------------------------------------------


From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: DC-XA flies twice in two days
Date: 9 Jun 96 06:58:26 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 9


Just a quick preliminary report; I'm just off driving back from New
Mexico.  DC-XA flew successfully this afternoon, its second flight in
26 hours, and third flight since the rebuild from the original DC-X
configuration.  Next flight is scheduled for late June; they're going
to take a couple weeks to go over the data.  Mechanically, the ship
could fly again tomorrow, according to the flight ops people.

           Henry Vanderbilt  [email protected]



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA28382; Mon, 10 Jun 96 17:49:19 -040
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id RAA29728; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:40:56 -0400 (EDT
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA22920; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:11:06 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 10 Jun 96 15:14:20 CST6CD
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 10 Jun 96 15:10:35 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: DC-XA flight 2 PR, Preliminary note on flight 3
% Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:10:19 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

    re .231
    
    Personally I preferred the name "Delta Clipper". "Clipper Graham"
    sounds ordinary and unexciting. They might as well have called it
    "Clipper Bob" or "Clipper Ted".

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson" 11-JUN-1996 19:03:37.21
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: Space Access Update no. 65



From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Space Access Update #65  6/10/96
Date: 11 Jun 96 06:13:58 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 106


                    Space Access Update #65  6/10/96
                 Copyright 1996 by Space Access Society
_______________________________________________________________________

We have tons of news we haven't yet written up properly, and we won't
do it justice in this issue, alas - we have a last-second alert to
support reusable rocket funding in the Senate DOD Appropriations
markup scheduled for 9:30 am eastern on Wednesday the 12th.  If we get
this out tonight, some of you at least will have a chance to get in
those faxes and phone calls by Tuesday night.

Meanwhile, forgive the hasty nature of the news summary included.
_______________________________________________________________________


                            News Summary

 - DC-XA Recovers From First Flight Fire, Flies Twice In Two Days June
   7th-8th, Next Flight Scheduled June 26th.

 - New X-34 Project Goes To... Orbital Sciences.  (We are not impressed.)

We'll have a lot more to say on both these subjects, on the X-33
downselect, and on various NASA and DOD doings later this week.  A lot
is happening these days, very little of it quick to explain, alas.

__________________________________________________________________________


Activist Alert: Senate DOD Appropriations Markup,
                Wednesday June 12th, 9:30 am.

If one of your Senators is on the Senate Appropriations Committee's
National Security (DOD) Subcommittee (see attached list at end), we're
asking you to call or fax their Washington office before Wednesday
morning and ask them to support $50 million for DOD reusable rocket work
at USAF Phillips Labs in Fiscal Year 1997 (FY'97 begins October 1 1996).

As usual, if you do call or fax, be brief and be polite; the overworked
staffers will appreciate it.

If you call, tell them who you are ("Hi, I'm Joe Smith from <town in
their Senator's state>") and what you want ("I'm calling about something
I'd like to see supported in the Defense Appropriations markup").  They
may switch you to another staffer (more likely to that staffer's
voicemail) or they may ask you what those things you want are.  If they
ask, tell them you support $50 million in funding for reusable rocket
work at USAF Phillips Labs.  If they have any questions, answer them as
best you can; if not, thank them for their time and ring off.  If you end
up with another staffer's voicemail, repeat the whole message of who you
are, where you want something done, and what it is you want, then thank
'em for their time and ring off.

If you fax, keep it to one page, lead off with what you want (as above),
and then follow up with a paragraph or two of why you think these things
are worth funding if you're so inclined.

(The Phillips Labs reusable rocket work strikes us as a prime example of
"dual-use" technology - cheaper more timely access to space benefits all
users, military and civilian.)


 Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, National Security Subcommittee

                                          voice       fax
 Sen. Hatfield, Mark (R OR)         1-202-224-3753 1-202-224-0276
 (chair, full SAC)

 Sen. Byrd, Robert (D WV)           1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
 (Ranking Minority Member, full SAC)

 Sen. Stevens, Ted (R AK)           1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044
 (chair, SAC NatSec Sub)

 Sen. Inouye, Daniel (D HI)         1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747
 (Ranking Minority Member, SAC NatSec Sub)

 Sen. Cochran, Thad (R MS)          1-202-224-5054 1-202-224-3576
 Sen. Gramm, Phil (R TX)            1-202-224-2934 1-202-228-2856
 Sen. Domenici, Pete V. (R NM)      1-202-224-6621 1-202-224-7371
 Sen. McConnell, Mitch (R KY)       1-202-224-2541 1-202-224-2499
 Sen. Specter, Arlen (R PA)         1-202-224-4254 1-202-224-1893
 Sen. Bond, Christopher (R MO)      1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149
 Sen. Mack, Connie (R FL)           1-202-224-5274 1-202-224-8022
 Sen. Shelby, Richard C. (R AL)     1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416
 Sen. Hollings, Ernest (D SC)       1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293
 Sen. Johnston, J. Bennett (D LA)   1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952
 Sen. Leahy, Patrick (D VT)         1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595
 Sen. Harkin, Thomas (D IA)         1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-7431
 Sen. Lautenberg, Frank (D NJ)      1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707

__________________________________________________________________________

 Space Access Society      "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150               in the Solar System."
 Phoenix AZ 85044                               - Robert A. Heinlein
 602 431-9283 voice/fax
 www.space-access.org                     "You can't get there from here."
 [email protected]                          - Anonymous

 - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this -
 - piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      -
 - reserved.  In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this    -
 - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged.  -




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA08431; Tue, 11 Jun 96 18:58:47 -040
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id SAA10207; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 18:53:14 -0400 (EDT
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA01390; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 16:25:51 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 11 Jun 96 16:31:27 CST6CD
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 11 Jun 96 16:25:19 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 65
% Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 16:25:07 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Article: 17961
From: [email protected] (Jeff Greason)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: X-33 Concepts: Lockheed, Mac Dac, Rockwell
Date: 17 Jun 1996 18:56:52 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation PTD
 
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Geoffrey A. Landis"
<[email protected]> writes:
 
|> Anybody interested in discussing the X-33 (SSTO-demonstrator) concepts? 
|> The three (Rockwell, MacDac, Lockheed) concepts are public now (well, at
|> least the overall configurations are public).  I can see advantages and
|> disadvantages with them all.  Anybody want to jump in with their analyses
|> of:
|> What's best?
|> What's most likely to be commercially successful?
|> Which is most likely to be picked for the phase II program?
|> What pitfalls and technical challenges have been glossed over by the
|> proposers, which could jump up and bite when the configuration actually
|> gets into prototype production?
 
Sure.
 
First, note that I have *NO INSIDE TRACK* at any of these vendors; I'm
working entirely from public knowledge and also from my impressions of
some of the players whom I've met over the last 2 years.
 
Also, this stuff is my *OPINION*, all of it, 100% -- that means I can't
prove it, and in many cases, we'll never know how it comes out (after all,
we're not going to have a fly-off, so many of them may never get tried out).
 
I'll group my comments slightly differently from your questions:
 
TECHNICAL:
 
LockMart's obviously got the most advanced concept technically.  Aerospike
engines, lifting body geometry, membrane-theory non circular tanks (I think
that means multi-lobed), and metallic TPS.  Given the Skunk Works history,
and the probability of some "black" work in these areas, I think they can
do it.  I'm especially concerned about the TPS issue, and a metallic TPS,
if it works, is likely to be both durable and waterproof.
 
McDac is going VTVL (which I really like) -- but still seems to be going
for nose-first reentry (which I really don't care for).  Other than that,
as far as I can tell, it's still the descendant of Delta Clipper.  I'm not
sure what they're using for TPS.
 
Rockwell has the least-advanced concept; and is playing that as a strength.
Their message seems to be "we're taking no risks here".  "Proven geometry"
(that means "things with wings"), ceramic TPS, VTHL.   Rockwell's right that
agressive technology is not necessarily a good thing -- whether less agressive
technology can do the job or not I'm not sure.  I'm still worried about the
TPS -- the durability tests have been spectacular, but there's a bit of
a rumor running around that resistance to water absorbtion is not where it
should be.  
 
For *all* these vendors, it is not a surprise (but it is a tremendous
disappointment) that they've chosen to stick with LH2/LOX.  Especially since
they're planning new engines anyway.  However, for X-33 (as opposed to
it's followon) you pretty much have to stick with existing engines, and
the state of the U.S. art in hydrocarbon-burning is pretty sad.
 
COMMERCIAL:
 
LockMart's target, plain and simple, is the existing market.  They're shooting
for commercial satellite launch.  They're keeping it large (20t or so) to
cover that market -- and they pointed out at SA '96 that for a reusable with
low turnaround costs, the penalty for not "flying full" isn't that big a deal,
so it's better to be too large than too small.  They're also intending a
very small fleet -- which they view as a strength, since the Skunk Works has
a good history with "few of a kind" vehicles.
 
They wouldn't admit to shooting for less than $500/lb or so, ever.  Personally,
I don't think they *are* shooting for less.  I think they have (correctly)
decided that if you can keep development costs in the few billion range, and
if NASA pays for half the prototype (X-33), that taking over the present
launch market isn't such a bad idea.
 
 
McDac continually impresses me with the idea that they really have their eyes
on the "second generation" market -- I honestly believe they're shooting for
a very low cost number; lower than they'll admit to.  If they can get there,
they'll clean up.  But since we *don't* know their business plan, I don't
know if they can get there or not.
 
Rockwell is a *very* interesting case.  They sent a *very* slick representative
to SA '96.  A year ago, I thought they were the last people who'd be serious
about commercial vehicles -- now, I get some very mixed signals.  My
personal interpretation (remember, this is my opinion), is that at some
fairly high level, somebody has woken up and said "My God, there really 
WON'T be a Shuttle II -- we'd better get serious about commercialization!".
However, I'm not sure how far the new view has percolated.  It would be
*extremely* interesting to get a look at the details of their proposal, more
than what's publicly available, as that probably tells the rest of the story.
Most especially, what are their *commitments* (as opposed to wishes) for
the turnaround time, flight rate, etc.  You'd think, after Shuttle, that
they'd have an intimate knowledge of where the problem areas are and how
to fix them if they really want to.
 
WHO SHOULD GET PHASE II, AND "GOTCHAS"
 
This one I really can't answer without seeing the proposals, which I
won't get a chance to do.  But I do have some thoughts.
 
LockMart: Technically, they can do it.  But the absolute key risk here:
   will Norm Augustine *really* authorize spending significant money on
   a commercial venture?  This guy wrote the book on how to get Uncle 
   Sam to pay for your groceries.  I'm having an awfully hard time
   seeing anything he does ever evolving into a commercial vehicle.
   Lockheed could have done it -- but I don't know if LockMart can.  The
   key to watch here is how much of LockMart's own resources are they
   putting up?  This is key for all vendors, but especially for this one.
 
McDac: Just what are the details of their business plan -- how low do
   they intend to drive the costs, and what markets do they plan on
   capturing?  And are they technically competent to do so?  Again, can't
   answer this one from out here, but that's what I'd watch.  If, as I
   suspect, they're shooting for the most agressive cost reduction, I'd 
   love to see that be a driver, as that will push a lot of market expansion.
 
Rockwell: This one makes my head hurt.  Again, how much of their own money
   are they putting up?  That's the single biggest thing I can think of
   to determine how serious they are about the commercial market.  And just
   what kind of ground crew/turnaround costs are they committing to?
 
Disclaimer: While I am an Intel employee, all opinions expressed are my own,
     and do not reflect the position of Intel, NETCOM, or Zippy the Pinhead.  
============================================================================
Jeff Greason                 "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade,
  <[email protected]>  and do the other things, not because they 
  <[email protected]>     are easy, but because they are hard." -- JFK 

Hmmm, TPS?  Thermal Protection Shield (system?)???

And what would be the best alternative to LOX/LH2??  

Or maybe I should just spend some time roaming around sci.space.tech.

PeterT

RE: <<< Note 819.235 by 19472::petert "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty" >>>

>Hmmm, TPS?  Thermal Protection Shield (system?)???

Thermal protection system.

>And what would be the best alternative to LOX/LH2??  

Well, something non-cryogenic would ease support costs and difficulties.
						-- Tom

    Well.....what could be more benign to the environment than lox/lh2?
    It's nothing but steam out the exhaust isn't it? :-)
    
    Bob

Ok, here's the deal with the fuel type.

LH2/LOX is great in energy per pound.  As you say, the combustion also produces
only H2O (although anything hot in the air will produce NOx in various flavors).

*However* LH2 is not very dense, and thus requires a large, bulky container
which adds drag, not to mention its very low temperature is a pain in the rear.

Some relatively recent calculations have indicated that a higher density higher
temp combination would not only be cheaper to handle but quite likely more
efficient overall despite the fact that there is less energy per kilogram. 
Combinations like H2O2/XXXane can be pretty good in an SSTO.  The recent
calculations involve interesting items like:  Ok, to get a given acceleration
from a given mass of vehicle you have to burn more mass/second of XXXane than of
H2.  But that means that you are lifting less mass and thus you can accelerate
harder and get to the point where you are not fighting gravity sooner.  (This is
all pretty vague...I sort of got the argument when I read it, but I've kind of
lost it).

As to emissions, well XXXane and H2O2 should give you only CO2 and H2O (plus the
inevitable NOx).  In addition, propane etc are real easy to produce.

Burns

Article: 41562
From: [email protected](Larrison)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Illogical Conclusions (SSTO vs.TSTO)
Date: 24 Jun 1996 03:59:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom
 
pat writes:
>actually the stagnation temperature on most of the STS doesnt' 
>require ceramics, a metal skin would have been a feasible choice even 
>if some tricky engineering would have been needed. 
 
>Wales and i had a nice chit-chat on this (I hope i don't get a 900 
>page missive from him on this subject again, it's informative but 
>weighty).  the bottom line is that while metal would have been tricky 
>it was not impossible and may have reduced costs a great deal.  
 
   Oops.. have I been that verbose?  <grin>  Anyway, yeah pat and I 
have discussed this.  But, while I think metallic TPS isn't (and 
wasn't) impossible for the STS, I don't think it would have reduced 
costs for the Shuttle by much, if any.  To summarize, the issues are 
   - metallic TPS are _heavy_.  Columbium, and other high temperature 
superalloys capable of replacing the black tiles on the Shuttle are 
pretty damn dense (Columbium, for example, is a tungsten alloy -- 
which is denser than _lead_).  Typically a metallic TPS weighs more 
than a ceramic system --which in a design where folks are concerned 
about payload capability and system performance -- like a SSTO -- 
means either lower weight margins or lower payload -- both of which 
usually drive up either operating costs, increase investment costs,  
or lower revenues. . 
   - metallic TPS is a pretty complex system.  For example, being a 
metal, means the TPS is pretty conductive of heat.  This mean you have 
to thermally insulate the metallic TPS from the body of the vehicle 
(and might have to go to a more complex hot structure for the body of 
the vehicle), plus put in some type of bulk backwall thermal 
insulation material (usually this is a fibrous bulk material, in some 
type of bag or batting).  This now involve stand-off, fasteners, 
mechanical fasteners, bulk thermal insulation, etc. Plus thermal 
expansion/ contraction is usually larger for a metallic, meaning the 
installation system must also be mechanicaaly robust, easily 
maintainable/replacable if needed, and accommodate some fairly hefty 
mechanical expansion/ contraction from the thermal loads.  Not 
impossible to design for, but really simple either.  There are 
typically a lot of parts involved with a metallic TPS system.. and 
this typically drives up costs.  Remember the discussion about how 
costs are typically driven more by part count than by weight?  
Metallic TPS has a _lot_ more parts than ceramics, usually by a factor 
of 4-10 or more.  
   - Maintenance coss on metalic TPS may be a bit lower, since 
metallic walls are more durable than first-generation ceramics.  
However, if you do have to replace a metallic TPS element, its going 
to be a real pain.  You are still going to have to tailor the TPS 
"tiles" or "panels" to specific vehicle shapes and contours, and you 
are going to have to accommodate attach points and fasterners and 
insulation and backup insulation.  One advantage of a tile is that is 
is _very_ easy to machine and fit to shape which a metallic, multi-
wall panel isn't.   The metallics may have a lower recurring cost in 
the long run over ceramics (depending upon the specific materials, 
manufacturing techniques and design..), but financially on a 
discounted LCC basis, they may be not preferred.   The data is 
ambiguous on this... 
 
    Now.. settting the clock back to 1970-1972 -- which was the best 
decision for the shuttle?  At the time, and based upon the data at the 
time... I think the ceramic TPS for the shuttle was the best choie.  
It allowed a simiple, alumium "cool" structure, instead of a "hot" 
titanium structure for the orbiter, and the manufacturing/ operational 
problems of the TPS sure seemed to be better.  From talking to folks 
who did the trades and made the decisions, I think they made the right 
decision at the time, based upon the best information they had.  Going 
with a metallic TPS would have bought them into a whole new set of 
problems including probably going with a titanium hot or warm 
structure.  Which would have dramatically driven up the cost of the 
shuttle.  Remember this was a time when titanium manufacturing was 
sort of a black art --
    Today, after 25 years or more technology advancement, hmm... good 
question.  I've seen some of the second and third generation ceramic 
tiles which Rockwell has been flying on the Shuttle and in rain tests 
on the F-15.  Its pretty amazing stuff---  But I've also seen some of 
the new metallic technologies (the Rohr/Lockheed  metallic TPS manager 
surprized me when he turned out to an ex-co-worker!) and its pretty 
interesting stuff too.  I'd like to sit down and go through some of 
the data pretty closely.... 
    From an investment standpoint -- hnmm...  I'd pick the second and 
third generation cermain TPS at this point.  The data's pretty good, 
and the manufacturing technologies and operational technologies are 
damn good -- versus the metallic tile still having some real big 
unknowns.  There just isn't the manufacturing and operaability data on 
the metallics yet. 
    In the long term, I'd go for superconducing/ dynamic TPS.  I 
participated (at a very low level) in study some years back looking at 
alternative TPS concepts and we looked at the use of superconducting 
magnets to shape and push the ionized reentry gases away from the 
vehicle. Very interesting results -- we could possibly do some 
aerodynamic shaping, and got much lower heating of the skin of the 
vehicle.  However, the energy required for the superconducting coils 
and some of the details of the design of the vehicle was pretty 
challenging -- and it didn't work out against current state of the art 
TPS systems.  By the time you added the superconducting systems and 
the LHe liquifiers, and since you still needed some TPS since you 
couldn't totally elminate heating -- it was heavier, more expensive, 
and much more complex than ceramics or metallics.  
   I'd like to revisit the concept and re-do the conceptual design 
with the new high-temp superconductors and a much better TPS 
interaction computer code to see how far this could be pushed.  For a 
wild card solution, this is the most promising.. and has some other 
interesting features too. 
 
>[...] perhaps metal with composites on key areas would have been the 
>best engineering compromise.  I could see keeping the RCC zones the 
>way they are and replacing the silica tiles with Titamium and INconel 
 
>except around landing gear bay doors or on aero-surfaces.  this would 
>also reduce maintenance. 
 
     Hmmm....  RCC is no longer being made, and is a real operational 
bitch -- its brittle, _very_ expensive, and putting ungloved hands on 
it starts to destroy the material from the oils on your hands.  Some 
of the new ceramic tile stuff can replace it -- and the stuff is well 
beyond the ACC which replaced the RCC.  Based upon the F-15 rain 
durability tests (flying through rain clouds at 500+ knots) the new 
ceramics are **##!! amazing -- the only thing left of the shuttle tile 
samples are a few shreds, while these new ceramics aren't even 
scratched.  (There were metallics samples on those test panels as well 
-- they got pretty dinged up due to their honeycomb-multilayer 
construction, and some of the ultrasound indicated some honeycomb 
debonding... needs more test). 
    Once you get past the hot leading edges, you can either go for 
acreage ceramics or metal plates on the hot bottoms  -- with the 
specific trade being dependent on the weights and durabilities and 
relative costs of the acerage hot side TPS materials.  I haven't seen 
a lot of good comparative data, but either  way you cut it, it'll be a 
lot simipler and cheaper than the very brittle ceramics used on the 
early shuttles.  Waterproofing will still be a problem on a recurring 
basis (metallics as well as ceramics -- you'll have to waterproof the 
backup bulk insulation behind the thin-wall metallic, or inside the 
honeycomb multi-wall metallic TPS), and gap filling/ seals (for 
thermal expansion and doors/aerosurfaces) will need some care.  I've 
seen some _real_ interesting work on this, and based upon some of the 
recent published data from the NRA and RLV Phase I studies, I'd give 
the nod to ceramics -- primarily due to lessons learned from the 
Shuttle as how to do things, and how not to do things.  Dependent upon 
the X-34 results, this might change -- but that data will be fairly 
late into the game for real test results to apply to a commercial 
RLV..  
   For the cooler upper surfaces, I'd go with flexible insulation.  
Waterproofing isn't really an issue, and being able to lay down big 
sheets of low-weight flexible material solves lots of the mechanical 
attachment, low weight and cost cost issues with either ceramics or 
metallics. 
 
    Sorry pat -- this wasn't a short and pithy answer.   There are 
advantages and disadvantages to both metallic and ceramic TPS.  A 
metallic TPS might be cheaper to maintain, but will probably be 
heavier and much more complex to install -- and the trade financially 
as to which is better is TBD, at least as far as I can make it.  I'd
like to see some more results. 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                            Space Technology Investor
 
 

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson"  2-JUL-1996
08:42:44.39
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: Vice President to Announce X-33 Builder July 2nd


---------

From: [email protected] (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Vice President Gore To Announce Builder of the X-33
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
Date: 28 Jun 1996 13:50:30 -0700
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lines: 50

James Cast
Headquarters, Washington, DC                  June 28, 1996
(Phone:  202/358-1779)

Franklin O'Donnell
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
(Phone:  818/354-5011)

NOTE TO EDITORS:  N96-44

VICE PRESIDENT TO ANNOUNCE BUILDER OF REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE

     America will come a step closer to having a
revolutionary new reusable launch vehicle -- called the X-33
-- when Vice President Albert Gore announces the selection of
the company that will design, fabricate and flight test the
new space vehicle.

     Vice President Gore will make the announcement July 2,
from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, CA.
Coverage of the announcement will be carried on NASA
Television beginning approximately 12:15 p.m. PDT.

     At approximately 1:15 p.m. PDT, NASA Administrator
Daniel S. Goldin and Gary Payton, Director of NASA's Reusable
Launch Vehicle Program, will hold a press conference to
explain the objectives of the program and why this new
vehicle will be commercially efficient and profitable for
American industry.

     The first flight for the X-33 is scheduled for March
1999.  More rigorous flight tests and operational
demonstrations, including completion of at least a dozen
flights, are scheduled by December 1999.

     The announcement and press conference will be broadcast
live on NASA Television with two-way question and answer
capability from participating NASA locations.  NASA
Television is carried on Spacenet-2, transponder 5, channel
9, at 69 degrees West longitude, frequency 3880.0 MHz, audio
6.8 Megahertz.

     Media representatives planning to attend the event
should contact the Vice President's press office for
accreditation. Requests for accreditation should be made on
the letterhead of the news organization and faxed to
Mr. Corey Black at 310/458-5347. The phone number for the
Vice President's press office for this event is 310/458-4287.

                    -end-



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id
AA00326; Tue, 2 Jul 96 08:16:16 -040
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id
RAA22506; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:44:24 -0400 (EDT
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by
mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA19429; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:48:35
-0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 1 Jul
96 14:53:23 CST6CD
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 1 Jul 96 14:48:18 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Vice President to Announce X-33 Builder July 2nd
% Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:48:01 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson"  2-JUL-1996 17:18:57.06
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: X-33 Announcement Schedule Update, and SAU no. 66


Contents:

1. Latest schedule update on X-33 announcement. (Ron Baalke)
2. Space Access Update no. 66. (Henry Vanderbilt)


==============================================================================


From: [email protected] (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Vice President Gore To Announce Builder of the X-33
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
Date: 28 Jun 1996 13:50:30 -0700
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lines: 50

James Cast
Headquarters, Washington, DC                  June 28, 1996
(Phone:  202/358-1779)

Franklin O'Donnell
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
(Phone:  818/354-5011)

NOTE TO EDITORS:  N96-44

VICE PRESIDENT TO ANNOUNCE BUILDER OF REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE

     America will come a step closer to having a
revolutionary new reusable launch vehicle -- called the X-33
-- when Vice President Albert Gore announces the selection of
the company that will design, fabricate and flight test the
new space vehicle.

     Vice President Gore will make the announcement July 2,
from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, CA.
Coverage of the announcement will be carried on NASA
Television beginning approximately 12:15 p.m. PDT.

     At approximately 1:15 p.m. PDT, NASA Administrator
Daniel S. Goldin and Gary Payton, Director of NASA's Reusable
Launch Vehicle Program, will hold a press conference to
explain the objectives of the program and why this new
vehicle will be commercially efficient and profitable for
American industry.

     The first flight for the X-33 is scheduled for March
1999.  More rigorous flight tests and operational
demonstrations, including completion of at least a dozen
flights, are scheduled by December 1999.

     The announcement and press conference will be broadcast
live on NASA Television with two-way question and answer
capability from participating NASA locations.  NASA
Television is carried on Spacenet-2, transponder 5, channel
9, at 69 degrees West longitude, frequency 3880.0 MHz, audio
6.8 Megahertz.

     Media representatives planning to attend the event
should contact the Vice President's press office for
accreditation. Requests for accreditation should be made on
the letterhead of the news organization and faxed to
Mr. Corey Black at 310/458-5347. The phone number for the
Vice President's press office for this event is 310/458-4287.

                    -end-


==============================================================================


From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Subject: Space Access Update #66  7/1/96
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
Date: 2 Jul 1996 00:19:20 -0700
Lines: 232


                    Space Access Update #66  7/1/96
                 Copyright 1996 by Space Access Society
_______________________________________________________________________

Coming up soon: A detailed report on DC-XA's first three flights, and some
SAS thoughts on NASA goings-on, with a close look at the X-34 decision.
_______________________________________________________________________

Stories this issue:

 - VP Gore To Announce White House Go-Ahead, X-33 Winner Tuesday July 7

 - Other X-33 News
      - Austin To Co-Locate In SoCal With Winning Bidder
      - New AA For Space Access Part Of Latest NASA HQ Reorg Plan
      - Second X-33 Flight Vehicle Part Of Bids?

 - DC-XA Flight 4 Delayed At Least Till Mid-July

 - RLV Miscellany

-----------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)------------------------

Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news
publication. Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access
to space for all, period.  We believe in concentrating our resources at
whatever point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.

Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit
(SSTO) technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and
thus development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor
confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial
investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far from that point now.

Our major current focus is on supporting the government's fully reusable
single-stage rocket technology programs, the low-speed DC-XA, and its
high-speed followon, the X-33 NASA/DOD/industry cooperative project.

With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying
into space well before the end of this decade, with practical orbital
transport projects getting underway.  Join us, and help us make it happen.

            Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society


To join Space Access Society or buy the SSTO/DC-X V 3.0 video we have for
sale (Two hours, includes all eight DC-X flights, X-33 animations, X-33,
DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, aerospike engine test-stand footage, plus
White Sands Missile Range DC-X ops site post flight footage) mail a check
to:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  SAS membership with
direct email of Space Access Updates is $30 US per year; the SSTO V 3.0
video is $25, $5 off for SAS members, $8 extra for shipping outside the US
and Canada, VHS NTSC only.
__________________________________________________________________________


  VP Gore To Announce White House Go-Ahead, X-33 Winner Tuesday July 7


Word is the White House has approved construction go-ahead for X-33, NASA's
subscale high-speed reusable rocket flight demonstrator.  Vice President Al
Gore will announce the winner of the three-bidder design contest at the Jet
Propulsion Labs (JPL), the NASA space science center in Pasadena
California.  NASA Select TV coverage begins at 12:15 pm pacific time on
Tuesday July 2nd, according to a NASA press release.

Rumor has it that the VP will emphasize the hi-tech nature of the project
by opening an envelope containing the bid-submission CD-ROM of the winning
bidder.  We expect the occasion will also serve as a Presidential campaign
event; SAS with others was actively encouraging the political consideration
of all three bidders being southern California based as a factor in the
White House's go/no-go decision for the billion-dollar, three-year project.
Whatever works - and apparently this did.  California with its large number
of electoral votes is of course an important state in any Presidential
campaign.

The ceremony will be carried on NASA Select TV, and we'd guess there will
also be some network coverage Tuesday evening.  Dan Goldin, Administrator
of NASA, and Gary Payton, NASA's Director of Reusable Launch Vehicles, will
hold a press conference on NASA Select at 1:15 pm PDT, explaining what X-33
is and what today's events mean.

The winning bidder for X-33 meanwhile is one of the best-kept secrets
around.  As we understand it, Gary Payton was running the source selection,
and he so far has told only Dan Goldin, in the presence of NASA's chief
legal counsel as a witness.  So until tomorrow around noon, three people in
the world know.  We understand the bidders and of course VP Gore will be
informed a few minutes before the actual public announcement.  Until then,
well, we're all in suspense.

Our compliments to Mr Payton, by the way, for running what seems an
extraordinarily clean source selection.  It's been frustrating, mind, as we
haven't even gotten reliable rumors out of the process, but that is after
all the way these things are supposed to be done.

We'll go out on a limb now anyway and try to rank the bidders, based purely
on what we do know, what we can guess, the rumors we don't totally
disbelieve, and our own hard-earned prejudices.

On a purely technical basis, we'd guess first place goes to McDonnell-
Douglas's wingless vertical-takeoff, vertical landing design, by a small
margin over Lockheed-Martin's VTHL lifting body, with Rockwell's winged-
body VTHL a middlin' third.  Lock-Mart's design is probably the most
elegant of the three engineeringwise, packing the most function into the
smallest most closely integrated package, but elegance isn't everything.
Rockwell's design has the advantage of simplicity; MDA's has the dual
advantages of simplicity and their DC-X experience.  MDA's VTVL design has
an advantage over both horizontal landers in being inherently easier to
incrementally flight test - a VTHL design's minimum flight must get high
and fast enough to transition to a horizontal glide for landing, while a
VTVL can fly lower stress DC-X-first-flight style "bunny hops" to start
out its flight test program.

Financially, it's anybody's guess.  This is a cooperative program and the
size of the corporate contribution counts.  Early rumor had it that
Lockheed-Martin was offering by far the biggest chunk of matching funds,
with Rockwell second and MDA a distant third - but that was rumor.
Further, our understanding of the X-33 CAN is that bidders had latitude to
adjust bids even after the official submission.  No telling who finally
came up with the best cash offer.

And we suspect that bidder contributions will be a major factor in the
final decision.  No telling till tomorrow who dug the deepest to win this
one.

__________________________________________________________________________


                            Other X-33 News


 - Austin To Co-Locate In SoCal With Winning Bidder

We hear the first thing that'll happen after the winner is announced is
that Gene Austin, NASA's X-33 project manager, will fly out to California
to begin setting up a project office co-located with the winning bidder,
moving his team out from NASA Marshall in Huntsville.  We think this is a
great idea; anything that simplifies communications will be a help - X-33
first flight is scheduled for three years from now, and the less time
wasted flying back and forth across the country the more likely that tight
schedule will be met.

 - New AA For Space Access Part Of Latest NASA HQ Reorg Plan

We also noticed in a planning document posted on the unofficial "NASA RIF
Watch" web site (http://www.reston.com/rif/watch.html) that NASA OSAT (the
Office of Space Access & Technology, "Code X") is likely to be split to
produce a pure Space Access function with its own direct-report-to-Goldin
Associate Administrator in charge.  We think the logical person for this
new post is Gary Payton; we think this would enhance the efficiency of the
X-33 and RLV projects in general by further shortening the lines of command.

 - Second X-33 Flight Vehicle Part Of Bids?

We've heard that the X-33 bidders have been asked to cost a second flight
vehicle as part of their bids; we heartily approve, as a second vehicle
(even if only in the form of "long-lead spares") is important insurance
against the risk of losing the first X-33 during flight test.  And we'd
still really like to see a second runner-up X-33 bidder brought into the
competition as insurance against the main winner getting complacent or
laying an egg engineeringwise, at whatever level of activity Congress might
be willing to fund.

__________________________________________________________________________


                              Other News


 - DC-XA Flight 4 Delayed At Least Till Mid-July

The DC-XA "Clipper Graham"'s fourth flight has been delayed a couple
weeks, to mid-July at earliest.  As best we can tell from the info we have,
a new auxiliary power unit (APU) that was due to be used the first time on
flight four has turbine problems of some sort.  Or possibly one of the four
RL-10-a5 rocket motors has a turbopump problem, but we suspect this is a
garbled version of the APU problem.

The first three DC-XA flights were quite successful, a high point being the
(revolutionary for complex reusable rockets) 26-hour turnaround
demonstrated between flights 2 and 3 in early June.  There was some
excitement at landing in the first two flights, mind - both a steel-grid
landing platform on flight 1 and a prepared dry-lakebed surface on flight 2
turned out to behave somewhat differently than expected.

The landing grid did cut vehicle base heating as planned, but also produced
unexpected flow patterns, leading to a maneuvering flap popping open
eighteen feet up then catching fire when the actual touchdown was too soft
to trigger the engine cutoff switches for a couple of seconds.  And the
water-treated, compacted lakebed mud of the flight two landing site turned
out to disintegrate under 5000 degree rocket blasts; flight two dug much
larger trenches than expected.  Flight three precision-landed without
incident on a corner of the original concrete pad.

__________________________________________________________________________


                             RLV Miscellany


 - Reusable rocket research funding in the USAF looks likely to be between
$25 million and $50 million for FY'97.  FY'96 funding was $25 million to
USAF Phillips Labs, who will be managing flight test planning and ops for
NASA X-33.

 - Overall RLV funding at NASA for FY'97 looks pretty firmly set at $283
million - of that, roughly $250 million should go to getting X-33 off to a
fast start.  Stay tuned for more once the details of the winning bid are
known.

- And our congratulations to Dezi Gage at McDonnell-Douglas, who is
getting married this month and moving to be with her new husband - we're
not entirely convinced McDonnell-Douglas's RLV efforts won't grind to a
halt once she's gone.  Best of luck, Dezi!

__________________________________________________________________________

 Space Access Society      "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150               in the Solar System."
 Phoenix AZ 85044                               - Robert A. Heinlein
 602 431-9283 voice/fax
 www.space-access.org                     "You can't get there from here."
 [email protected]                          - Anonymous

 - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this -
 - piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      -
 - reserved.  In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this    -
 - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged.  -



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA05749; Tue, 2 Jul 96 17:11:16 -040
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id RAA07183; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 17:00:30 -0400 (EDT
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA20292; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 13:44:04 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 2 Jul 96 13:46:23 CST6CD
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 2 Jul 96 13:43:53 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: X-33 Announcement Schedule Update, and SAU no. 66
% Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 13:43:38 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
    

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson"  2-JUL-1996 18:30:59.86
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: NASA Press Release on X-33 Selection



James Cast                                        July 2, 1996
Headquarters, Washington, DC
(Phone:  202/358-1779)

Dom Amatore
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL
(Phone:  205/544-0031)

RELEASE:  96-128

LOCKHEED MARTIN SELECTED TO BUILD X-33

    Vice President Al Gore today announced that Lockheed
Martin has been selected to build the X-33 test vehicle, a
one-half scale model of the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV)
which will be used to demonstrate advanced technologies that
will dramatically increase reliability and lower the costs of
putting payloads into space.

    Lockheed Martin will design, build and conduct the first
test flight of the X-33 test vehicle by March 1999, and
conduct at least fifteen flights by December 1999.  NASA has
budgeted $941 million for the project through 1999.  Lockheed
Martin will invest $220 million in its X-33 design.

    Called "VentureStar," the Lockheed Martin design is based
on a lifting body shape with a radical new aerospike engine
and a rugged metallic thermal protection system which would be
launched vertically like a rocket and land horizontally like
an airplane.

    "The RLV program is a radical departure from the way NASA
has done business in the past," NASA Administrator Daniel S.
Goldin said.  "Our role is to develop the high risk
technologies that industry cannot afford.  But we won't build
the vehicle, industry will.  NASA will be a user, not an
operator."

    Goldin said the objective of the RLV technology program is
simple.  "We want to develop technologies that will allow
industry to build a vehicle that takes days, not months, to
turn-around; dozens, not thousands of people to operate;
reliability ten times better than anything flying today; and
launch costs that are a tenth of what they are now.  Our goal
is a reusable launch vehicle that will cut the cost of a pound
of payload to orbit from $10,000 to $1,000."

    The X-33 will integrate and demonstrate all the
technologies in a scale version that would be needed for
industry to build a full-size RLV.  "The X-33

will be about half the size of a full-scale RLV.  It will be a
remotely-piloted, sub-orbital vehicle, capable of altitudes up
to 50 miles and speeds of Mach 15," said RLV Director Gary
Payton.

    The X-33 program is being conducted under a Cooperative
Agreement, not a conventional customer/supplier contract.
Under this agreement, NASA defined the broad objectives and
industry proposed an approach to meet the objectives.
"Cooperative agreements are performance-based," said Payton.
"Payment is made only after the industry partner completes a
pre-determined milestone."

    "The X-33 test vehicle is the most advanced part of a
three-pronged RLV program to develop and demonstrate the kinds
of technologies required by industry to build a new launch
system that will provide truly affordable and reliable access
to space," Payton said. "The RLV approach is to design a
little, build a little, test a little, fly a little."

*        The subsonic DC-XA, or Clipper Graham vehicle which
has successfully flown three times from its launch site in
White Sands, New Mexico, is flight testing advanced
technologies such as lightweight composite propellant tanks,
fuel lines and valves.

*        The Mach 8 X-34 vehicle, to be built by Orbital
Sciences Corp., will demonstrate technologies necessary for a
reusable vehicle.

*        The Mach 15 X-33 vehicle which will integrate and
test advanced components and technologies necessary for
industry to build a full-scale RLV.

    Three industry teams competed for the X-33 vehicle.  In
addition to Lockheed Martin, proposals were submitted by
McDonnell Douglas, Huntington Beach, CA, and Rockwell
International, Downey, CA.

    Due to an innovative, paperless procurement process, the
X-33 evaluation and selection was completed in about one-
quarter of the time it normally takes to finish procurements
of this size.  Proposals were submitted by the three companies
in April on CD-ROM media.  One CD-ROM replaced approximately
eight boxes worth of printed material.  Proposals were read
on-screen by each evaluator, and an evaluation database
allowed them to enter strengths and weaknesses on-line while
reading the proposal.

    The VentureStar team includes prime contractor Lockheed
Martin Skunk Works, Palmdale, CA; Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, CA;
Rohr, Chula Vista, CA; and AlliedSignal Aerospace, Teterboro,
NJ.

                             -end-



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA08845; Tue, 2 Jul 96 18:25:32 -040
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id SAA09711; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:16:01 -0400 (EDT
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA19921; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:55:50 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 2 Jul 96 15:56:45 CST6CD
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 2 Jul 96 15:55:34 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: NASA Press Release on X-33 Selection
% Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:55:18 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson" 10-JUL-1996 23:07:59.44
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: Clipper Graham flight 4 scheduled for July 12


---------


From: [email protected] (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Clipper Graham Flight #4 Scheduled for July 12
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
Date: 10 Jul 1996 14:20:24 -0700
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lines: 69

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, DC               July 10, 1996
(Phone:  202/358-1779)

Dom Amatore
Marshall Space Flight Center, AL
(Phone:  205/544-0031)

RELEASE:  96-134

CLIPPER GRAHAM FLIGHT #4 SCHEDULED FOR JULY 12

     The "Clipper Graham" single-stage reusable rocket
developed by NASA and McDonnell Douglas is scheduled to
perform its fourth test flight at 3:30 p.m. EDT on Friday,
July 12, at the U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

     The 43-foot-high rocket will reach an altitude of 4,100
feet and travel laterally 2,800 feet during its planned two-
minute, 20-second flight.  During its flight the rocket will
dip its nose 60 degrees toward the horizon, right itself and
dip its nose 60 degrees in the opposite direction.  This
flight maneuver will enable evaluation of the performance of
new lightweight, high-strength materials and components.

     The "Clipper Graham" has flown successfully three times.
Its first flight was May 18, and its last two flights came
just 26 hours apart on June 7 and 8.

     The "Clipper Graham" was developed from the U.S. Air
Force DC-X rocket which flew eight times between August 1993
and July 1995.  The DC-X airframe was extensively modified by
replacing existing systems with new technology components
required for the development of a single-stage-to-orbit
reusable launch vehicle.  These include a composite liquid
hydrogen tank, the first ever to fly on a rocket, and a
Russian-built aluminum-lithium alloy liquid oxygen tank.  The
vehicle's advanced technology components all have performed
well during its first three flights according to NASA program
manager Dan Dumbacher of the Marshall Space Flight Center,
Huntsville, AL.  The last flight planned for the vehicle will
feature its first use of a new lightweight auxiliary power
system which will convert liquid hydrogen to a gas for use in
the vehicle's flight reaction control system and auxiliary
power unit.  The reaction control system provides backup for
the rocket's roll altitude during flight.

     "Clipper Graham" is part of NASA's Reusable Launch
Vehicle Technology program, together with the X-34 small
technology demonstrator and the X-33 test vehicle which NASA
and Lockheed-Martin are developing as a one-half scale model
of the Reusable Launch Vehicle private industry likely will
develop and operate during the first decade of the next century.

     The Air Force's Phillips Laboratory at Kirtland Air
Force Base, NM, is managing flight test operations.

     While the "Clipper Graham" flight tests are not open to
the general public, news media representatives may cover the
tests by requesting accreditation from the White Sands
Missile Range Public Affairs Office (facsimile machine number
505/678-7174, phone 505/678-1134.  The point of contact is
Debbie Bingham.  Even those media representatives already
accredited must register in advance for each flight to ensure
adequate transportation to the test site.  Media planning to
view the test flight must be at Bldg. 122 by 11:30 a.m. on
flight day, July 12.

                    -end-



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA14067; Wed, 10 Jul 96 23:03:25 -040
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id WAA08558; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 22:56:35 -0400 (EDT
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA03825; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 20:47:46 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 10 Jul 96 20:50:29 CST6CD
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 10 Jul 96 20:47:38 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Clipper Graham flight 4 scheduled for July 12
% Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 20:47:20 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
    

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson" 12-JUL-1996 19:42:01.36
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: Space Access Update no. 67


-----------


From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Space Access Update #67  7/11/96
Date: 12 Jul 96 06:45:54 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 553


                     Space Access Update #67  7/11/96
                 Copyright 1996 by Space Access Society
_______________________________________________________________________

It's been an interesting week since the X-33 winner announcement.  All
sorts of alarums and excursions from people who'd forgotten this was a
competition and expected their favorite to win; more seriously, huge
amounts of new data to absorb and make sense of while we and our
colleagues thrashed out answers to the twin questions: What does this
mean, and What next?  Read on...
_______________________________________________________________________

Stories this issue:

 - Lockheed-Martin "Venture Star" Wins X-33 Downselect

 - NASA OSAT Due For Radical Change In HQ Restructuring

 - DC-XA Flight 4 Due Friday July 12th

 - A Low-Cost X-33 Backup? (!)

 - DOD SSTO Funding Alert - Maximum effort needed!

-----------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)------------------------

Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news
publication. Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access
to space for all, period.  We believe in concentrating our resources at
whatever point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.

Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one
or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit
(SSTO) technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and
thus development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor
confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial
investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far from that point now.

Our major current focus is on supporting the government's fully reusable
single-stage rocket technology programs, the low-speed DC-XA, and its
high-speed followon, the X-33 NASA/DOD/industry cooperative project.

With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying
into space well before the end of this decade, with practical orbital
transport projects getting underway.  Join us, and help us make it happen.

            Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society


To join Space Access Society or buy the SSTO/DC-X V 3.0 video we have for
sale (Two hours, includes all eight DC-X flights, X-33 animations, X-33,
DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, aerospike engine test-stand footage, plus
White Sands Missile Range DC-X ops site post flight footage) mail a check
to:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  SAS membership with
direct email of Space Access Updates is $30 US per year; the SSTO V 3.0
video is $25, $5 off for SAS members, $8 extra for shipping outside the US
and Canada, VHS NTSC only.
__________________________________________________________________________


           Lockheed-Martin "Venture Star" Wins X-33 Downselect

On July 2nd, 1996, at Caltech's Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena
California, Vice President Al Gore and NASA Administrator Dan Goldin
together lifted the concealing cover from a scale model of the winner of
the X-33 experimental reusable rocket demonstrator competition,
revealing Lockheed-Martin's "Venture Star" triangular lifting body as
NASA's choice for the billion-dollar three-year cooperative project.

 - What Are The Specs?

Lockheed-Martin's X-33 design will lift off vertically, at a fully-
fuelled weight of 273,000 lbs, powered by two sets of Rocketdyne J-2S
turbomachinery (the J-2S was an upgraded version of the Saturn 5's J-2
upper-stage engine) feeding liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen to two
banks of small thrust chambers in a "linear aerospike" arrangement on
either side of the ship's blunt wedge-shaped trailing edge, producing
a total of just over 400,000 lbs of thrust at takeoff.  Steering while
under rocket power will be totally by differential throttling of the four
banks of thrust chambers, side-to-side, and top-row-to-bottom-row.
Steering during gliding flight before runway landing will be by a variety
of aerodynamic control surfaces.

The triangular experimental flight vehicle will be 67 feet from nose
to tail, 68 feet wide including the upward-slanted fins on the aft
corners, and will weigh 63,000 lbs with empty propellant tanks.  Thermal
protection will be by new advanced metallic TPS plates backed by
insulation over the composite plastic vehicle outer shell.  The
vehicle's broad curved underside (it reenters pretty much belly-first)
spreads reentry heat loads out over a wide area, reducing maximum
temperatures and allowing the use of metallic rather than tile TPS.  The
tradeoff for this is low hypersonic Lift-to-Drag ratio (L:D) which means
low reentry maneuverability, low "crossrange".  A reasonable tradeoff
for a precursor to a routine cargo-hauler... Maximum X-33 speed is
described as mach 15+, roughly 60% of orbital velocity.  The vehicle
will be returned to base after flights on the back of a NASA Shuttle
Carrier 747.

 - What's The Plan?

Gene Austin, NASA's X-33 project manager, is currently in Palmdale
California setting up an on-site office for himself and his staff.  NASA
has most of its $43m in FY'96 X-33 funds for use in getting the project
off to a flying start this summer.  At some point after October 1st,
NASA should have something over $250m in FY'97 X-33 funding available,
out of a total $324.7m for FY'97 RLV/Advanced Space Technology in the
likely FY'97 NASA budget.  NASA is reported to be asking Lockheed-Martin
to commit their contribution to the cooperative project early, to avoid
a repeat of the X-34 Mk I "cooperative" fiasco, where the contractors
apparently spent $10m of NASA's money but little of their own before
bailing out.

X-33 is scheduled for first flight less than three years from now, in
March 1999.  Lockheed-Martin is starting to recruit the hundreds of
additional people who'll be needed to build the new ship.  They will
build the ship in Palmdale, California and fly it out of nearby Edwards
Air Force Base.  Current plans call for approximately a dozen flights,
with high-and-fast tests from flight #3 on going out of the Edwards test
range over the sparsely populated regions to the northeast, on a flight
corridor to Malmstrom AFB, Montana.  Flight #1 is planned to go thirty
miles to a strip at Bicycle Lake CA, #2 to Michaels AAF in Utah.

The ship is to be unmanned, operated by constant telecomm link via
ground stations along the flight path.  There is no current provision
for either a second copy of the ship or for long-lead spares to build a
second ship in the event of loss of the first.  These will presumably
depend on additional funding being scrounged.

 - How'd They Win?

NASA has announced that Lockheed-Martin's winning X-33 bid included a
$220 million bidder contribution.  We understand that this $220m is a
mix of cash, in-kind use of existing company resources, and IR&D funds
("Internal R&D" money, essentially general-purpose Federal corporate
technology-base subsidies) from both Lockheed-Martin and various of
their subcontractors.

We're still collecting data on the other aspects of the competition,
technical merit, "RLV" operational followon business plans, and so
forth.  But at first glance, it appears Lockheed-Martin won at least in
part because they were willing to commit significantly more of their own
resources than either McDonnell-Douglas or Rockwell.

NASA has been saying that one reason Lockheed-Martin won is that their
X-33 pushes more new technologies farther than the other bids.  We find
this mildly puzzling, as it seems to us to increase program risk over
the simpler solutions, but then NASA does have a certain institutional
tendency to favor maximum new tech in a project.  Since we have our own
risk-reduction plan in mind (more on this later in the Update) we can
live with this.  In fact, many of the new technologies in Lockheed-
Martin's X-33 (metallic TPS, multilobed composite cryo tanks, aerospike
engines) do look generically useful if they work out.

NASA has also been saying that this X-33 is more representative of its
hypothetical "RLV" operational followon than the other two bids.  We'll
confine ourselves to observing that three years is a long time and
things are likely to change, a lot, as experience is gained and the
market defines itself better.

This brings us to Lockheed-Martin's "RLV business plan" submitted as
part of the X-33 bid.  As best we can tell, the gist of this plan is to
spend about $2 billion of company money (Lockheed-Martin is projected to
be seriously cash-rich by the end of the decade) plus a bit more than
that in short-term loans to develop a fleet of three shuttle-class-cargo
ships (15-30 tons payload depending on the target orbit).  The loans
will then be paid off by selling NASA eight Shuttle-replacement flights
a year at a price of $250m-$300m a flight (around two-thirds of current
Shuttle operating costs) for two to three years.  Lockheed-Martin then
plans to fly 20-30 flights a year at a price of $10m-$15m a flight; their
fully amortized cost per flight (projected from their target of $100/lb)
looks to be $4m-$6m.

Our main comment on this plan is that it is likely to change a lot over the
next four years.

We note, for instance, that the National Reconaissance Office (NRO), a
major current customer for 20-ton class satellite launches on L-M's
Titan 4 (and occasionally on Shuttle, soon to be 50% L-M's under the USA
Shuttle operating partnership with Rockwell) is suddenly talking very
seriously of switching over to larger numbers of cheaper 5-ton
satellites.  Optimal RLV sizing could change radically between now and
the year 2000.

We note too that Lockheed-Martin's "RLV Business Plan" calls for capture
of over 90% of the existing space launch market, an effective monopoly.
We believe our cause, affordable reliable access to space for all, will
be far better served by ongoing technical, corporate, and institutional
competition in low-cost launch, and we intend to actively support such
competition.  Even if we didn't feel this way, chances are that between
the other two X-33 bidders (neither McDonnell-Douglas nor Rockwell have
any plans to immediately disband their design teams), the host of other
established and wannabe aerospace outfits, and the host of other space
access customers outside NASA, there will be competition in this market.

We'll close with this:  We expect any of the X-33 bidders could have
produced a ship adequate to our goal of developing and demonstrating
reusable SSTO technology to the point of commercial viability.  We
intend to vigorously support the NASA/Lockheed-Martin X-33 while it
looks like serving this goal.  We congratulate the Lockheed-Martin team
on their win, and we look forward to their producing an X-33 that flies
soon, (semi)savably, high, fast, and often.

It's going to be an interesting fin de siecle - a rocket powered one!

__________________________________________________________________________


          NASA OSAT Due For Radical Change In HQ Restructuring

According to documents we've seen posted on the "NASA RIF watch" web
site (http://www.reston.com/rif/watch.html) NASA's Office of Space
Access & Technology (OSAT), "Code X", is slated for perhaps the most
radical change seen in the current NASA HQ restructuring and cutbacks.
OSAT's advanced technology functions are to be split off and divided up
among various NASA centers, while the space access function, essentially
the current Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program under Gary Payton, is
to be upgraded to a full HQ Office with its own Associate Administrator
- presumably Payton - reporting directly to Administrator Goldin.

Tough times for the majority of the current OSAT staff, who have our
sympathy for their quest to find new niches within NASA or without.  But
we think this change is a good thing for our main objective; it shortens
the lines of communications and gives more weight to access within NASA.

__________________________________________________________________________


                        DC-XA Flight 4 Due Friday

The rebuilt DC-XA reusable rocket ops testbed has had its fourth flight
rescheduled for early afternoon of this Friday, July 12th.  The flight
had been delayed by turbine problems with a new Auxiliary Power Unit
(APU) being integrated into the DC-XA.  The APU won't be used this
flight; it is now scheduled for first test on flight 5 in late July.

We strongly support extension of the DC-XA test program beyond the
currently scheduled five flights; we've talked with the engineers
involved from both NASA and McDonnell-Douglas and they agree that there
is much to be learned from additional flights.  The cost of continuing
this summer's flight test program beyond flight 5 is relatively small, a
few million dollars - pocket change in the rocket test business.

__________________________________________________________________________


                         A Low-Cost X-33 Backup?

Here we get to the nub of our question - What next?  Lockheed-Martin X-33
addresses a number of potential high-payoff RLV technologies, but
bypasses a number of others equally promising.  And no such project is a
sure thing; there is alway risk - institutional, organizational, and
technological.  This month's X-33 go-ahead is no guarantee we'll have a
useful ship flying three years from now.  We intend no insult to anyone
involved when we say that if we can afford to pursue one or more
alternative approaches to cheap space transportation in parallel with
NASA/Lockheed-Martin X-33, we should do so, in order to greatly improve
the overall chances of the nation benefitting from its investment in
reusable rocket technologies.

We're not exactly being radical here - the benefits of competing
multiple technical approaches are well-established historically.  This
improves the odds of success both by not putting the whole bet on one
approach, and by the added incentive to do well the competition gives
all the participants.  You tend to run faster when you hear footsteps
close behind... NASA is in fact on record as wanting more than one ship
if the money can be found.

(Some of our more cynical colleagues have pointed out that even though
pride/professional integrity would likely cause the new X-33 engineering
team to do their best regardless, Lockheed-Martin's overall corporate
interests might be just as well-served by delays (or even never-fly
bogdown) of X-33 as by success, absent active competition, given L-M's
extensive interests in current launch systems.  Appallingly cynical,
some of our colleagues...  Admittedly this would require a short-sighted
approach on the part of L-M top management, given that what's at stake
is a chance to be the Boeing of the 21st century spaceliner business.)

If the money can be found, there's the rub.  NASA has had to strain hard
to make room for X-33 within its steadily shrinking budget.  There is no
realistic chance of digging up another $900 million plus within NASA
that we can see.  Or anywhere else for that matter.  An additional
technical approach is going to have to be a lot cheaper than $900
million over the next three years - $50m-$75m a year over FY'97-99 is,
maybe, doable.  But even that would have to be for a ship with
considerable standalone technical merit.  And even that would be hard
within NASA's narrowing budget wedge.

We haven't been loafing this past week; we think we see a second RLV X-
project that can be usefully done within those funding limits, that is
highly technologically complementary to the X-33, and that can be done
without significant additional pressure on NASA's budget.

We're talking about a proposal we've seen to build on the current DC-XA
program with a series of stretches, upgrades, and rebuilds, via a USAF/NASA
partnership, with USAF taking the managerial and funding lead.  The broad
outline of the proposed program, with estimated funding levels:

 - DC-XA extended ops tests, 1996, $3m USAF, $3m NASA.

 - DC-XB - new tanks, stretched aeroshell, thermal protection, fifth
center engine, mach 3+, flies summer '98, $70m USAF, $10m NASA.

 - DC-XC - new conformal LH2 tank, improved TPS, lighter structures,
upgraded engines, Mach 10+, flies fall '99, USAF $130m, NASA TBD
depending on desired NASA advanced technology tests.

                                ***

We think something like this program would be a good thing for USAF, for
NASA, and for the country - good enough that we intend to shift as much of
our focus as can be spared from keeping X-33 on track over to trying to
make DC-XB/C happen.  Here's why.

DC-XB/C complements X-33 very well, technologically and in terms of
institutional approach, exploring many known promising RLV technical
alternatives that are outside the scope of X-33.  DC-XB/C is also a good
affordable hedge to the high-stakes X-33 bet.

 - X-33 does horizontal runway landing, DC-XB/C would pursue vertical
wingless small-pad powered landing.
 - X-33 uses medium-temperature metallic thermal protection, DC-XB/C
would use new high-durability high-temperature tile TPS.
 - X-33 tests new 'aerospike' rocket engines; DC-XB/C would demonstrate
use of multiple traditional bell-nozzle engines for engine-out redundancy.
 - X-33 will pioneer use of complex multilobe composite propellant tanks,
DC-XB/C will provide insurance against manufacturing/durability problems
with much simpler geometry tankage.
 - X-33 will test out low L:D low heat-load reentry profiles, DC-XB/C will
explore high-maneuverability high hypersonic L:D flight.
 - X-33 will be oriented toward fixed operating bases with specialized
ground-handling equipment for ship and payload processing, DC-XB/C will be
aimed at more mobile operations out of small austere sites.
 - X-33 is in our view a relatively high-risk high-payoff approach, bundling
a number of new technologies into a relatively complex and sophisticated
package.  If it all works, it's a great ship - but there's a lot of
potential for delay; a lot of new things all have to come together at once
at the end of a very tight schedule.  DC-XB/C takes a much more incremental
approach - "build a little, test a little."

It looks like a USAF Phillips Labs/MDA/NASA DC-XB/C (we do not know for
a fact that's where this proposal came from, but it seems a safe bet)
would be both affordable and a very useful complement to NASA/L-M X-33.

We also think this approach is politically doable, or we wouldn't be
pursuing it like this.  First, NASA's top leadership endorses competing
X-vehicles but has a bad budget pinch to deal with.  Spending USAF money
for a second bird that NASA still gets data from and flight-test use of
is we think a good deal for NASA.

As for USAF, there's growing interest there in the eventual next-century
defense applications of affordable space sortie vehicles.  DC-XB/C lays
a lot of the groundwork for such at a bargain-basement price - the
DC-XB/C configuration's austere ops site potential and high hypersonic
maneuverability both fit well with eventual USAF needs, as well as
providing useful operational flexibility for future commercial missions.

The Congress can never be taken for granted, but there's likely a
coalition to be built for a ship this long-term useful and this cheap.

As for this Administration, well, that's always an interesting question.
There's a strong tendency to oppose any new military space operational
capabilities, but DC-XB/C, technologically useful though it may be, is
not in anyone's wildest imagination stretchable to an operational ship.
At maximum stretch it will have a couple hundred miles range at less
than half of orbital velocity.  And it's relatively cheap, and it's very
much dual-use technology, with huge potential civilian aerospace
payoffs.  Given Congressional, USAF, and NASA support, this White House
may well be persuadable to go along.

__________________________________________________________________________


                        DOD SSTO Funding Alert

  (Maximum effort needed!  Get EVERYBODY you can talk into it to help
  on this one.  We have a brand new program here and we need to sell
  the living bejabers out of it - we need to get funds for this into
  the FY'97 budget NOW.)

Congressional support for USAF reusable rocket work, meanwhile, very
much cannot be taken for granted.  Left alone, we would likely see
between $25 million and nothing at all for Fiscal Year '97 (FY'97 starts
October 1st) out of the Congressional Defense funding bills.  We need at
least $50 million, which in addition to the still-unreleased $25 million
in FY'96 funds would be enough to get DC-XB (the summer '98 Mach 3+
upgrade) well underway, along with advance work on the Mach 10 DC-XC.

There are two House-Senate DOD funding conferences we need to work,
Authorization, already underway, and Appropriations, starting sometime
next week.  Of the two, Authorizations is important, but Appropriations
is CRITICAL.

The FY'97 DOD Authorizations bill (think of it as the authorized
shopping list) is already in House-Senate conference.  This conference
is likely to go on at least through next week; there's still time to
affect the process.  The House version has $50 million, the Senate $25
million - we mainly need to work for support in the Senate Armed
Services Committee (SASC) for acceding to the House number.

The FY'97 DOD Appropriations conference (think of it as actually writing
the checks) will get underway as soon as the Senate passes their version
of the DOD FY'97 Appropriations bill, likely early next week.  The House
version calls for $25 million for USAF reusable rocket work.  The Senate
version almost certainly will call for nothing at all.

We need to work both sides of this conference HARD to raise the amount
appropriated to $50 million.  These guys know they're writing real
checks from a limited account; this one will be tough - but we have to
talk them into supporting this.

If a Senator from your state is on the SASC or Senate Appropriations
Defense Subcommittee lists attached, or if a Representative whose
district you live in or near is on the attached House Appropriations
Defense Subcommittee list, call write or fax them by early this coming
week of July 15th, and ask them to support: $50 million in FY'97
reusable rocket funding for USAF Phillips Labs, and also $50 million for
the Clementine II asteroid flyby probe in FY'97 (we made a mutual
support deal, and Clementine II seems a fairly good thing anyway.)

Both the Phillips Labs reusable rocket work and Clementine 2 strike us as
prime examples of "dual-use" technologies - both have potential long-term
military applications (Clementine 1 and the proposed Clementine 2 both
use(d) SDIO-developed miniaturized sensors and components to do their
science missions small, fast, and cheap) and both have considerable
economic/scientific civilian benefit.  See the previous article for
details on why DC-XB/C is a good thing for USAF to be doing - the Senate
in particular will want convincing that spending this DOD money is
actually relevant to national defense.

How you approach your Senator or Representative on these recommendations
is up to you, of course.  Always tell the truth!  But sometimes emphasize
the aspects they're more likely to respond to...

As usual, if you call or fax, be brief and be polite; the overworked
staffers will appreciate it.

If you call, tell them who you are ("Hi, I'm Joe Smith from <town in their
district/state>") and what you want ("I'm calling about a couple things
I'd like to see supported in the Defense Appropriations/Authorizations
markup").  They may switch you to another staffer (more likely to that
staffer's voicemail) or they may ask you what those things you want are.
If they ask, tell them you support $50 million in funding for reusable
rocket work at USAF Phillips Labs, and also for the Clementine 2 asteroid
probe.  If they have any questions, answer them as best you can; if not,
thank them for their time and ring off.  If you end up with another
staffer's voicemail, repeat the whole message of who you are, where you
want something done, and what it is you want, then thank 'em for their
time and ring off.

If you fax or write, keep it to one page, lead off with what you want (as
above), and then follow up with a paragraph or two of why you think these
things are worth funding if you're so inclined.


                  Senate Armed Services Committee List

("Senator XYZ, US Senate, Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
                                    voice           fax
Sen. Thurmond, Strom (R  SC)       1-202-224-5972 1-202-224-1300
Sen. Nunn, Sam (D GA)              1-202-224-3521 1-202-224-0072
Sen. Lott, Trent (R MS)            1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262
Sen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R TX)  1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776
Sen. Bryan, Richard H. (D NV)      1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867
Sen. McCain, John (R AZ)           1-202-224-2235 1-202-228-2862
Sen. Byrd, Robert C. (D WV)        1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
Sen. Cohen, William S. (R ME)      1-202-224-2523 1-202-224-2693
Sen. Coats, Daniel R. (R IN)       1-202-224-5623 1-202-224-8964
Sen. Smith, Robert (R NH)          1-202-224-2841 1-202-224-1353
Sen. Kempthorne, Dirk (R ID)       1-202-224-6142 1-202-224-5893
Sen. Warner, John W. (R VA)        1-202-224-2023 1-202-224-6295
Sen. Inhofe, James (R OK)          1-202-224-4721 1-202-224-????
Sen. Santorum, Rick (R PA)         1-202-224-6324 1-202-224-4161
Sen. Bingaman, Jeff (D NM)         1-202-224-5521 1-202-224-2852
Sen. Levin, Carl (D MI)            1-202-224-6221 1-202-224-1388
Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. (D MA)     1-202-224-4543 1-202-224-2417
Sen. Lieberman, Joseph I. (D CT)   1-202-224-4041 1-202-224-9750
Sen. Robb, Charles S. (D VA)       1-202-224-4024 1-202-224-8689
Sen. Glenn, John (D OH)            1-202-224-3353 1-202-224-7983


 Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, National Security Subcommittee
                                          voice       fax
 Sen. Hatfield, Mark (R OR)         1-202-224-3753 1-202-224-0276
 (chair, full SAC)

 Sen. Byrd, Robert (D WV)           1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
 (Ranking Minority Member, full SAC)

 Sen. Stevens, Ted (R AK)           1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044
 (chair, SAC NatSec Sub)

 Sen. Inouye, Daniel (D HI)         1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747
 (Ranking Minority Member, SAC NatSec Sub)

 Sen. Cochran, Thad (R MS)          1-202-224-5054 1-202-224-3576
 Sen. Gramm, Phil (R TX)            1-202-224-2934 1-202-228-2856
 Sen. Domenici, Pete V. (R NM)      1-202-224-6621 1-202-224-7371
 Sen. McConnell, Mitch (R KY)       1-202-224-2541 1-202-224-2499
 Sen. Specter, Arlen (R PA)         1-202-224-4254 1-202-224-1893
 Sen. Bond, Christopher (R MO)      1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149
 Sen. Mack, Connie (R FL)           1-202-224-5274 1-202-224-8022
 Sen. Shelby, Richard C. (R AL)     1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416
 Sen. Hollings, Ernest (D SC)       1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293
 Sen. Johnston, J. Bennett (D LA)   1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952
 Sen. Leahy, Patrick (D VT)         1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595
 Sen. Harkin, Thomas (D IA)         1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-7431
 Sen. Lautenberg, Frank (D NJ)      1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707


 House Appropriations Committee, National Security Subcommittee List
("Representative XYZ, US House, Washington DC 20515" will get mail to them.)

(Appropriations Chair)                    voice       fax
  Livingston, Robert (R-01 LA)       1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739

(Appropriations Ranking Minority Member)
  Obey, David R. (D-07)              1-202-225-3365 1-202-225-0561

(NatSec Subcommittee Chair)
  Young, C. W. Bill (R-10 FL)        1-202-225-5961 1-202-225-9764

(NatSecSubcommittee RMM)
  Murtha, John P. (D-12 PA)          1-202-225-2065 1-202-225-5709

  Lewis, Jerry (R-40 CA)             1-202-225-5861 1-202-225-6498
  Livingston, Robert (R-01 LA)       1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739
  Sabo, Martin Olav (D-05 MN)        1-202-225-4755 1-202-225-4886
  Hefner, Bill (D-08 NC)             1-202-225-3715 1-202-225-4036
  Skeen, Joseph (R-02 NM)            1-202-225-2365 1-202-225-9599
  Hobson, David L. (R-07 OH)         1-202-225-4324 1-202-225-1984
  McDade, Joseph M. (R-10 PA)        1-202-225-3731 1-202-225-9594
  Bonilla, Henry (R-23 TX)           1-202-225-4511 1-202-225-2237
  Wilson, Charles (D-02 TX)          1-202-225-2401 1-202-225-1764
  Nethercutt, George (R-05 WA)       1-202-225-2006 1-202-225-7181
  Dicks, Norman D. (D-06 WA)         1-202-225-5916 1-202-226-1176
  Neumann, Mark (R-01 WI)            1-202-225-3031 1-202-225-3393

__________________________________________________________________________

 Space Access Society      "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150               in the Solar System."
 Phoenix AZ 85044                               - Robert A. Heinlein
 602 431-9283 voice/fax
 www.space-access.org                     "You can't get there from here."
 [email protected]                          - Anonymous

 - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this -
 - piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      -
 - reserved.  In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this    -
 - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged.  -



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA03559; Fri, 12 Jul 96 19:36:54 -040
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id TAA21561; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:21:24 -0400 (EDT
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA24780; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 16:58:14 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 12 Jul 96 17:02:10 CST6CD
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 12 Jul 96 16:57:42 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 67
% Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 16:57:21 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Article: 19062
From: [email protected] (WylieC)
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech
Subject: Re: July 12th DC-XA Flight ???
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 05:32:27 GMT
Organization: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 340-2020/(817) 226-2020 for info
 
[email protected] (WylieC) wrote:
 
>Does anybody know the situation with the DC-XA?   It was supposed to
>fly July 12th.  Has it been rescheduled?   Problems?        
>					WylieC
>					[email protected]
 
Found the answer to my own question  credit goes to
http://www.flatoday.com/today/index.htm
					WylieC
					[email protected]
 
CLIPPER GRAHAM FLIGHT POSTPONED
 
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. - Today's test flight of the Clipper
Graham reusable launch vehicle was postponed due to lack of winds.
Winds of 3 to 5 knots are  needed to prevent the accumulation of
hydrogen fuel vapors near the base of the  43-foot-high experimental
rocket. 
 
Earlier in the day, a malfunction in the flight computer was detected.
The computer was replaced, new software was loaded and checked out,
and the vehicle was ready for flight within 65 minutes, demonstrating
airline-like operations. 
 
Because flight time on the missile range is not available tomorrow or
next week, the auxiliary propulsion system (APS) for the experimental
rocket will be reinstalled, tested and readied for next flight. The
APS converts liquid hydrogen from the fuel tank into a gas which is
used as fuel for the Clipper Graham's reaction control thrusters and
an auxiliary power unit. The thrusters are used to control the
cone-shaped vehicle's roll attitude. The APS also includes a composite
feedline and shutoff valve. 
 
Flight testing of the Clipper Graham will resume later this month. 
 

>>> WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. - Today's test flight of the Clipper
>>> Graham reusable launch vehicle was postponed due to lack of winds.
>>> Winds of 3 to 5 knots are  needed to prevent the accumulation of
>>> hydrogen fuel vapors near the base of the  43-foot-high experimental
>>> rocket.

	Nearly choked on my coffee, a rocket delayed due to
          LACK OF WIND. 

	:-)

	

RE: <<< Note 819.246 by CHEFS::CLIFFE "I'll warp my own space-time ..." >>>

>	Nearly choked on my coffee, a rocket delayed due to
>          LACK OF WIND. 

Ditto!
						-- Tom

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson" 31-JUL-1996 21:05:45.01
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: Space Access Update #68 7/31/96 - DC-XA Fire



From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Space Access Update #68 7/31/96 - DC-XA Fire
Date: 31 Jul 96 21:18:06 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 49


                     Space Access Update #68  7/31/96
                 Copyright 1996 by Space Access Society
_______________________________________________________________________

This just in.  The DC-XA "Clipper Graham" suffered a significant post-
landing fire today.  As far as we know, the scheduled two minute twenty
second flight test went fine.  Preliminary word is that one landing gear
leg failed to extend, causing the vehicle to fall on its side after
touching down.  The vehicle then caught fire.  We have no details on how
long the fire burned before the fire crew could approach the pad, or how
extensive damage is.

(We now have confirmation of all of the above from White Sands Missile
Range.  NASA Select TV should be carrying a press conference with more
details at 3:30 pm MDT.)

Our best guess is that vehicle damage will be extensive, but that parts of
the vehicle, in particular the engines, may be salvageable.

Our read on the significance of this to the practicality or otherwise of
the DC-X vertical-landing configuration is, no significance.  Landing
gears get stuck occasionally on all sorts of aircraft; gear-up landings
often lead to severe damage or destruction of the aircraft involved.  The
main lesson to be drawn is, build more than one copy of your X-vehicle.
(A secondary lesson might be to change landing hardware and/or procedures
to try to keep the vehicle upright in the event of a stuck landing leg...)

Our recommendation for what action to take is, take the funds that have
been identified for extended DC-XA flight test (recently officially
approved) and for a possible start on a DC-XB upgrade aeroshell, salvage
what's salvageable from the DC-XA, and begin work on DC-XB immediately.

More on all this when we know more.
__________________________________________________________________________

 Space Access Society      "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150               in the Solar System."
 Phoenix AZ 85044                               - Robert A. Heinlein
 602 431-9283 voice/fax
 www.space-access.org                     "You can't get there from here."
 [email protected]                          - Anonymous
__________________________________________________________________________

 - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this -
 - piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      -
 - reserved.  In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this    -
 - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged.  -




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA24621; Wed, 31 Jul 96 21:01:32 -040
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id UAA12945; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 20:52:50 -0400 (EDT
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA18430; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 18:44:21 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 31 Jul 96 18:49:45 CST6CD
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 31 Jul 96 18:44:16 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update #68 7/31/96 - DC-XA Fire
% Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 18:43:56 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson"  5-AUG-1996 16:40:06.68
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: Space Access Update no. 69


------


Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 15:47:08 -0700 (MST)
From: Donald Doughty <[email protected]>
To: DC-X <[email protected]>
Subject: Space Access Update #69 8/3/96 (fwd)
Reply-To: [email protected]



Subject: Space Access Update #69 8/3/96

                     Space Access Update #69  8/3/96
                 Copyright 1996 by Space Access Society
_______________________________________________________________________


The DC-XA "Clipper Graham" is, for all practical purposes, toast.  Here's
a quick preliminary look at what happened on the experimental reusable
rocket's fourth current-series and twelfth overall flight, along with some
thoughts on where we go from here.

We've had a chance now to look closely at a tape from the NASA satellite
feed, two views of the Thursday July 31st flight and the post-landing
fallover/fire.  We've also had time to talk to the usual suspects (aka
SAS's Advisory Board) about what all this means (this ain't a crisis, it's
an opportunity!)

The rumor mill meanwhile is pretty sparse, as it should be - there's an
accident investigation underway, to determine the causes and learn what
lessons there are to be learned, and nobody on the project has much to say
for the moment.  Pretty much all that follows is from the tape and from
general knowledge of the vehicle and program.

Summary: DC-XA was apparently experiencing some sort of hydraulic/control
problem with the landing leg on the southeast corner of the vehicle
throughout the two-minute twenty-second flight.  The leg then failed to
extend during final descent to the pad.  Once engines cut off, the vehicle
toppled to the southeast.  The liquid oxygen (LOX) tank ruptured massively
on side-impact, causing an immediate low-intensity explosion tearing apart
and setting fire to the forward section of the vehicle.  On-pad fire-
suppression water sprays reduced but did not eliminate the fire; somewhat
over a minute later, the liquid hydrogen (LH2) tank ruptured, tearing
apart and burning the mid-aft section of the vehicle. Once fire-
suppression water supplies were exhausted, the fire was allowed to burn
itself out; range-safety rules precluded approaching the site for twenty-
four hours due to explosive devices associated with the vehicle's
emergency recovery parachute. As best we can tell, what's left of DC-XA is
a lot of scraps plus the rather scorched nose and tail sections.

Background: The DC-XA had last flown in June, the two-flights-in-two-days
fast turnaround demo.  An attempt to fly in early July had been scrubbed
after first computer and then weather problems delayed things past the
available range time - White Sands Missile Range hosts dozens of different
test programs and time is tightly scheduled.  After this, it was decided
to stand down until after a new hydrogen-burning auxiliary power unit
(APU) had been installed - this APU was to take over the job of providing
hydraulic pressure for the vehicle controls.  (DC-XA engine gimballing,
body-flap actuation, and landing gear actuation are all via hydraulics.)
(A hydrogen-burning APU is a significant advance in that it can be run off
the ship's main fuel supply, reducing weight and simplifying support.)

DC-XA, it should be kept in mind, is by design a quick-and-cheap
experimental vehicle.  In order to meet tight schedule and budget
constraints, many systems that in an operational vehicle would have
mechanical or procedural backups are single-string with no backups.  This
is a frequent tradeoff in experimental vehicles; it is in general more
cost-effective to accept higher risk to get needed flight test data in a
fraction of the time and cost.  In this case, DC-XA had neither a backup
landing-gear extension mechanism nor (apparently) a one-gear-up emergency
procedure in place.

The two available views of the flight are both from the west. One is
closeup, with the bottom of the vehicle often out-of-frame, and cuts off
~1/2 minute after landing.  The other is a distant view and goes on for
nearly two minutes post landing.

In a previous flight of approximately the same duration, residual
propellants at landing were somewhere above 15% of the ~20,000 lbs full
load.  This would place residual LH2 at something over 400 lbs and
residual LOX at something over 2400 lbs, assuming a 6:1 ratio and similar
propellant loading and consumption this flight.  Vehicle dry-tanks weight
is ~20,000 lbs.


Sequence Of Events: Landing Gear. The closeup video shows that the landing
leg on the southeast corner of the vehicle (right-hand side away from the
camera) repeatedly partially extended then retracted again during the
flight, typically extending ~1/4 of full extension, typically extending
for ~1/10th second.  This extension is clearly visible at least once
during the ascent and twice during the descent, and possibly visible other
times - uncertainty is due to changing vehicle angle and to the vehicle
base repeatedly going out of the bottom of the video frame. The extension-
retractions were quick, and were at no obvious fixed interval - at least
once during descent a very quick extend-retract-extend-retract sequence is
visible.

When time came to extend the gear during final descent, the two legs on
the west side of the vehicle came down normally - slightly out of sync,
but no more so than seen on previous flights.  The leg on the northeast
corner came down ~1/2 second later.  The leg on the southeast corner, the
same one that had been partially extending during flight, did not come
down at all.

We conclude from this that there was some sort of hydraulic/controls
problem with the landing gear, possibly associated with the hydraulic
system rework involved with installing the new APU, possibly associated
with the new APU itself.  We note that there seemed no problem with engine
hydraulic gimballing or vehicle flight control.  We don't know enough
about the vehicle hydraulic systems to reach any further conclusions.

Sequence Of Events: Post-Landing Fire: DC-XA took ~5 seconds from post-
landing engine cutoff to impact on its side.  The vehicle is ~40 feet tall
and started toppling from a position with its center of gravity roughly in
between the SW and NE landing legs, pivoting to the SE on these two legs.
CG shift with residual propellant slosh likely accelerated the topple
somewhat once the ship was off-level.

Immediately on side-impact, the forward third of the vehicle aft of the
emergency parachute housing (the 'chute is in the straked nosecone
section) burst open with orange flame erupting and pieces flying short
distances.  We conclude that the welded aluminum-lithium LOX tank broke
open on impact, releasing ~1 ton of residual liquid oxygen rapidly,
igniting everything ignitable in the forward part of the vehicle.  We note
that this tank had serious fabrication problems involving welding the
seams (AlLi is notoriously difficult to weld); we suspect a seam may have
split open.

We suspect that if the LOX tank had not broken open, we'd still have a
slightly dented DC-XA, despite the landing gear failure.

The graphite-epoxy LH2 tank, meanwhile, apparently survived the side
impact intact, and stayed intact until the fire had been burning ~80
seconds.  The LH2 tank then ruptured violently, sending pieces flying tens
of yards and emitting a large semi-transparent fireball that rose away
from the ship rapidly.  The remaining hydrogen in the tank burned clear
and hot for a few seconds, then the remains of the ship went back to
smoldering.

Keeping in mind that the LH2 tank both was lower in the ship thus taking
less impact, and had several times less mass of residual propellant on
board, we still suspect we've seen a useful demonstration of the relative
damage-resistance of GrEp tanks versus AlLi.

We've also seen a demonstration that the WSMR three-mile radius safety
zone is probably considerably larger than needed - two hundred yards would
likely have been more than a safe distance from any of the events we saw
on this tape.  This has implications for future operating sites, we think
- the noise radius is likely to be larger than the safety radius.

Meanwhile, we expect there's not much left of the DC-XA except rather
scorched nose and tail sections.  We have hopes the engines may be
salvageable for use in a followon, but not a great deal of optimism - we
understand an initial evaluation of them was not good.

On the other hand, DC-X and then DC-XA already paid for themselves many
times over with the data and experience gained in the dozen flights they
made.  We now know a lot of things are possible we only guessed at three
years ago. X-vehicles by their nature are ephemeral; many never survive to
make it into a museum.  Though there is a case for transporting the
remains of DC-XA to a museum, if one exists with enough vision to display
the pieces as-is as a reminder that learning new things involves risk.


                                What Next?

It probably won't surprise anyone to hear that we at SAS think that this
changes nothing except the degree of availability of parts to build an
upgraded DC-X followon.  We still think the case for a USAF/NASA
partnership building and flying a high-speed DC-X derivative over the next
couple of years is compelling: The technology complements X-33 in that it
explores numerous major alternate approaches - see SAU#67 for a detailed
list - and the project would also provide continued competition in the
reusable launch field at a bargain-basement price.

The immediate need, for you political activists out there, is to get
Congressional support for continued DOD funding for reusable rocket work.
The tactical situation is this: The Defense Authorization for FY'97
currently provides $25m for RLV work in DOD.  The FY'97 Defense
Appropriation is on hold for now; work will likely get underway again in
mid-August during the month-long Congressional recess, and the actual
Defense Appropriations Conference will happen in early September.

What this means is, we have several weeks during the August recess to
contact members of the House and Senate Defense Appropriations
subcommittees back in their home states and districts, and persuade them
to support DOD RLV funding, preferably $50M targeted for a new DC-X
followon.  Again, check SAU#67 for lists, though you might want to check
your phone book "blue pages" government section for local office numbers,
as they won't be in DC much this month.

It is also worth contacting members of the Defense Authorizing committees
(Senate Armed Services and House National Security) and selling them on
the advantages of DOD RLV work.  This is not so immediately relevant, more
a matter of building for the future - but the future always arrives sooner
than we expect.

SAU#67 can be found at www.space-access.com.  We'll be coming out with
more detailed info on how you can support reusable rocket development as
soon as we can, but meanwhile, if you're a self-starter, between this and
#67 you should have what you need.  Ask for $50m for next year to get work
started on a DC-X followon. Go for it!

__________________________________________________________________________

 Space Access Society      "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150               in the Solar System."
 Phoenix AZ 85044                               - Robert A. Heinlein
 602 431-9283 voice/fax
 www.space-access.org                     "You can't get there from here."
 [email protected]                          - Anonymous
__________________________________________________________________________

 - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this -
 - piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      -
 - reserved.  In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this    -
 - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged.  -



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA24763; Mon, 5 Aug 96 16:33:53 -0400
% Received: from margo.ots.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id QAA06009; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 16:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
% Received: (qmail-queue invoked from smtpd); 5 Aug 1996 20:17:19 -0000
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu (128.83.126.1) by margo.ots.utexas.edu with SMTP; 5 Aug 1996 20:17:00 -0000
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA31910; Mon, 5 Aug 1996 15:08:37 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 5 Aug 96 15:17:31 CST6CDT
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 5 Aug 96 15:08:26 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 69
% Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 15:08:02 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson"  6-AUG-1996 17:26:58.41
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: Clipper Graham Incident Investigation Board Convenes

----

From: [email protected] (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Clipper Graham Incident Investigation Board Convenes
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
Date: 5 Aug 1996 13:42:01 -0700
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lines: 36

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, DC                August 5, 1996
(Phone:  202/358-1779)

Dom Amatore
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL
(Phone:  205/544-0031)

RELEASE:  96-158

CLIPPER GRAHAM INCIDENT INVESTIGATION BOARD CONVENES

     A five-member board, chaired by former astronaut Vance
Brand, is convening this week at the White Sands Missile
Range, NM, to investigate last week's post-landing incident
involving the Clipper Graham (DC-XA) rocket.

     Brand presently is Assistant Chief of Flight Operations
Directorate and Chief of Shuttle and Flight Support Office at
NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA. Other
members of the board are: George Hopson, Marshall Space
Flight Center, Huntsville,  AL;  Charles E. Harris, Langley
Research Center, Hampton, VA; Lt. Col. David Sharp, USAF
Safety Center, NM;  and Warren Wiley, Kennedy Space Center, FL.

    Progess of the board's investigation will be released as
events warrant.  The board anticipates submitting a final
report in approximately two months.

     On July 31, Clipper Graham successfully flew a two- minute,
20-second flight profile -- the fourth in the current series --
but tipped over and caught fire when one of four landing gears
failed to deploy.

                         - end -




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA00567; Tue, 6 Aug 96 17:17:19 -0400
% Received: from margo.ots.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id RAA24335; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 17:07:00 -0400 (EDT)
% Received: (qmail-queue invoked from smtpd); 6 Aug 1996 21:00:23 -0000
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu (128.83.126.1) by margo.ots.utexas.edu with SMTP; 6 Aug 1996 21:00:13 -0000
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA23177; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 15:49:59 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 6 Aug 96 16:00:43 CST6CDT
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 6 Aug 96 15:49:58 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Clipper Graham Incident Investigation Board Convenes
% Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 15:49:38 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson"  9-AUG-1996 19:10:15.47
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	FWD: Clipper Graham Investigation Status Reports Available

----

From: [email protected] (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Clipper Graham Investigation Status Reports Available
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
Date: 9 Aug 1996 15:24:35 -0700
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lines: 26

David E. Steitz
Headquarters, Washington, DC                 August 8, 1996
(Phone:  202/358-1730)

INTERNET ADVISORY:  I96-7

CLIPPER GRAHAM INVESTIGATION STATUS REPORTS AVAILABLE VIA FTP

    Status reports of the Clipper Graham Investigation Board
are available over the Internet via File Transfer Protocol
(FTP) procedures from the NASA Headquarters Public Affairs
server.  A five-member board, chaired by former astronaut
Vance Brand, has been convened at the White Sands Missile
Range, NM, to investigate the post-landing incident involving
the Clipper Graham (DC-XA) rocket.  Progress of the board's
investigation will be released as events warrant, and status
reports will be posted to the Headquarters FTP site at:

                      ftp.hq.nasa.gov

in the      /pub/pao/statrpt/msfc/cgistatus/     directory

Users should log in as anonymous and use their Email address
as their password.

                          -end-



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA24599; Fri, 9 Aug 96 19:02:33 -0400
% Received: from margo.ots.utexas.edu by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id SAA25560; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 18:58:55 -0400 (EDT)
% Received: (qmail-queue invoked from smtpd); 9 Aug 1996 22:56:11 -0000
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu (128.83.126.1) by margo.ots.utexas.edu with SMTP; 9 Aug 1996 22:55:59 -0000
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by mail.utexas.edu (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA28180; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 17:52:51 -0500
% Received: from ZIMBAZI/MAIL-IN by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.21); 9 Aug 96 17:56:29 CST6CDT
% Received: from MAIL-IN by ZIMBAZI (Mercury 1.21); 9 Aug 96 17:52:31 CST6CDT
% From: [email protected] (Chris W. Johnson)
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: FWD: Clipper Graham Investigation Status Reports Available
% Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 17:52:10 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.21
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Article: 72423
From: [email protected] (hvanderbilt on BIX)
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Space Access Update #71, part 1  5/4/97
Date: 5 May 97 01:08:17 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services <http://www.delphi.com/>
 
 
                Space Access Update #71, part 1 - 5/4/97 
                 Copyright 1997 by Space Access Society 
_______________________________________________________________________ 
 
Yes, it's been six months since we put out an Update.  We've delayed for 
a variety of reasons - we didn't want to get into detail on NASA X-33's 
problems while the coming year's funding was still vulnerable, for one.  
We were not, for that matter, completely agreed among ourselves on the 
nature and severity of the problems until quite recently.  And frankly, 
we were more than a little burnt out after spending much of the last 
nine years working to bring SSTO to respectability.  The urge was strong 
to tell ourselves everything was fine, we'd succeeded, we could pass the 
torch on to a new generation and go back to tending our own gardens. 
 
Alas, it looks as if what we started is now, left alone, as likely to 
discredit the whole idea of cheap access via fast-turnaround reusable 
rockets as to prove it.  And the younger generation seems not yet 
totally cognizant of the nuances.  So we're baaa-ack!  And as long as we 
can't retire after all, we intend to have some fun. 
 
We're going to start with a two-part Update dedicated to what's been 
happening with X-33 this last year.  This part 1 begins with a summary 
of our views, then covers X-33 configuration and technical issues.  SAU 
#71 Part 2 will cover political and organizational aspects of X-33. 
_______________________________________________________________________ 
 
                               Disclaimers 
 
It's fifty years since the Cold War started, forty since Eisenhower 
warned of a "military industrial complex" threatening to become the tail 
wagging the dog, and well over thirty since NASA was founded and given 
responsibility for US civilian space exploration.  Both NASA and the US 
government-aerospace complex have grown large, powerful, and inflexible 
in the decades since.  Both have accumulated a lot of bad habits. 
 
It's not our job to reform NASA in all its widely distributed diversity.  
Nor is it our job to reform the US government-aerospace sector in 
general, nor Lockheed-Martin Corporation's particular collection of 
dubious practices.  Nor for that matter is it our job to fix any of the 
other major government aerospace contractors' various failings.  Life is 
too short. 
 
It is our job to promote radically cheaper, more reliable, widely 
available access to space, ASAP.  Period.  Any reforms we end up 
pushing, explicitly or by implication, are purely a means to that end.  
Anyone who doesn't want us pointing out places where their pursuit of 
organizational self-interest conflicts with the overall public interest 
can stop us easily: Clean up your act with regard to government reusable 
launch vehicle (RLV) R&D.  We don't care what you do elsewhere.
 
We do not claim to have a great deal of instant clout.  What we have is 
a fundamentally sound idea, good information, better advisers, and a lot 
of persistance.  The Administrator of NASA last fall accused us of 
"nipping at his heels" after we'd buttonholed him for several minutes 
about some of our concerns.  Yes, sir, and proud of it - that's what we 
do.  Occasionally, of course, we convince someone who does have clout to 
support us on one point or another...  But mostly we persist. 
_______________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
                          X-33: One Year Later 
 
The best way to describe where we are is to go back over how we got 
here.  It's all considerably clearer in hindsight...  What follows is 
our analysis of the last year or so of the ongoing NASA X-33 process, 
based on information ranging from official published statements through 
reliable sources down to plausible rumor.  We've spent a good bit of 
time working on this - we think we have a pretty accurate fit to the 
data.  Your mileage may, of course, vary. 
 
                            Summary 
 
X-33 has serious problems.  We think those problems mainly come from: 
 
 - Inclusion of too many new technologies in what should have been a 
fast-turnaround lean operations demonstrator using mostly ready-to-go 
technology.  Much of the new tech is having teething troubles. 
 
 - Possible lack of commitment to project success (as opposed to bidding 
success) by Lockheed-Martin's top-level management, with consequent 
imposition of inappropriate project organization and inattention to 
adequate project support.  There's also a certain amount of unsolicited 
inappropriate "help" (and occasional outright sabotage) from various 
other parts of NASA. 
 
We think X-33 can still end up being a useful proof-of-technology 
X-vehicle.  The NASA people involved show some signs of learning from 
their experience.  The key, in our opinion, is concentrating minds in 
Lockheed-Martin's top management on doing what it takes to significantly 
improve the odds of project success, while continuing to fend off 
extraneous "help" from elsewhere in NASA. 
 
We recommend a two-track policy toward this end.  One, NASA HQ should 
maintain axe-poised oversight on X-33 cost, schedule, and technical 
milestones.  The contractor has to be made to understand that they are 
in genuine danger of losing the project if they mess up too badly.  The 
threatened cancellation of the "Clark" science satellite for exceeding 
Dan Goldin's new 15% cost overrun limit could help in this regard. 
 
Two, there should be credible and vigorous competition for the project, 
in DOD, NASA, or (preferably) both, to ensure that contractor top 
management understands that even if they get away with failing 
protractedly, they will not buy much extra time for their existing space 
launch cash cows.  They must understand that their main option for 
remaining competitive in space launch past 2000 is to do what it takes 
to make X-33 succeed. 
 
Lest anyone take this as mindless attack rather than constructive 
criticism, we do support continued funding for X-33, pending the results 
of this spring's scheduled Critical Design Reviews, the final step 
before freezing the design and committing to construction.  (We have 
however just heard that the CDR's have been postponed to allow more work 
on reducing the current X-33 design's 35% over-weight problem.  We await 
the eventual CDR schedule and results with considerable interest.) 
 
_______________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
              X-33 Technical Description And Current Status 
 
Last year we described Lockheed-Martin's winning X-33 design as the most 
"elegant" one submitted, the one that packs the most sophisticated 
components into the smallest most closely integrated package.  This 
sounds wonderful  - until you have to either compensate for components 
not turning out quite as well as you'd hoped (closely integrated means 
lots of interaction between the pieces; lots of other components are 
affected) or, once it's assembled, until you have to go back in to fix 
something.  Small closely integrated packages are a royal pain in the 
butt to service. 
 
But NASA's Old Boy Net, bless their ivory-tower souls, think maximum new 
technology and "elegant" complexity are just peachy.  (Increased 
operating complexity?  No problem, we'll just pile on more guys with 
clipboards and checklists.  They're on the payroll already anyway...) 
And NASA's Old Boy Net has, we've discovered repeatedly over the last 
year, a lock on the NASA source selection process.  (More on that some 
other time - suffice it to say for now that NASA needs to take a serious 
look at how they might find truly impartial people to serve on selection 
boards.)  (The White House, by the way, also had a hand in skewing the 
selection criteria toward excessive new tech, as part of the deal they 
made to allow project go-ahead - but it's unclear how much of those 
provisions originated there, and how much was whispered in their ear by 
the Old Boy Net.) 
 
But, we do have to admit, L-M's "VentureStar" X-33 design is indeed 
downright elegant.  More important from our point of view, the various 
advanced technologies that have to come together to make VentureStar 
work - the aerospike engines, the multilobe composite tanks, the 
metallic thermal protection - all can be useful to other SSTO 
configurations, if as we suspect VentureStar turns out (even at best) 
less operationally flexible than optimum for a competitive general-
purpose commercial space cargo ship. 
 
Enough cavilling.  On to the design of this X-33 single-stage reusable 
space rocket demonstration vehicle. 
 
 - Aerodynamics 
 
L-M's X-33 is a "lifting body", a blunt triangular wedge-shaped wingless 
vehicle that, when it is in horizontal aerodynamic flight, gets its lift 
largely from the airflow around the fuselage.  X-33 is designed to 
takeoff vertically and fly into space under rocket power, then re-enter 
the atmosphere as a relatively high performance (high lift-to-drag ratio 
and thus high maneuverability, high "crossrange") hypersonic glider.  
Once slowed to subsonic speeds, it is designed to still have good enough 
glide characteristics to make an unpowered runway landing with 
reasonable reliability and safety. 
 
This combination of good hypersonic re-entry and subsonic glide 
performance is one of the keys to making this X-33 design work - L-M 
claims to have a proprietary aerodynamic shape that will provide both.  
This is one of the first places we come to where X-33 is running into 
problems.  L-M may well end up meeting their aerodynamic performance 
claims - but it seems likely from the significant vehicle shape changes 
we've seen that L-M didn't know as much as they claimed back when they 
were bidding.  The small tip fins of earlier iterations have grown to 
small wings, and the overall vehicle shape has changed markedly.  More 
on this when we talk about the internal structures. 
 
 - Engines 
 
This X-33 is powered by a pair of Rocketdyne "linear aerospike" rocket 
engines, burning liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid hydrogen (LH2).  
"Aerospike" is an unconventional type of rocket engine that gets thrust 
by expanding gases against the surrounding air (if any) and the outside 
of the engine, rather than against the inside as with conventional bell-
nozzle rockets.  A "linear aerospike" is one where the combustion 
chambers are arranged in two straight rows, one along each side of the 
wide base of a truncated-wedge aft-facing expansion surface, rather than 
in a circle around the base of a truncated-cone expansion surface (an 
"annular aerospike".) 
 
L-M chose linear aerospike engines primarily because they integrate well 
into the lifting-body vehicle shape chosen - they blend into the tail 
better and don't extend as far aft as bell-nozzle engines, reducing the 
center-of-gravity problem this sort of vehicle has from engine weight in 
the tail.  The secondary reason was that aerospike engines provide good 
performance from sea-level to vacuum without either going to very high 
operating pressures (SSME's work at ~3000 psi, the X-33 aerospikes at 
around a third of that - high-pressure pumps tend to be heavy, fragile, 
or both) or mechanically changing the expansion nozzle geometry with 
altitude. 
 
Aerospike engines have never flown, but they have been built and run on 
ground test stands, the best-known occasion being in the early seventies 
when Rocketdyne did considerable work on linear aerospike as a potential 
Shuttle engine.  After that fell through, the project was shelved until 
L-M settled on the concept for their X-33 bid. 
 
The X-33 engines are direct descendants of those 70's test-stand 
engines, with new combustion chamber feeds but otherwise little changed.  
(We hear Rocketdyne has had to track down and hire some of retirees from 
that project for their lost expertise.)  The propellant pumps are still 
taken from the old Saturn 5 J-2 upper stage engine.  Unlike the test 
stand versions, the plan is that X-33's engines will each produce about 
the same thrust as the J-2 bell-nozzle engine their pumps came from, 
something over 200,000 lbs thrust per engine.  As best we can tell, the 
70's tests used only part of the J-2 pumps' capacity. 
 
X-33's main method of steering in powered flight will be "thrust 
vectoring" via differential throttling of the engines - no mechanical 
gimballing.  The main engine combustors are arranged in four rows or 
banks - looked at from the rear of the vehicle as it sits horizontally 
on a runway, the (horizontal) banks are top left, bottom left (left 
engine), top right, bottom right (right engine.) X-33 won't really have 
two completely separate engines; there will be side-to-side propellant 
cross-connects, both for side-to-side steering and so one set of pumps 
can feed both sets of combustors and keep the ship flying if the other 
pumpset fails.  X-33 would be able to handle an engine-out at up to 90% 
propellant load, assuming the original planned vehicle weight and engine 
thrust values and a 20% power reserve on the pumps. 
 
X-33 thrust vectoring will be via diverter valves on each side between 
top and bottom banks, plus diverter valves between the two sides.  This 
speeds response time and saves thrust-losses over throttling the pumps.  
 
We have heard Rocketdyne is having a hard time getting sufficient 
predicted thrust out of the X-33 engine design so far - we might hazard 
a guess this is related to the propellant plumbing in this application 
being far more complex than in the J-2 engine the pumps came from.  
There was a news item recently that Rocketdyne wants to eliminate the 
crossfeed ducting between the engines (and thus the engine-out 
capability) but that NASA won't let them - this could be related. 
 
L-M is also committed as part of their X-33 bid to have Rocketdyne 
produce and run a test-stand demo version of the 400,000 lb thrust 
super-lightweight linear aerospike engine for their proposed Venture 
Star commercial SSTO cargo transport.  
 
(Policy note: In large part, Lockheed-Martin won X-33 because their bid 
included enough money to develop and demonstrate these new engines.  
These engines are a major reason we still support X-33; they're 
applicable to a range of other potential vehicle configurations.  We'd 
be very unhappy indeed to see either aerospike engine dropped from the 
project after they were major factors in L-M's winning the bid.) 
 
 - Propellant Tanks
 
X-33's propellant tanks are another significant new technology required 
to make the package work, and in this case we're pleased to report that 
from what we know, the tanks are coming along well. 
 
Some background...  Generally, the largest single load rocket propellant 
tanks have to deal with is internal pressure.  Even pump-fed rocket 
engines tend to need several tens of pounds of inlet pressure, and the 
propellant tanks have to handle that pressure over huge surface areas.
 
You can keep a pressure tank extremely lightweight, as long as you have 
thin high tensile strength tank wall materials, and as long as you then 
don't fight a thin-walled tank's natural tendency to assume a round 
shape under internal pressure.  Build your tank square and you'll need 
massive braces to keep it from inflating into a circle anyway when you 
pressurize it...  So most rocket propellant tanks are "figures of 
rotation", shapes that are always circular in cross-section, with some 
mix of straight, conic, and spherical sections viewed from the side. 
 
The problem with this is that it limits what shape you can make your 
rocket and still keep the tanks light.  For a circular cross-section 
rocket, no problem.  For a squashed-wedge lifting body, well...  The 
solution is something called a "multi-lobed" tank.  
 
A simple multi-lobed tank might be built up from two identical 
cylindrical tanks.  Slice one-third off each tank lengthwise, then 
attach the pair of sliced tanks together side-to-side, butting together 
the openings where you took off the slices.  You'll have one tank with 
two lobes, with a cross-section like a sideways "8". 
 
Put pressure in this tank, and it'll try to expand into an "O" - you 
have to add some sort of tension structure between the halves to hold 
the sides of the "8" together.  Now you have a stable two-lobe tank.  A 
lightweight stable two-lobe tank?  Only if you can figure out how to 
build it without a heavy flange where the two halves and the tension tie 
join.  These are non-trivial manufacturing problems; multi-lobed (two 
lobes is just the simplest case) propellant tanks have stayed on the 
wish-list till now.  But they would be hugely useful in rocket lifting 
bodies and other non-circular vehicles... 
 
L-M has apparently solved the manufacturing problems.  X-33 will have a 
pair of 4-lobed graphite-epoxy liquid hydrogen tanks (the LOX tank will 
be old-fashioned aluminum for now).  The plan is to build the tanks in 
four sections, "fiber-placed" by machine on forms, with a border of 
"green" (unepoxied) fiber left on the mating edges.  The edges of the 
sections will be "woven-Y" joined along with a centerline tension-tie 
truss, then epoxy-impregnated, then the entire tank will be place in a 
large autoclave (at least 15'x25'x40', our estimate of the tank 
dimensions) that Skunk Works just happens to have lying around, and the 
entire tank will be cured into one piece with no heavy flanges. 
 
As of last winter, the techniques had been tested on small sections and 
there seemed to be no show-stoppers.  Cryogenic insulation and 
stiffeners (where required) will be on the outside of the tanks.  
 
 - Structure 
 
Much of the elegance of L-M's X-33 design lies in the fact that it has 
very little structure per se.  Of the four main structural elements, 
three are propellant tanks.  The liquid oxygen (LOX) tank forms the 
ship's nose, the two liquid hydrogen (LH2) tanks are connected to the 
LOX tank to form the ship's two sides (with the payload bay in the space 
between them), and the aft ends of the LH2 tanks are connected to a 
cross-truss that also serves to mount the engines and various 
aerosurfaces. 
 
X-33 has no solid outer hull as such - just a relatively light 
assemblage of latticework and standoffs that carry the metallic thermal 
protection shingles that define the ship's aerodynamic shape. 
 
X-33 has been having serious weight-growth problems, however, and some 
of them relate to the structure.  One problem is that thermal loads are 
turning out to be higher than anticipated, and the TPS shingle attach 
structures are getting heavier.  Another seems to be that the 
aerodynamic shape has changed since the tank shapes were fixed, so 
considerably more standoff structure is required to make up the 
difference.  And another is that the center-of-gravity ended up too far 
aft - engine weight growth? aerodynamic changes? weight of the larger 
aerosurfaces? - and (in the current design iteration at least) has to be 
compensated for by several thousand pounds of lead ballast in the nose. 
 
 - Thermal Protection 
 
X-33 TPS is supposed to be advanced lightweight metallic "shingles" on a 
lightweight composite standoff structure.  The shingles are supposed to 
be a thin metallic outer layer, over a honeycomb core for stiffness, 
with a bottom layer of ceramic insulation to reduce heat transmission to 
the interior of the ship.
 
We understand there are problems with the TPS so far - details are 
sketchy.  We mentioned heat loads to the standoff structure being higher 
than anticipated previously.  We've also been told that inconel is being 
substituted for titanium aluminide for the shingle outer skins for cost 
reasons - this would account for some weight gain, as inconel is not 
light.  We would guess that inconel foil outer skins would also have 
some durability problems, denting easily under raindrop impacts and 
such.  We assume that inconel will be just a placeholder for X-33 and 
that any commercial followon would require the lighter stiffer TiAl - 
which we expect this X-33 program will still develop and test. 
 
 - Flight Control Software 
 
X-33 flight control software has some difficult challenges to meet.  In 
particular, on the ship's first flight the software will have to deal 
with keeping the ship stably on course through flight regimes where the 
engine efficiency and thrust-vectoring responsiveness won't be known 
precisely in advance.  Part of the answer to this will be to increase 
use of the ship's aerosurfaces for steering while under power in the 
atmosphere.  Part of the answer, we suspect, will be a lot of muttered 
prayers and crossed fingers for the first few minutes of flight #1... 
 
We are told that X-33 flight control software algorithms are being 
designed at NASA Marshall, that Allied Signal Corp is then coding them 
in C++ offsite, and that the code will then be tested at an Integrated 
Test Facility (an "iron bird" ground test rig) at Edwards AFB.  This 
strikes us as a likely formula for Software Project Manager ulcers, late 
code, Ariane 5 style fly-sideways code, or all of the above.  Software 
may yet end up as the long pole in the X-33 tent.  We'll see. 
 
 - Flight Test Ops 
 
The X-33 Cooperative Agreement calls for 15 flights starting in early 
1999, culminating in several flights that will reach Mach 15 (about 60% 
of orbital speed) by late 1999.  The agreement also calls for two two-
day turnaround demos plus several more seven-day turnarounds. 
 
X-33 flights will launch from a site west of the Edwards dry lake bed, 
near the USAF Phillips Labs rocket test area.  The X-33 will be returned 
after flights on the back of a NASA 747 "Shuttle Carrier Aircraft". 
 
The first two flights will cover ~100 miles, to Silurian Dry Lake Bed, 
reaching max speeds near Mach 4 and max altitudes near 116,000 feet.  
X-33's VTHL (vertical takeoff, horizontal landing) configuration makes 
any less drastic first flight very difficult - the vehicle needs 
considerable altitude and airspeed to safely make the transition to 
horizontal flight so it can land.  Less risky incremental "bunny-hop" 
hover tests are right out. 
 
The next series of flights, ten max, will be to Michael Army Airfield at 
Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah, and will range from Mach 9-12 at up to 
164,000 feet.  The final series of up to three flights will be to 
Malmstrom AFB in Montana, covering ~1000 miles, reaching ~250,000 feet, 
at speeds of up to Mach 15 - if they manage to trim enough weight from 
the vehicle to make that performance.  The current design iteration is 
projected to max out at Mach 13 or so. 
 
 - Summing Up, part 1 
 
The preceding isn't an attack on the competence of the working engineers 
actually trying to build and fly X-33.  More on the engineer-management 
divide in part 2...  As best we can tell, these problems are a mix of 
perfectly normal solvable teething troubles, plus the contractor top 
management's skewing the bid toward new technology for its own sake to 
win the bid, in turn a result of both the new-technology requirements 
the White House imposed before giving the go-ahead, and of NASA's new- 
technology uber-alles reflexes.  There's also the contractor top 
management's possible lack of commitment to ensuring X-33 succeeds now 
that they've won the contract - more on that in part 2 also. 
 
Meanwhile, we find it more than a little ironic that, while X-33 still 
has a good chance of being a useful X-vehicle technology pathfinder, it 
is turning out to be a very poor "Y-vehicle" prototype for Lockheed-
Martin's proposed Venturestar Shuttle replacement.  X-33's problems 
point out graphically how much trouble Lockheed would have been in if 
they'd gotten what they were pushing for two years ago, government 
market guarantees for their going straight to developing Venturestar 
with no intermediate step.  And yes, we told you so at the time, guys. 
 
           ** continued in Space Access Update #71, part 2 ** 
 
 
-----------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)------------------------
 
Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news 
publication. Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access 
to space for all, period.  We believe in concentrating our resources at 
whatever point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.  
 
Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the 
government to build and fly multiple quick-and-dirty high-speed reusable 
"X-rocket" demonstrators in the next three years, in order to quickly 
build up both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To 
Orbit (SSTO) technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical 
uncertainty (and thus development risk and cost) while at the same time 
increasing investor confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense 
as a private commercial investment.  We're not far from that point. 
 
With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds 
flying into space before the end of this decade, with practical 
radically cheaper orbital transports following soon after. 
 
Space Access Society won't accept donations from government launch 
developers or contractors - it would limit our freedom to do what's 
needed.  We survive on member dues and contributions, plus what we make 
selling tapes and running our annual conference.  
 
Join us, and help us make it happen.  
 
            Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society 
 
 
To join Space Access Society or buy the SSTO/DC-X V 3.1 video we have 
for sale (Two hours, includes all twelve DC-X/XA flights, X-33 bidder 
animations, X-33, DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, aerospike engine test-
stand footage, plus White Sands Missile Range DC-X ops site footage) 
mail a check to:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  SAS 
membership with direct email of Space Access Updates is $30 US per year; 
the SSTO V 3.0 video is $25, $5 off for SAS members, $8 extra for 
shipping outside North America, US standard VHS NTSC only.  
__________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 Space Access Society      "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere 
 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150               in the Solar System." 
 Phoenix AZ 85044                               - Robert A. Heinlein 
 602 431-9283 voice/fax 
 www.space-access.org                     "You can't get there from here." 
 [email protected]                          - Anonymous 
 
 - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this -
 - piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      -
 - reserved.  In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this    - 
 - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged.  -
 

From:	NVNT21::"[email protected]" "Chris W. Johnson"  7-MAY-1997 17:41:48.54
To:	"Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	SSRT: Space Access Update no. 71, part 2



Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 23:16:55 -0700 (MST)
From: Donald Doughty <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Space Access Update #71, part 2 5/6/97 (fwd)
Reply-To: [email protected]



>Subject: Space Access Update #71, part 2 5/6/97

                Space Access Update #71, part 2 - 5/6/97
                 Copyright 1997 by Space Access Society
_______________________________________________________________________

Yes, it's been six months since we put out one of these.  This is part 2
of an Update dedicated to what's been happening with X-33 this last
year.  Look for SAU #72 with broader coverage, RSN - because there are a
whole lot of things happening besides X-33.
_______________________________________________________________________


                     X-33 Organization and Politics

NASA has problems.  As far as they're concerned, X-33 is far from the
largest of these - between Station and Shuttle, they have bigger fish to
fry, with troubles far more obvious and a whole lot more funding at
stake.  We take a somewhat different view, but then we would - we think
cheap reliable transport is fundamental.  Station in particular we see
as massively transportation-constrained...

X-33 we see as in real danger of failing - failing first flight, or
turning into a "NASP II" technology playpen and never flying at all - in
part because it was poorly-conceived (too many new bleeding-edge
technologies included, too many Shuttle-replacement expectations tacked
on, more a premature operational prototype "Y" vehicle than an
experimental "X" ship) and in part because as best we can tell, the
contractor top management has no urgent incentive to ensure that X-33
succeeds.  Make no mistake, we'd like to see X-33 succeed.  But if it
does fail, we don't want to be hearing any nonsense about the failure
proving SSTO can't work.

Meanwhile, reforming NASA is not our job - our sole purpose is promoting
affordable reliable access to space for all, ASAP, by whatever means
will still let us sleep at night.  But NASA's institutional problems do
have a lot to do with what we see gone wrong with X-33.  So, for that
matter, do the institutional tendencies of the US aerospace industry in
general and of Lockheed-Martin Corporation in particular.

So we'll talk about these for a bit.


                  Background: NASA and the Contractors

Organizations are like people, in that they have histories, tendencies,
habits, quirks - reasons for doing the things they do.

NASA is a functionally and geographically diverse collection of "mature"
government bureaucracies, warring with each other over turf and budget,
reluctantly travelling in loose formation and paying attention to NASA
HQ in Washington whenever they absolutely have to.  (With the notable
exception of Johnson Space Center (JSC), NASA's 800-pound manned-space
gorilla, most of them have ended up paying considerably more attention
to HQ since Dan Goldin took over.)

Lockheed-Martin is a major government aerospace contractor, one of the
final survivors of forty years of Cold War followed by eight years of
"defense consolidation", operating in a current business climate where
the stockmarket instantly punishes the slightest lapse of attention to
next quarter's bottom line.

Both organizations are pretty well set in their ways by now.  Both do
have a lot of good people doing the best jobs they can.  Both also have
some very predictable collective tendencies, tendencies that make sense
in terms of institutional self-preservation but that, uh, aren't always
in the best interests of the US taxpayers who foot the bills.

 - The Greying of NASA

Aging bureaucracies are marked by a tendency to divert ever more of
their resources into organizational structure and ever more of their
efforts into defending their bureaucratic turf, to the detriment of
whatever the nominal mission is supposed to be - in NASA's case,
advanced space and aeronautical R&D, plus advanced space exploration.

The limiting case for bureaucratic "maturity" is when output drops to
the point where the bureaucracy is in danger of losing its funding.  In
NASA's defense, they're far from the worst mature federal bureaucracy in
the US - the nature of NASA's missions are such that they attract a lot
of talented people who get useful work done despite all the obstacles,
and NASA's job is too high-profile for them to ever get away with zero
(or even negative) output.  Unlike some... But nevertheless, there's a
lot of friction to overcome anytime something needs doing in NASA.  Much
of the agency, alas, is mainly concerned with making sure the paperwork
proves nothing was anyone's fault, while marking time till retirement
rolls around - totally averse to allowing anything risky (like flying
real X-vehicles) anywhere nearby.

 - Turf Defense

Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) work at NASA treads on all sorts of
existing bureaucratic turf - Marshall and Stennis on engines, Michoud on
tankage, Langley on vehicle configuration and aerodynamics... Most of
these overlaps have been resolved, generally by farming out part of X-33
to the affected center - this has had its effect on the shape of the
program, in general spreading it thinner and increasing costs.  Shrug.
This was likely inevitable once SSTO was assigned to NASA.

The main conflict that hasn't been (and likely won't be) resolved is
X-33's overlap with NASA's 800-pound manned-space gorilla's toes.

Johnson Space Center in Houston is the center for manned space in NASA.
Between Shuttle and Station, JSC at this point controls around a third
of NASA's total budget.  X-33 the way we originally envisioned it, as
a harbinger of radically cheaper more frequent more widely available
spaceflight, endangers JSC's entire way of life, built as it is around
scarce, expensive, exclusive space access.  The JSC manned-space mafia
(by far the most powerful faction within NASA's Old Boy net) has reacted
predictably, with a two-pronged effort to either capture X-33 and fit it
into their existing structure, or to render it ineffectual.

NASA HQ thus far has resisted outright JSC capture of X-33 - it
continues to be run out of HQ and NASA Marshall, with JSC involved only
in an advisory capacity.  In particular, JSC's "man-rating" bureaucracy
has been kept away from X-33, lest they triple the time and increase
costs ten-fold - "man-rating" is the 1960-vintage process of ex post
facto inspecting in quality to bring inherently 90% reliable artillery
rockets up to 99% reliability so astronauts can ride them.  A major
point of X-33 is to bring inherent, by-design reliability up to several
nines beyond 99%, rendering the whole "man-rating" process obsolete.

The manned-space Mafia has had its effect, though, notably in the
insertion of Shuttle-replacement prototype requirements into the X-33
CAN, trying to force-fit X-33 into their world.  They're largely
responsible too for the erroneous public impression that X-33 will lead
directly to a Shuttle II, via repeated statements to that effect in the
media, despite Administrator Goldin's repeated assurances to the
contrary.

There have also been a number of instances of what look like outright
sabotage attempts against X-33 - statements to the media that flying
X-33 over land is far too risky and the program should be converted to a
series of ground technology demonstrations, press releases faxed (with a
JSC fax number still listed on top, tsk tsk) to towns where X-33
environmental impact hearings were due, telling those towns X-33 would
surely rain flaming death down on them...  Naughty naughty, boys.

 - On to the Contractors

US government aerospace contractors, meanwhile, have spent fifty years
getting far too used to catering to a single customer with finicky
tastes and bottomless pockets.  Guessing what this customer really
wants, promising it in spades regardless of actual current capabilities,
then spending whatever it takes in money time and talent to deliver
something more or less resembling what was promised - this has been a
way of life for generations of executives and engineers.  The corporate
culture that has resulted is not well attuned to anything resembling an
open commercial market.  (It's not at all clear that any of the current
major aerospace outfits will end up being major players in the 21st
century spaceliner market.  How many buggy manufacturers survived the
jump to automobiles?)

We'll digress for a moment to express our opinion of "defense
consolidation".  The US government, post-Cold War, has been pursuing the
appallingly stupid policy of not only waiving antitrust, but actually
twisting arms and paying cash to the former half-dozen or so major
aerospace contractors, to encourage them to merge into two mega-
contractors, on the dubious theory that this would encourage efficiency
and save the government money.

The practical result is that the US will very shortly be reduced to a
grand total of two design bureaus capable of dealing with large complex
aerospace systems.  This is more massively monopolistically inefficient
than the Soviets at their worst, and we're already reaping the harvest,
with one of the soon-to-be-two remaining majors declining to bid on a
multi-billion dollar NASA space operations contract.  Rotsa ruck driving
a hard bargain with the other one, guys.

Where were we...  Right.  Meanwhile, Lockheed-Martin is, like most such
organizations, sharply stratified into two layers - more than a little
schizophrenic.  At the top is the political-management level, VP's and
up, of necessity obsessively concerned with "stockholder value", in turn
closely linked to the coming quarter's profits.  The carrot is the
market value of their stock-options; the stick is that the big
institutional stockholders, the huge pension and mutual fund managers,
will turf their butts out if they don't deliver strong stock prices.

The legendary Norm Augustine said a couple years back that if (then)
Martin-Marietta could get a better return for investing in gravel pits
than in space-launch vehicles (Martin had a construction materials
subsidiary) he'd damn well invest in gravel pits.  People at this level
have no choice but to be "stockholder value" nuts - that's just the way
it is in US business these days.  Rocket nuts need not apply.

The other, far larger, corporate level is the grunts, the troops, the
hire-and-fire interchangeable cannon-fodder - the people who spend a lot
of their lives doing viewgraph design studies for, say, rockets, who
eventually, if they're very good and very lucky, get funding, get some
semblance of a chance to actually build and fly something.

Grunts, of course, have to work with whatever resources the political-
management types will give them plus whatever they can scrounge - grunts
who assume that management will as a matter of course back them with
whatever they need tend to aquire ulcers and permanent puzzled
expressions.  Management has its own priorities, up to and including
assigning grunts to projects that management in its heart does not give
a damn about the success or failure of.  Grunts have even been known to
be fired for succeeding at projects management wanted to fail...  But a
true grunt says, screw management, flying rockets is what really counts,
and runs for daylight if ever he is fortunate enough to glimpse it.


                            The X-33 CAN

We bitched about various things as NASA went though drafts of its
proposed X-33 "Cooperative Agreement Notice".  Some they acknowledged,
some they didn't.  In 20-20 hindsight, the most important points we made
were these:  Throwing in all the Shuttle II prototype requirements would
drive up costs and risks; it was too soon for a prototype - what was
needed was an X-vehicle.  Insisting bidders cough up a share of the
expenses for what was nominally an X-vehicle would inevitably drive them
to figure out how to earn a near-term return from the project, given the
profits-now orientation of today's corporate culture.

And earning a near-term return is largely incompatible with the basic
concept of an X-vehicle.  The point of an X-vehicle project is to gather
data as quickly and cheaply as possible on what happens when a given set
of technologies are pushed to new limits.  X-vehicles should have no
mission but expanding the envelope and no payload but pilots and
instruments.  X-vehicles are essentially disposable; you build three
because you expect to break one or two as you fly them and learn from
them.  AFTER you've built and flown an X-vehicle, THEN you know how to
build and fly a prototype of something that will make money.

But that takes too long for the market to wait for, typically three
years for the X-vehicle and another three to five for the operational
"Y-vehicle" prototype to follow.  That's why we think the government has
a legitimate role building X-vehicles - they're an investment that
benefits the whole country, but the payoff takes too long for commercial
financing in this impatient age.  After X-vehicles have shown the way,
then the commercial sector knows what it takes to build commercial
ships.

(And in case you're still wondering, no, X-33 is not a genuine X
vehicle.  It's a bastardized X-Y hybrid with a lot of marginally related
ground technology projects grafted on.  We hope a useful X-vehicle plus
some useful new technology developments can still be salvaged.)

NASA needs to keep this X-Y distinction carefully in mind in the future,
in order among other reasons to avoid competing with private commercial
efforts.  A good rule of thumb: If it can be flying missions and making
money in three years, it probably isn't "X" and NASA probably shouldn't
be doing it.

 - X-33 Proprietary Rights: Results for One

Meanwhile, NASA seems to have handed Lockheed-Martin far more in the way
of X-33 proprietary rights than they should have, given that X-projects
are supposed to benefit US industry in general and that we taxpayers are
covering 80% of the tab.  We hear conflicting reports on this, but the
ones we trust most say that Lockheed-Martin has exclusive rights to much
of the X-33 technology for several years after project completion.  It's
hard to say for sure though, since out of seventy or so pages in the
actual signed X-33 cooperative agreement, NASA has only released about
twenty.  The rest is allegedly "proprietary" and hasn't been released.
Including the progress payment and tech milestones schedule... (FOIA,
anyone?)

This makes it rather difficult for Congress to oversee the project, for
one thing.  For another, it seems likely that even if L-M succeeds with
X-33, they could sit on the data until the government offers them a
really favorable deal to build a followon.

 - The Contractor Contribution CAN-Can

As we alluded to above, there was a provision of the X-33 CAN
(Cooperative Agreement Notice, the document outlining competition
requirements) that in hindsight is a classic example of The Law Of
Unintended Consequences.  We groused at the time about a major part of
the competition being how deep each bidder would dig into their own
pocket to build X-33 - we assumed that in the current US stockholder-
value-uber-alles business climate, this would drive bidders to figure
out how to show a near-term return on their X-33 investment, lest their
boards fire them for incompetence.

We lacked imagination - we assumed the bidders would do this by grafting
a payload bay onto X-33 and use it, post-test, for popup launch of upper
stage plus smallsat payloads.  We worried that superimposing this
operational requirement would complicate the program, increasing cost
and time.  And in fact all three X-33 bids did have some level of
provision for a small payload bay...

 - Investing In The Future or Protecting The Present?

What we overlooked was that X-33 was both a medium-term threat to
existing corporate space-launch cashflows via its notional commercial
followon, and also a big enough project that it was very likely to (and
in fact did) soak up almost all available government RLV research money
for an indefinite period.  (We also assumed that the X-33 technology
would be made available to US industry in general.  The degree of
proprietary rights L-M seems to have negotiated for their 20% of the
cost astonishes us.)

In other words, a clever bidder CEO could show his board a relatively
near-term payoff from investing in X-33 even if it never flew a
commercial payload, indeed even if that X-33 crashed on the first flight
and never led to a commercial RLV followon.  The near-term payoff for
winning X-33?  Protecting the winner's existing space-launch business
against any low-cost RLV competition for a decade or more, by preventing
any competitor taking X-33 and leveraging it into an eventual successful
commercial RLV.

The X-33 bidder contributions proposed were in fact roughly proportional
to each bidder's existing annual space-launch cashflow.  Lockheed-Martin
has half of the United Space Alliance Shuttle consortium, plus Titan 4,
Commercial Atlas, LMLV, their Russian Proton marketing partnership -
something over three billion dollars of annual cashflow.  Lockheed-
Martin put up about $250 million toward X-33.  Rockwell had the other
half of Shuttle plus Rocketdyne's expendable engine business, something
over one billion a year, about a third of Lockheed-Martin's launch
cashflow, and we understand that Rockwell bid a bit over one-third what
Lockheed-Martin did as their proposed share of X-33.

 - Mac-Dac Folds

McDonnell-Douglas meanwhile had about 3/4 billion a year cashflow from
their Delta II operation, but put up essentially nothing in their X-33
bid.  This looked like overconfidence at the time - they did have the
best proposal technically, operationally, and in terms of development
team experience - but in hindsight it was probably another symptom of
Mac-Dac top management's since-apparent fixation on cashing out their
company ASAP at the highest possible price. This also explains our (and
others) ongoing frustration with Mac-Dac top management: It was clear to
us that with DC-X/Delta Clipper they had the inside track on becoming
the Boeing of next decade's commercial spaceliner business - but they
repeatedly ignored opportunities to strengthen their position, and
ultimately blew themselves out of the race.  Apparently they simply
didn't care about the company's long term future.

 - And the Winner Is...

Anyway, one of the things this extra available money let Lockheed-Martin
do was include significantly more new technology work in their bid than
their competitors, notably including flightworthy aerospike engines for
their X-33, plus a promise of ground tests of a boilerplate version of
the larger engine for their proposed Venture Star commercial RLV.  NASA
loves new advanced technology development, and they're inclined to see
more as better even in a project that doesn't really call for it.  We'd
thought X-33 was supposed to be a reusable rocket fast-turnaround
operations demonstrator, not a new technology driver...  Oh well.  At
least we're supposed to get useful new engines out of this.

Other factors contributed to Lockheed-Martin's win - they played the
NASA selection process like a violin, with a bid carefully tailored to
match NASA's Shuttle-shaped vision of the notional future X-33 derived
RLV, with CAN details fortuitously changing to better match their bid,
with a corporate head of RLV who just happened to be the former Shuttle
mission commander of NASA's RLV boss.  Lockheed-Martin won 67% of the
government projects they bid on in 1996, and we're told over 80% by
contract value. They're *good* at the bidding game.  Maybe not so good
at delivering the goods on cost and on time afterwards - F-22, THAAD,
LMLV.... but they do win bids.

But the largest single factor in their winning X-33, in our estimate,
was that they could justify to their directors bringing more money to
the table in order to protect their existing space-launch cashflow -
purely an unintended consequence of X-33's bidder-contribution
requirement and its sole-major-RLV-project monopoly status.

Live and learn - and we hope NASA does learn.  "Future X" should be set
up so there's never just one project eating most of the funding.  Or if
that's completely unavoidable, at least set up the bidding so track
record and technical preparation count for more than ready cash.

 - ...Lockheed-Martin, By A Split Decision

Meanwhile, last July, Lockheed-Martin had just been announced as the
surprise winner of X-33.  The surprise winner, for a couple of reasons:
One, Lockheed-Martin's configuration was probably the least suitable of
the three for future fast-turnaround flexible-basing commercial
operations, what we'd thought X-33 was supposed to demonstrate.
Rockwell demonstrated considerably more effort toward minimizing the
ground establishment required for their (much simpler) VTHL vehicle,
while Mac-Dac led the field, having concentrated on these qualities from
the start.

L-M's however was best suited of the three to drop into the current
Shuttle operation with minimal layoffs, in our cynical opinion.  It was
heavily sold that way; the promo graphics always showed it docking with
Station, for instance - but then if NASA allowed that to affect their
selection process, it's NASA's fault, not Lockheed-Martin's.  (We
strongly recommend NASA take a serious look at recruiting source
selection board members from outside the NASA-Academia Old Boy Net.)

 - Not Ready For Prime Time

Two, Lockheed-Martin was as best we can tell the least prepared of the
three bidders to go ahead and actually build an X-33.  You'll recall
that by our analysis Lockheed-Martin's main reason to put significant
funds into X-33 was to protect their existing launch business - we have
strong indications Dan Tellep and Norm Augustine were actually thinking
along those lines, by the way - and thus could reach a major (if not the
major) goal just by winning the bid then sitting on it.

If true, this just might adversely affect the quantity, quality, and
timeliness of corporate resources available to the actual X-33 team
within Lockheed-Martin - the company has plenty of other projects, most
where they're not already locked into a win-win setup and many where
they can make actual profits.  Why give X-33 one bit more access to
finite corporate resources than required to keep NASA from firing
Lockheed-Martin and starting over fresh?

Numerous indications we've gotten since the X-33 downselect support this
hypothesis.  Both before and after the downselect, Lockheed-Martin seems
to have been allocating the bare minimum resources necessary to win and
then to keep the project.

One example: The LASRE SR-71 borne 1/10th scale transonic-airflow
aerospike-rocket efficiency tests.  This project was touted as part of
L-M's bid, as providing essential performance data for aerospike engines
operating at low supersonic airspeeds, data not currently known to any
great precision.  LASRE was originally supposed to fly before the
downselect.  Last fall, NASA informed Lockheed-Martin that A: NASA still
expected LASRE results, but B: not one more cent of NASA money was going
into it.  A year late now, LASRE is still ticking over, still not due to
fly till months from now - if ever.

As best we can tell what happened to LASRE, L-M assigned people to it
who had to learn on the job how to build a complex rocket combustor test
rig reliable enough to bolt onto the back of an irreplaceable Mach 3
aircraft, and apparently has since put the minimum necessary resources
into LASRE to avoid the embarrassment of formally shutting it down.
Mind, there's nothing wrong with on-the-job training for engineers - but
it shouldn't be misrepresented as a tight-schedule sure thing.

Another example is flight control software.  McDonnell-Douglas as we
understand it had 80% of their X-33 software already running, with a
proven fast and reliable development setup already in place, using a
high-level language the flight control engineers could work with
directly - a result of their DC-X experience.  Rockwell showed us what
they described as a prototype of their flight control software hooked
into a mission simulator at their X-33 bid open house last spring.

Lockheed-Martin seems to have started hiring on programmers after
winning the bid last July...  We heard stories of programmers looking to
bail back out of the project shortly thereafter, for what it's worth -
we have no confirmation on that story.  But it is true that top
programmers these days can afford to be picky about what projects they
stay involved in.

More serious (if true) are the recent rumors coming out of L-M that the
flight control software could be a year or more late.  Again, we don't
have hard confirmation of this - but it fits with what we know about
software development in general and Lockheed-Martin's X-33 flight
control software setup in particular.

 - Dat Organization, Dis Organization

We pointed out last year that Lockheed-Martin was touting their X-33 bid
as a "Skunk Works" project, but had meanwhile spread the project out all
over the map, to gain support for the bid within the newly-merged
Lockheed and Martin corporations, to gain support within NASA, and also
presumably to get closer to the "contractor in every congressional
district" ideal for a high-profile federally funded program.

Mac-Dac and Rockwell both seemed to be operating closer to the old all-
key-people-under-one-roof Skunkworks paradigm.  Mac-Dac in particular
had already proven they had a tightly integrated fast-moving
"skunkworks" design shop via the DC-X and DC-XA efforts.

We've been assured that all the various X-33 contractor divisions and
NASA shops are working together in one harmonious "skunky" whole.  We
remain skeptical, given the hints that has come out of the program so
far.  Ultimately, of course, results are what count.  We'll see.

 - Summing up

We're reasonably sure Lockheed-Martin wasn't all that well prepared when
they won X-33.  They showed signs of scrambling to hire enough pegs to
fill the holes right through last fall.  Their project organization
still looks more widely dispersed than optimal.  And their design shows
signs of not having been as refined as it should have been at the time
of the downselect.

In our experience, two things can happen to a project with this sort of
start.  The confusion can settle down into order and converge on a
workable design.  Or it can bog down and diverge into chaotic thrashing,
with results at best a crude and unwieldy approximation of the original
objective.

We thing the thing to do about X-33 for now is to wait on the results of
the CDR's, the Critical Design Reviews.  The project is looking for a
little extra time to get their act together; within reason they should
get it.  We don't expect X-33 on time or on budget at this point anyway.

We do expect that X-33 will fly in 1999.  We also expect that if it runs
over budget, the overage will come out of Lockheed-Martin's collective
pocket, in cash, in reversion of proprietary rights to the government,
or both.  We also expect that Lockheed-Martin will deliver on the
various new technologies they promised to win the bid, or pay for the
difference.

If the CDR's don't clearly show convergence on a workable design, if the
project runs significantly over budget and Lockheed-Martin refuses to
pay in cash or kind, if Lockheed-Martin tries to renege on any of the
major elements of their bid - we say kill the project and start it over
as a genuine X-vehicle project.  We've spent a long time working on
this.  A few more years to get things right won't kill us.

Meanwhile we recommend axe-poised NASA oversight plus strong external
competition (more on that in SAU #72) to concentrate minds in Lockheed-
Martin's top management on ensuring X-33 success, by removing their win-
by-failing option.

X-33 at best will still be more an overpriced premature prototype than a
genuine affordable-risk X-vehicle, but it's currently the only project
we've got, and it could still be pretty useful.  The industry as a whole
could still get major chunks of useful new technology, and Lockheed-
Martin could end up with a design team that's learned how to do it right
next time.  Despite the current "management" fad for treating the
techies as disposable interchangeable parts, a proven experienced design
team is a valuable commodity, a whole greater than the sum of its parts.

Spending what it takes to make X-33 fly could yet turn out to be the
best investment Lockheed-Martin could make for the coming century.

-----------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)------------------------

Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news
publication. Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access
to space for all, period.  We believe in concentrating our resources at
whatever point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.

Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly multiple quick-and-dirty high-speed reusable
"X-rocket" demonstrators in the next three years, in order to quickly
build up both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To
Orbit (SSTO) technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical
uncertainty (and thus development risk and cost) while at the same time
increasing investor confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense
as a private commercial investment.  We're not far from that point.

With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds
flying into space before the end of this decade, with practical
radically cheaper orbital transports following soon after.

Space Access Society won't accept donations from government launch
developers or contractors - it would limit our freedom to do what's
needed.  We survive on member dues and contributions, plus what we make
selling tapes and running our annual conference.

Join us, and help us make it happen.

            Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society


To join Space Access Society or buy the SSTO/DC-X V 3.1 video we have
for sale (Two hours, includes all twelve DC-X/XA flights, X-33 bidder
animations, X-33, DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, aerospike engine test-
stand footage, plus White Sands Missile Range DC-X ops site footage)
mail a check to:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  SAS
membership with direct email of Space Access Updates is $30 US per year;
the SSTO V 3.0 video is $25, $5 off for SAS members, $8 extra for
shipping outside North America, US standard VHS NTSC only.
__________________________________________________________________________

 Space Access Society      "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150               in the Solar System."
 Phoenix AZ 85044                               - Robert A. Heinlein
 602 431-9283 voice/fax
 www.space-access.org                     "You can't get there from here."
 [email protected]                          - Anonymous

 - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this -
 - piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      -
 - reserved.  In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this    -
 - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged.  -



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks ======
% Received: from mail13.digital.com by us8rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-17Jan97) id AA12058; Wed, 7 May 97 17:21:24 -0400
% Received: from smtp.utexas.edu by mail13.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.5/1.0/WV) id RAA15941; Wed, 7 May 1997 17:00:25 -0400 (EDT)
% Received: (qmail-queue invoked from smtpd); 7 May 1997 20:50:45 -0000
% Received: from mail.utexas.edu (128.83.126.1) by smtp.utexas.edu with SMTP; 7 May 1997 20:50:14 -0000
% Received: from zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (ds.cc.utexas.edu [128.83.45.72]) by mail.utexas.edu with ESMTP id PAA20933; Wed, 7 May 1997 15:41:56 -0500 (CDT)
% Received: from ZIMBAZI2/SpoolDir by zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu (Mercury 1.31); 7 May 97 15:51:06 CST6CDT
% Received: from SpoolDir by ZIMBAZI2 (Mercury 1.31); 7 May 97 15:42:38 CST6CDT
% From: "Chris W. Johnson" <[email protected]>
% To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <[email protected]>
% Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 71, part 2
% Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 15:39:13 -0600
% Sender: [email protected]
% X-Listname: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
% X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.31 (NDS)
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 16:27:23 -0700 (MST)
From: Donald Doughty <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Space Access Update #72 5/23/97 (fwd)
Reply-To: [email protected]


                    Space Access Update #72  5/23/97
                 Copyright 1997 by Space Access Society
________________________________________________________________________

We're once again concentrating on the government end of the cheap launch
business, not because that's the only place things are happening - far
from it! - but because things are happening in the government end that
need immediate attention from us activists.  The commercial startups
that we, honest, will tell you about RSN, are for the moment taking care
of their own business, preparing to build and fly low-cost space launch
vehicles in the next couple of years, with no need for anything from
outside but investment.  We can but envy them - at least until they are
ready to fly; then they'll need all the help they can get to make sure
they aren't grounded by inappropriate regulation.  More on that RSN...
________________________________________________________________________

Stories this issue:

 - SAU #71 "X-33 Special Issue" Followup: Corrections, NASA Source
   Selection Comments Clarification

 - X-33 News: Organizational Changes for NASA RLV Office, Emergency
   Weight-Control "Tiger Team" Redesign Commences In Palmdale

 - After X-33, What?  NASA "Future X" Organization Proposals

 - House Authorizes Major New SSTO X Vehicle Funding in HR 1275

 - Signs Of Life In USAF: "Integrated Concept Team" Starts Defining
   Future Space Sortie Needs

 - Phillips Labs Begins Ground "Integrated Technology Testbed" Project

 - SAS Alert: DOD Reusable Rocket Funding Needs Support
________________________________________________________________________


                  X-33 Special Issue (SAU#71) Followup

My.  We'd almost forgotten what it's like to go public with a
controversial position.  We've gotten all sorts of interesting feedback
(much of it supportive) regarding our assertion that the X-33 project
has problems and our recommendation that a combination of axe-poised
oversight and vigorous external competition be applied.

For the record, we don't toss rocks into people's ponds because we enjoy
it, even though it may seem that way to the people getting splashed.  We
do it when we see it as necessary to our job, pushing for radically
cheaper access ASAP, and when we do, we try to be careful what we say
and how we say it.

Of course, sometimes we screw up anyways - we express a delicate point
poorly, or we just flat out make an error of fact.  We do have a couple
of likely factual errors to 'fess up to from the special X-33 SAU #71,
plus some clarification on a critical point.

 - Rockwell X-33 Bid

First, we're told by someone who should know that Rockwell's X-33 bid
actually included closer to two-thirds the ~$250m overall corporate
contribution of Lockheed-Martin's winning bid, not one-third as we wrote
in SAU #71.  So much for neat mathematical correspondences between
current spacelaunch cashflow in need of protection and proposed X-33
contributions... On the other hand, existing spacelaunch (their half of
the USA Shuttle operations partnership, ongoing Shuttle orbiter
upgrades, Rocketdyne's engine business) was proportionally a far more
important part of the then-Rockwell aerospace division's business.

 - TPS Change Correction

We mentioned Titanium Aluminide (TiAl) composite as a thermal protection
system "shingle" surface (the NASP X-30 program did some work on the
material) that was being dropped from X-33 for budgetary reasons.  We're
left somewhat puzzled, because our original source was both in a
position to know, and definite on TiAl being dropped in favor of inconel
metal on some of the shingles for cost reasons.

But we've since been told, also by someone in a position to know, that
what's actually happening is that the original plan called for two types
of metallic TPS shingles, inconel-surfaced for the higher temperature
areas, and plain-titanium surfaced (not TiAl composite) for the lower-
temperature areas on the vehicle's re-entry leeside, and that the cost-
reduction change is to replace some or all of the leeside titanium
shingles with existing-technology fiber thermal protection blankets.

It would be a lot easier to evaluate this sort of thing if all 48 pages
of X-33 technical details in the NASA-LockMart Cooperative Agreement
weren't being kept unavailable to us mere taxpayers.  We do note that
the two stories are not actually mutually exclusive - both may well have
a basis in fact.  And now you know what we know on this...

 - NASA Source Selection Criticism Clarification & Editorial Rant

Next, the clarification: We mentioned NASA's source selection process
several times in SAU #71.  We quote ourselves:

"And NASA's Old Boy Net has.. ...a lock on the NASA source selection
process.  ...NASA needs to take a serious look at how they might find
truly impartial people to serve on selection boards."

..(Lockheed-Martin) played the NASA selection process like a violin,
with a bid carefully tailored to match NASA's Shuttle-shaped vision of
the notional future X-33 derived RLV..."

"...but then if NASA allowed that to affect their selection process,
it's NASA's fault, not Lockheed-Martin's.  (We strongly recommend NASA
take a serious look at recruiting source selection board members from
outside the NASA-Academia Old Boy Net.)"

Apparently our saying these things has caused some - consternation?
Perhaps "annoyance" is a better word - at NASA.  Looking back over what
we said, we stand by it - but we left something implied that needs to be
made explicit, something that believe it or not we've been soft-
pedalling these last few years, in the hope that quiet diplomacy would
help.  Quiet diplomacy, alas, seems to have gotten us nowhere.

 - Editorial Rant

We won't go into detail - too many sources in and out of NASA could get
into hot water.  We will simply say that over the last few years we have
bit by bit accumulated very, very good reason to believe that people
making the decisions at NASA reject wingless vertical landing (VL) as an
RLV research option on a largely emotional knee-jerk basis.

People at NASA now blame this on all the harangueing they've seen from
VL advocates; VL advocates will tell you they only spoke their piece so
loud and often because NASA wasn't listening in the first place.

At this point it doesn't matter who started it.  What matters is that
the nation's official lead reusable space transportation R&D agency is
arbitrarily refusing to consider seriously a technical option that has
significant potential advantages in minimizing both ground support and
turnaround time - advantages very much needed (however achieved) both
for genuine competitive commercial operations and for pressing near-
future national security missions.

We see no further point in trying to convince NASA.  We've seen them
ignore what multiple sources tell us was the operational and managerial
frontrunner in the initial X-33 source selection evaluations, in favor
of a weaker proposal that has since begun to graphically demonstrate its
weaknesses, for stated reasons that don't make a great deal of sense to
us.  More recently we've seen them claiming repeatedly they can be
trusted to handle defence RLV R&D too, even as they pay no more than
lip-service to dispersed operations and low-cost fast turnaround
(measured in hours not days) - major defense RLV needs.  We've seen
multiple other assorted ugliness as various bits of NASA ground their
local axes at the expense of cheap access.  Enough.

We hope NASA will learn from X-33 and X-34.  We stand ready to support
them in salvaging what they can of their current RLV efforts, and in
moving forward into a more focussed and useful ongoing space X-vehicle
program (See "Future X" story later this issue.)

But as far as we're concerned, NASA has made it unmistakeably clear that
trusting them as sole custodian of the nation's reusable launch R&D
effort is unwise.  We think they require institutional competition, both
to keep them honest and to cover their blind spots.

We think the Defense Department is the place for this competition.  We
think that something approximating an 80:20 split between NASA and DOD
of (increased) overall Federal RLV R&D funding would support this
competition without contradicting the current Administration policy of
NASA being the lead agency for such work.

In this time of shrinking overseas presence and growing overseas
commitments, DOD is coming to realize they will soon need affordable
fast-turnaround space sortie capability for far more than routine
satellite launch.  We intend to work for a limited DOD program to look
at key space sortie technologies, because we think NASA can't/won't do
it, and because we think the benefits spread well outside DOD.  Fedex,
for instance, has needs a lot closer to DOD's than to NASA's...

NASA in fact has serious problems with their source selection process.
X-33 was relatively mild; nothing illegal or massively unethical as far
as we can tell, just a half-dozen of the Old Boys picking the wrong ship
for the wrong reasons.  We've seen and heard of far worse elsewhere in
NASA; we recommend reform - but reforming NASA is not our job.

Getting radically cheaper access to space ASAP is.

________________________________________________________________________


               Emergency X-33 "Tiger Team" Review Underway

Projected X-33 weight has grown to the point where it's beginning to
look like the ship could have problems flying the planned high-speed
test distance.  The aerodynamic design seems to be getting steadily more
complex and difficult.  A number of the new technologies included in the
package, uh, look like costing more and taking longer than expected.

To some degree, these are all predictable events in the design process
of an experimental high-performance aerospace vehicle.  They don't
always happen, but they often do, and they're often overcome.

NASA is however taking X-33's problems seriously enough to have
initiated a "tiger-team" review of the project.  The entire NASA HQ X-33
program office has flown out to Palmdale and will spend the next month
in a no-holds-barred effort to trim excess weight and, we suspect, to
thrash out how much downscoping of the original configuration might be
acceptable.

We remind everyone involved that too many pieces dropped from the
package of new technologies that helped win the source selection could
cause mutterings of "bait and switch" and erosion of political support
for project funding, absent significant contractor concessions
elsewhere.

And we wish everyone involved whatever mix of strong coffee and fresh
insight it takes to make this project fly after all.  (Sleep deprivation
is inspirational, honest!)  Good luck, guys.

________________________________________________________________________


                     NASA RLV Organizational Changes

Gary Payton's Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) office at NASA HQ has been
kicked around a bit over the last year.  They started out in NASA HQ
"Code X", the Office of Space Access & Technology, under an Associate
Administrator, Dr. Jack Mansfield.  Code X was eliminated in an HQ
reorganization last year, and RLV was moved over to "Code R", NASA's
advanced aeronautics division, with provision for Payton to report
directly to Administrator Goldin.  The latest change as we understand it
involves Payton reporting to the head of Code R, Associate Administrator
Robert Whitehead, rather than directly to Goldin.  We're not sure the
direct report to Goldin was ever official in any case.

________________________________________________________________________


              After X-33, What?  NASA "Future X" Proposals

NASA has a problem with RLV work in the future: Currently, there's about
$100 million a year budgeted for baseline technology work, and perhaps
three times that for one major RLV project, X-33.  Once X-33 is done a
couple years from now (or, we might add, if it's cancelled before then)
on current plans the RLV budget drops back to ~$100 million per year
total, possibly less, depending on the level of pressure on NASA's
overall budget.

Even we will concede that $100 million a year is not enough for NASA to
get much useful RLV work done.  Possibly if that entire amount were
given to a lean, aggressive, low-overhead, relaxed-purchase-regs outfit
for four or five years, we might see a useful near-orbital X-vehicle
come of it.  But while NASA RLV is showing some promising signs of
understanding how to work lean and aggressive, nothing done in NASA is
low-overhead these days, and the purchasing paperwork is waived for
nobody when the checks have eight zeroes on 'em. If NASA RLV is to
accomplish anything significant once they've gotten past their current
learning experiences, they'll need more funding.

NASA's initial response to this problem was to propose the X-37, an X-33
followon whose sole consistant characteristic has been that it would
cost about as much per year as X-33.  All else was flexible - rocket,
airbreathing, winged, VTVL...  NASA fairly obviously preferred a sexy
airbreathing hypersonic version, but X-37 was sold as whatever flavor X-
vehicle people might support funding for.  We came to call it the X-37
FCV among ourselves, the "Funding Continuity Vehicle".  Someone in NASA
noticed that X-37 had aquired too much baggage, and the designation has
now been officially abandoned.

We had a couple problems with X-37 as it stood.  The airbreathing
"combined-cycle" engine technology showed no sign of being ready in the
proposed timeframe.  Initial subscale flight tests of bits of the
technology won't even start for another year or two, in the "Hyper-X"
program - which as a series of innovative quick-and-cheap experimental
flight test vehicles, we strongly support, by the way.  Though we
suspect that the data from Hyper-X will support our contention that
airbreathing as a way to cut costs over reusable rockets is a chimera -
but that's an argument for another day...  In any case, we felt that
it's a mistake to count on non-existant engines for an X-vehicle
project; waiting for working engines tends to defeat the whole fast-
paced purpose of X, dragging out schedules and multiplying costs
NASP-style.

We also felt, and still feel, that putting all of NASA's eggs into a
single-design, single-vehicle project was a mistake with X-33 and would
be a mistake for any followon.  We've seen the position that capture of
a single-design X-33 has put NASA in - Administrator Goldin felt
compelled to state in public last week that progressive Shuttle upgrades
from LockMart's competitor BoMacRock look like offering at least as much
future NASA cost savings as LockMart's idea of an X-33 derived Shuttle
replacement.  Presumably this was a message to Lockhed-Martin.

We see no reason to believe that putting the bulk of NASA's RLV R&D
money into another winner-take-all project will work out any better than
it has to date in the first such - the main question will be which of
the big two will get the option to sit on a monopoly and protect the
status quo next time.  We believe that NASA needs to do multiple X-
projects within the available budget - realistically speaking, within
something not a whole lot more than the current ~$400 million a year.

We believe NASA can actually fit multiple useful space X-projects within
such a budget, by dint of one change from the current X-33 model:  Don't
tag new-tech developments onto such projects.  Do new-tech, yes, but as
separate items in the background, to be incorporated in future flight
vehicle projects once they're ready.

Depending on who you ask, the actual cost of the current X-33 flight
vehicle is between half and two-thirds the $1.2 billion total.  The rest
is going for developing new technologies - engines, TPS, tanks...
Useful new technologies, yes, but none of them essential to X-33's
mission of finding out what it takes to repeatedly fly a near-orbital
reusable rocket.  All of these new technologies are appropriate things
for NASA to be doing - in the background, as ground-development items,
at a relaxed pace and at relatively smaller annual cost, to be used in
flight vehicles only when they're ready.

Given this change, given a modest increase in current NASA RLV funding,
given attention to staggering start-dates so peak funding requirements
don't coincide, NASA can afford to keep a couple of X-33-class
integrated flight-vehicle projects underway at any given time, plus a
larger number of relatively cheap single-technology flight test
projects, plus an steady ongoing ground-development program to bring
advanced new technologies to the point where they're ready to fly.

Miracle of miracles, the people at NASA RLV more or less agree with us -
the preceding is essentially what they briefed to the head of Code R and
to the Administrator as "Future X" last month.  (Please don't fire them
for agreeing with us!)

"Future X" makes the somewhat optimistic assumption that their funding
can grow ~50% to $600 million a year by FY 2000.  We suspect a ~25%
increase over current FY'97 RLV levels to ~$500 million is actually
quite realistic, given both the easing Federal budget crunch and the
importance of hi-tech R&D.  (And who knows, $600 million might happen.)

Future X then looks at spending that money in three tiers, starting with
about $150 million a year in an ongoing Advanced Space Technology
Program, ASTP, doing development and ground test of new technologies in
structures, tanks, engines, thermal protection, avionics/software, and
operations.

The next tier is about $100 million a year in "Pathfinder" flight
demonstrations.  Pathfinder projects are defined as narrow-focus demos
of single high-risk, high-payoff technologies, flying in less than two
years for less than $100 million total - generally a lot less.  Hyper-X
(four rocket-boosted subscale hypersonic airbreather test vehicles for
about $100 million total) is an example of a top-end Pathfinder project,
while a proposed demo of a 4000 degree hafnium diboride sharp leading-
edge sample on a classified DOD reentry vehicle for a couple of million
dollars is typical of the bottom end.

The next tier is "Trailblazer" integrated flight demonstrations:
X-vehicles.  If costs can in fact be kept down to the $500 million to
$600 million range by leaving out the new-tech tag-ons, NASA could
afford to keep one and a half to two such projects underway
continuously, starting a new one every two to three years.

There are a couple points about "Future X" we're not entirely thrilled
with.  "Verify...  ...business viability of integrated technologies"
makes us nervous, given how badly undue weight to a very hypothetical
"business plan" is turning out in X-33.  We've said it before - NASA
really isn't playing their strong suit when they try to evaluate
"business viability".  Better stick to demonstrating potentially useful
operations and let the businessmen worry about business viability, guys.

"Costs shared with end-users" makes us a bit nervous too - again, if
you're flying an X-vehicle, it's not all that clear yet who the end-
users will be.  Yes, there's a case to be made for the winning bidder
coughing up a share of the costs - if they succeed, they may well have a
couple years head-start on a new market, what with having the only team
with hands-on experience working for them.  But we've seen the
distorting effect combining cost-sharing with an effective monopoly can
produce - cost-sharing needs to be very much deemphasized if the winning
bidder has succeeded merely by taking the bid.

But overall, "Future X" looks like an effective direction for NASA
Reusable Launch R&D to take on the (by government standards) limited
funding likely to be available.  We endorse the plan, and we intend to
work toward funding it.

________________________________________________________________________


      House Authorizes Major New SSTO X Vehicle Funding in HR 1275

Briefly, the House NASA Authorization bill this spring contained a
surprise: Significant funding, in the hundreds of millions, for a
followon to X-33.  It's a long way from this to a final appropriation
bill signed by the President, but it's a major step in the direction of
properly funding "Future X".

There are a couple problems with the precise languge of the bill.  It
calls for a single winner-take-all project again, which as previously
noted we do not think is the best approach.  It also calls for this
single project to include technologies "more advanced than" those in
X-33, which we also think may not be the best approach, given that a
significant part of X-33's current problems stem from inclusion of new
technologies not yet quite ready for flight.  And in fact, Aviation Week
editorialized "An X-33 Followon?  Aim Lower Technically" in their May
5th issue.

These problems can be ironed out though as the budget process grinds
forward.  What's truly significant here is the broad Congressional
support evidenced for continuing RLV R&D funding at NASA.  Our
congratulations to the Space Subcommittee people who made this happen.

________________________________________________________________________


                             USAF ICT Study

The US Air Force did a remarkable thing last winter: It put together an
"Integrated Concept Team" from across the various affected USAF commands
to look at how the USAF should be using space over the next few decades,
beyond the obvious step of getting current satellite launch costs down.

The ICT spent a lot of time examining "space sortie" concepts, potential
missions where the ability to pop into or through space briefly, on
short notice at an affordable cost, might enhance national security.
Given the current trend of falling budgets, reduced force structure,
reduced overseas basing, but level or increased overseas commitments,
the ability to affordably be anywhere in the world from mainland US
bases on an hour's notice is understandably attractive.

The key word here though is "affordable" - military space sortie
vehicles have been looked at since the forties; the conclusion has
generally been "not yet", either because the technology just wasn't
ready yet, or more recently because the technology to do it was just too
damn expensive.  (We suspect strongly that some of the unidentified
aerospace vehicle sightings of the last decade add up to an experimental
seventies-technology "black" space sortie vehicle that turned out to be
impossibly expensive to operate.  But that's only an educated guess.)

What's changed recently is that the current state of the art in reusable
rockets actually gives some hope of flying space sortie missions
affordably - IE, less expensively than the overseas-based reconaissance
and strike assets they'd replace, or cost-effectively in the case of new
capabilities they'd bring.

Looking at articles that have appeared in the open press and reading
between the lines, the ICT seems to have taken a serious look at the
possibility of multi-role reusable rocket vehicles that could make orbit
single-stage with a relatively small, couple of thousand pounds payload,
or could alternatively carry a much larger payload onto a suborbital
trajectory then land a few thousand miles downrange - this larger
payload could be a reconaissance sensor package, an orbital payload with
an appropriate "kick" stage, or any number of other things worth
delivering precisely over long distances on short notice.  "Packages of
military significance", as one gentleman put it - though it should be
noted that sometimes delivering the right two pound spare part to the
far side of the world on a couple hours notice is far more militarily
significant than delivering thousands of times that weight of ordnance.
"Amateurs talk weapons and tactics, professionals talk logistics."

Be that as it may, the USAF is now seriously considering these
possibilities for the first time in a while.  The process grinds slowly
though; official USAF requests for long-lead R&D funding are still
likely a year or two away.  But it's a start.

________________________________________________________________________


                            Phillips Labs ITT

Meanwhile, our old friends at USAF Phillips Labs are making the best of
the $10 million which was all we ended up able to pry loose for them
last year, after DC-XA went down.  They've allocated $8 million of that
to start up an Integrated Technology Testbed (ITT), a ground test rig
that will combine computer simulation and generic reusable rocket space-
sortie vehicle components.  The idea is to then repeatedly test
different combinations of hardware and software on the cheap, to wring
out bugs and learn as much as possible ahead of any future space-sortie
flight vehicle project decision.

Obviously on $8 million, there's going to be mainly simulation software
and not a lot of test hardware in the loop.  The project managers are
realistic about the funding uncertainties; they've set things up so
they'll be able to scale the project to the available funding, producing
at least some useful results at not much more than their  current level,
but able to scale up the effort and produce far more if significantly
increased funding becomes available, adding on lightweight tanks,
avionics, structures, TPS, propulsion, and so forth to the hardware end
of things, testing more authentically and more often as the money
becomes available.

But the Air Force hasn't worked its official space-sortie requirements
definition process around to the point of asking for money for initial
research this year.  The gears grind slowly.  (At least they are now
grinding...)  Once again, if there is to be any money for this work at
Phillips in FY'98, Congress will have to intervene and add it.

Which is where we all come in...

________________________________________________________________________


    Alert: Support DOD Reusable Rocket Component Test Funding

The USAF Phillips Labs space sortie vehicle Integrated Technology
Testbed could usefully absorb far more money than we realistically think
we can get for them this year.  We're asking for a relatively modest $75
million in FY'98 R&D funding for this effort.  If we get this, or a
substantial part of it, they should be able to move out fast and have a
lot of useful data on repeated reuse of representative space sortie
vehicle components, operated on a simulated vehicle, by the time the
USAF gets to the point of making real decisions on all this.  Such data
could save a huge amount of both time and money a few years from now.
Such data could also be immensely useful to efforts to develop
commercial reusable space vehicles for applications where distributed
basing and routine hours-not-days turnaround are important - worldwide
express package delivery to name just one.

The House Defense Authorization bill is currently due to be "marked up"
in the House National Security R&D Subcommittee when Congress comes back
from Memorial Day recess, the first week of June.  The staffers are
already doing the advance work; it's important to get our two cents
worth into the process ASAP, this coming week.  If you live in the
district of one of the R&D Subcommittee members (see attached list), we
ask you to call, write, or fax their Washington office and ask that they
support adding $75 million in the Defense Authorization to PE 603401F
(this is a temporary PE #, but it will do for now) for reusable space
sortie research at USAF Phillips Labs.

If you call, ask for the staffer who handles Defense R&D.  As likely as
not you'll get their voicemail.  Live or voicemail, tell them who you
are and that you're from their district, then ask them to support adding
$75 million to PE603401F in the Defense Authorization for reusable space
sortie vehicle preliminary research at USAF Phillips Labs, then (if you
caught them live) answer any questions they have as best you can, then
thank them for their time and ring off.  Chances are the staffer you
talk to is overworked, underpaid, and takes a lot of flack from
constituents - be polite, always!

If you write or fax, address it to the LA ("legislative assistant") for
defense R&D, and keep it to one page, a couple of paragraphs at most.
Tell them first what you want them to do, as above, then give them a
paragraph or two of explanation.  Important defense and civilian
benefits at relatively low cost, good track record at Phillips, NASA for
whatever reason is concentrating on other aspects of the technology, and
so forth.  Feel free to crib from Updates or even quote excerpts - but
keep it short, make it persuasive, and again, keep it polite.

(Freshmen have no numbers listed; you'll have to call the main Capitol
switchboard at 202 224-3121 and ask for their offices by name.  No
guarantees the Democratic freshmen's names are spelled correctly; we
were working from a faxed list that was blurry in that section.)

   House National Security Committee, R&D Subcommittee list
                                        voice           fax
  - full committee chairman
 Spence, Floyd (R-02 SC)            1-202-225-2452 1-202-225-2455
  - ranking minority member
 Dellums, Ronald V. (D-09 CA)       1-202-225-2661 1-202-225-9817

  - subcommittee chairman
 Weldon, Curt (R-07 PA)             1-202-225-2011 1-202-225-8137
 Bartlett, Roscoe G. (R-06 MD)      1-202-225-2721 1-202-225-2193
 Kasich, John R. (R-12 OH)          1-202-225-5355
 Bateman, Herbert H. (R-01 VA)      1-202-225-4261 1-202-225-4382
 Hefley, Joel (R-05 CO)             1-202-225-4422 1-202-225-1942
 McHugh, John M. (R-24 NY)          1-202-225-4611 1-202-226-0621
 Hostettler, John (R-08 IN)         1-202-225-4636 1-202-225-4688
 Chambliss, Saxby (R-08 GA)         1-202-225-6531 1-202-225-7719
 Hilleary, Van (R-04 TN)            1-202-225-6831 1-202-225-4520
 Scarborough, Joe (R-01 FL)         1-202-225-4136 1-202-225-5785
 Jones, Walter (R-03 NC)            1-202-225-3415 1-202-225-0666
 Mike Pappas (R NJ)
 Bob Riley (R AL)
 Jim Gibbons (R NV)

  - subcommittee ranking minority member
 Pickett, Owen B. (D-02 VA)         1-202-225-4215 1-202-225-4218
 Abercrombie, Neil (D-01 HI)        1-202-225-2726 1-202-225-4580
 Meehan, Martin T. (D-05 MA)        1-202-225-3411 1-202-226-0771
 Harman, Jane (D-36 CA)             1-202-225-8220 1-202-226-0684
 McHale, Paul (D-15 PA)             1-202-225-6411 1-202-225-5320
 Kennedy, Patrick (D-01 RI)         1-202-225-4911 1-202-225-4417
 Rod Blagnjevich (D IL)
 Silvestre Reyes (D TX)
 Tony Allen (D ME)
 Jim Turner (D TX)
 Loretta Sanchez (D CA)

If you don't live in (or awfully near) any of the above districts (a
phone call to your local library information desk should tell you whose
district you're in) you might want to try writing or faxing one of the
following Senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee Technology
Subcommittee.  We hear we already have some support on the Senate side,
but it can't hurt to let them know what you think if you live in one of
these states.  We'll leave digging out the contact info as an exercise
for the reader.

 Rick Santorum, R PA
 Olympia Snowe, R ME
 Pat Roberts, R KS
 Robert Smith, R NH
 Joseph Lieberman, D CT
 Edward Kennedy, D MA
 Jeff Bingaman, D NM

Thanks!

-----------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)------------------------

Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news
publication. Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access
to space for all, period.  We believe in concentrating our resources at
whatever point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.

Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
government to build and fly multiple quick-and-dirty high-speed reusable
"X-rocket" demonstrators in the next three years, in order to quickly
build up both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To
Orbit (SSTO) technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical
uncertainty (and thus development risk and cost) while at the same time
increasing investor confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense
as a private commercial investment.  We're not far from that point.

With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds
flying into space before the end of this decade, with practical
radically cheaper orbital transports following soon after.

Space Access Society won't accept donations from government launch
developers or contractors - it would limit our freedom to do what's
needed.  We survive on member dues and contributions, plus what we make
selling tapes and running our annual conference.

Join us, and help us make it happen.

            Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society


To join Space Access Society or buy the SSTO/DC-X V 3.1 video we have
for sale (Two hours, includes all twelve DC-X/XA flights, X-33 bidder
animations, X-33, DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, aerospike engine test-
stand footage, plus White Sands Missile Range DC-X ops site footage)
mail a check to:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  SAS
membership with direct email of Space Access Updates is $30 US per year;
the SSTO V 3.0 video is $25, $5 off for SAS members, $8 extra for
shipping outside North America, US standard VHS NTSC only.
__________________________________________________________________________

 Space Access Society      "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150               in the Solar System."
 Phoenix AZ 85044                               - Robert A. Heinlein
 602 431-9283 voice/fax
 www.space-access.org                     "You can't get there from here."
 [email protected]                          - Anonymous

 - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this -
 - piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      -
 - reserved.  In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this    -
 - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged.  -