Conference 7.286::space

Let's take this one "stage" further and use the 1st stage as the LH/LOX 
external tank and use the same interconnect as the current external tank 
and use the SSMEs during first stage boost also. (the first stage would 
take the place of the solids)

RE           <<< Note 824.0 by MAYDAY::ANDRADE "The sentinel (.)(.)" >>>

>	Now of course congress is also complaining of the  "too"  high 
>	shuttle costs. When they are the ones who created them !!!

  It wasn't just Congress. It was an agreement between the Nixon administration,
NASA, and Congress.

>	I would think congress would have learned its lesson by now.

  They have. They know full well that they are never going to get votes for
things which people project will cost less in the future if they spend money
now. Voters have notoriously short memories. 

  Back in the early 70's with Apollo 17 on the Moon Congress voted to fund the
shuttle program. To get it passed, NASA had to cut back to the cheapest design
available. Had they not done that, Congress would have voted for no shuttle at
all since the public at that time was very much against the space race. For
reasons no one ever seemed to understand, NASA was tainted by feelings against
the War in Vietnam and people saw space research and defense as one bundle that
needed cost cuts. 

  It was not so much a matter of "well we need to go to space, should we get a
system that will cost more now or later", it was more a case of "if it's going
to cost much of anything to go to space, don't go". In that environment,
Nixon/NASA/Congress took the only option that they could sell to the general
public. 

  George 

    George has given you the stock answer.
    
    I think the real answer is more like Nixon didn't want a space program
    either, so he let NASA's ability to achieve shrink.
    
    Certainly part of the decrease in NASA's funding was due to the fact
    that Kennedy believed and Nixon didn't.  Regan believed (Bush doesn't),
    and if the rumor mill is correct, we should soon see the fruits of that
    belief in public.
    
    Tony

  I don't disagree with you Tony (except that it's not that clear what Reagan
did for the space program), but I think that this issue is led by the public.
In the 60's there was tremendous grass roots support for going to the moon.
Years after Kennedy was gone, everyone in the nation sat in front of their
tubes and watched each minute of the step by step progress from flight to
flight. Johnson had little to do with it.

  In the 70's the mood changed completely. It wasn't a matter of being
indifferent, people were against spending money on space and politicians at
both ends of Penn avenue were just reading the pulse.

  Today the mood is indifference. I've seen 3 debates and not once has the
issue of space research come up. People are concerned about things like the
economy, and medical insurance. NASA has a fairly small piece of the pie and
people are happy with that. 

  As for the new 1st stage, I think the feeling at NASA is that there is no
future in enhancing the shuttle. Even if it was feasible I believe that NASA
would like to leave the shuttle behind and move on to the next program. They
want a single stage to orbit space craft which, if built, would have to be
cheaper to fly than any type of two stage vehicle.

  Congress is not likely to push NASA into building something they don't want
and politically pushing an upgraded Shuttle would be a losing strategy in just
about any district in the country. 

  If there was a pressing need to expand our low earth orbit capacity within
the next 10 years, a new shuttle 1st stage might be a consideration, but with
the deficit being what it is, politicians would rather pay for low priced
studies than expensive hardware and NASA's mind set is strictly "single stage to
orbit". 

  George 

    Although the strings here border on a "rat hole" I have to respond to
    -.1
    >>> Johnson had little to do with it.
    
    au contrar!!!  Johnson had everything to do with it!!!  As vice
    president, he chaired the first space council.  (Big shoes for Dan
    Quale to fill ;^)).  He influenced much, if not all of NASA's spending
    on the lunar program (of which I include Gemini).  The famous words,
    "Houston, Tranquility Base here..." would have been much different (if
    heard at all) without LBJ's involvement.  Johnson created a very large 
    infrastructure that even Barry Goldwater with his defense ties couldn't
    sway in 1964.  
      Republicans aside, much has been written about the loss of focus in
    space after the moon landing.  I believe that there are many
    contributing factors, all of which need to be considered.  As an earlier
    reply suggested, the Nixon administration reflected somewhat on what the 
    general population was worried about:  the end to an unpopular war,
    significant inflation, the OPEC shock, then watergate.
    
      I don't think that we will see another generation lauch technology
    for at least another 20 years, probably 30.

RE                       <<< Note 824.5 by LANDO::STONE >>>

>    Although the strings here border on a "rat hole" I have to respond to
>    -.1
>    >>> Johnson had little to do with it.
>    
>    au contrar!!!  Johnson had everything to do with it!!!  

  You are quoting me out of context. No one is arguing that Johnson didn't help
push the space program along. My point is that the reason various politicians
were in favor of the space program is that there was strong grass roots support
even after Kennedy was gone. 

  As long as that popular support was there, politicians found reasons to be
pro space activity. As soon as popular support turned against space in the
70's, politicians found reasons to be against space activity. Now the feeling
is one of indifference and politicians are up the middle. 

  I agree with much of what you said, but I don't agree with the "au contrar"
part. Johnson may have done much for the space program, but he didn't create
popular support. Once started it continued by itself until the landing. Then
with the objective met, the public turned against the space program and most
politicians went along with the voters.

  George 

Re: .0

For a description of an unmanned, resuable, flyback liquid rocket
booster that would be used as an evolutionary follow-on to the
Shuttle's solid boosters, please see the paper by Mark Benton in 
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 26, No. 4, July-August 1989,
"Reusable, Flyback Liquid Rocket Booster for the Space Shuttle."

The system described is a direct replacement for the SRBs, using five 
uprated SSMEs.  Two TF33 turbofan engines and deployable wings 
facilitate recovery. 

The paper also mentions numerous references about the early Phase A/B
shuttle proposals for fully reusable two-stage systems.

    	How does one receive the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets?
    Who publishes it?  How long has it been available?
    
    	Thanks!
    

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets is published by the American 
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and is the bimonthly 
peer-reviewed journal which discusses research in space 
technology.  You can subscribe if you are a member of AIAA, 
although your annual membership plus the JSR will run about $100.
Most engineering universities' libraries carry the JSR and the 
other AIAA Journals, Aircraft, Propulsion and Power, Guidance and
Control, and Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer.  

Remember, these are peer-reviewed journals much like the ACM
journals or Physics Letters, so the subject matter tends to be 
pretty esoteric.  The references contained in the papers can be 
intriguing, especially for those doing hsitorical research on 
some aspects of aerospace history.  I'd recommend a look through the back issues in a
the library to determine if your *really* want to lay out the 
cash for JSR or the others. 

Re: .8 again

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets' Vol. 1 Number 1 was published
in January 1964, right after the merger of the American Rocket
Society and the Institute of Aeronautical Sciences which created
the AIAA.