Conference 7.286::space

  I agree that it's time to move beyond the Shuttle, but I don't agree that it
should be shut down completely. 

  Ground based telescopes will never replace the space based telescopes of
which Hubble is one. First, Hubble and others work in bands other than visible
light that are filtered out by the atmosphere. A leans the size of Australia
wouldn't solve that problem. Second, Hubble is much better than the press it
gets and will improve even more after it is repaired. Third, it's already up
there, that would be one heck of a project to abandon. 

  Also, the development of new launch systems is likely to involve work that
needs to be done in space. Already the Shuttle has tested power systems for the
station, it's reasonable to believe they may want to test other components
destined for the new SSTO space craft. 

  As for biomed, let them get their own money. The amount of money we are going
to be spending on health in general is already going up dramatically. There
are plenty of ideas being worked on to fund those programs. NASA should keep
all of it's funding.

  George

George, 

Nice to see some agreement on your part .....

Yes, keep hubble going, it is probably cheaper to keep it going, but I used
Hubble as an example of where space-based research has cost us more than what it
is worth.  Hubble has cost in the neighborhood of $2B.  The Keck observatory,
now being built in Hawaii, will probably cost about $100M and have resolving
power at least equal to the Hubble, especially when combined with (I think its
called) speckle interferrometry, which basically negates the effect of the
atmosphere.  So, we coudl have built 20 Kecks for the price of one Hubble.  You
tell me the solution that delivers the most science, especially considering that
Hubble cannot meet the demands for time placed upon it.

re testing in space

Sorry, forget it.  Better to test with unmanned rockets, or use the SX-2
incremental approach.  The shuttle is a half a billion dollars per launch
dinosaur.  It is time to cut our losses.

re biomed

You missed the point entirely.  We will be spending so much more money on health
care BECASUE we don't have cures for cancer or viral infections.  The money is
going for treatment, NOT (in large part), for research.  We once had a 'war on
cancer', that failed, because we didn't have the technology at the time.  Now we
do.  Lets solve some of these diseases, build a better launcher, THEN put big
bucks into space.  

Maybe I'm too linear, but I believe that you tackle problems in order of
priority (treatement of disease and low cost launchers are right up there), and
forget those things that cost you long term (keeping the shuttle running and
building a space station, with present technology).

Tony

RE Funding in general

  There's one MAJOR issue that you are over looking. Just about everyone who
discusses this issue, including many people in the scientific field who should
know better, just naturally assume that if you take money from one NASA
program it could be given to another. This is nonsense. 

  Anyone who has followed the budget process should know that Congress spends
money by line item. If the Shuttle is getting $2 billion and the other space
related programs are getting a smaller amount X, it's because Congress has
decided that the shuttle should get $2 billion and the other programs get X,
not because NASA got X + $2 billion and decided to split it up that way. 

  I'd bet anything that if NASA came out and said "we are shutting down the
shuttle program to pursue 3 SSTO designs", a year after that commitment was
made Congress would pull the plug on the extra SSTO funding and give the
Shuttle money to something else entirely. I have no faith what ever that the
SSTO programs would ever see that Shuttle money. 

RE Hubble

>Hubble has cost in the neighborhood of $2B.  The Keck observatory,
>now being built in Hawaii, will probably cost about $100M and have resolving
>power at least equal to the Hubble, 

  I have personally seen a photo from Hubble showing Pluto and it's moon as
two separate pixals. I've never seen such a shot from the ground. In other
words, I'll believe it when I see it.

  Also, you keep ignoring the fact that Hubble works in bands that get filtered
out by the atmosphere. No ground based telescope will ever pick up energy
in those bands.

  George

re hubble

George, 

Is it worth $2B to see other wavelengths?  (FWIW, it is only some wavelengths of
UV that are blocked)  

Sorry, I think not.  

And, believe it, it is true, Keck will be at least as capable a Hubble (in terms
of resolving power).  Keck is not yet completed.  And if something goes wrong on
Keck, it can be readily fixed, unlike Hubble.

Think of cost/benefit, not pure benefit.  In terms of cost/benefit, Hubble is a
disaster of unmitigated porportions, even if it worked perfectly.  Think of what
$2B could buy?  20 Kecks!!!!   

Perhaps I am going way ahead of everyone.  Keck is a multiple mirror telescope
now being built in Hawaii.  It will have an effective diameter something on the
order of twice that of Palomar.  Speckle interferrometry is a new technique that
will remove the diffusing effects of atmospheric molecules on ground based
telescopes.  There are plans for visible light interferrometry telescopes, much
like very long baseline interferrometry being used for radio astronomy.

Also, from the latest physics news, to prove you can look in the infrared with
ground-based telescopes:

URANUS IS NOT A FEATURELESS BALL.  Astronomers at the Multiple Mirror
Telescope in Arizona took pictures of Uranus at several infrared
wavelengths (1.2, 1.6, and 2.2 microns) and saw what the Voyager
spacecraft missed (at visible wavelengths) on its 1986 flyby: a
faintly dark spot south of the equator, as well as some other features
near the pole.  (Sky & Telescope, Sept. 1993.)

re this:

>  There's one MAJOR issue that you are over looking. Just about everyone who
>discusses this issue, including many people in the scientific field who should
>know better, just naturally assume that if you take money from one NASA
>program it could be given to another. This is nonsense. 

George, I have followed the budget process, perhaps in FAR greater detail than
you (I work for the Government Group in Washington, and we live and die by the
budget).  You claim is nonsence.  What you say cannot happen, in point of fact
happens ALL THE TIME, EVERY SINGLE DAY.  I cannot imagine where you come up with
the idea that it cannot happen.  You must have heard it somewhere, but wherever
you heard if from, they are dead wrong.  

You are correct that Congress makes the final decisions, but they do trade among
programs and the Congressional budgets are SUPRIZINGLY close to NASA
recommendations.  

Tony

           <<< Note 864.4 by DCOPST::TONYSC::SCOLARO "One Way out" >>>

>Think of cost/benefit, not pure benefit.  In terms of cost/benefit, Hubble is a
>disaster of unmitigated proportions, even if it worked perfectly.  Think of what
>$2B could buy?  20 Kecks!!!!   

  In science, cost/benefit is not as important as it is in the commercial world.
Yes it's a factor, but being able to see things you can't see from the ground
has great scientific value. 

  And while I don't doubt that there is some infrared information that comes
through, it's not at all clear that ground based telescopes operate well in
that mode. A small infrared satellite launched in the 80's made remarkable
discoveries including matter orbiting another star and many other things that
were not detectable from the ground. A large Hubble sized telescope operating
in infrared or ultraviolet could gather a wealth of information not otherwise
attainable. 

RE Budgets

>You claim is nonsence.  What you say cannot happen, in point of fact
>happens ALL THE TIME, EVERY SINGLE DAY.  I cannot imagine where you come up with
>the idea that it cannot happen.  You must have heard it somewhere, but wherever
>you heard if from, they are dead wrong.  

  I don't remember claiming that anything couldn't happen. What I said was
that I don't believe that Congress would give the shuttle money to SSTO if
the Shuttle were canceled. Sure it could happen, and perhaps some money would
be transferred, but it's not likely that the bulk of it would go to any SSTO
project.

>You are correct that Congress makes the final decisions, but they do trade among
>programs and the Congressional budgets are SUPRIZINGLY close to NASA
>recommendations.  
  
  Yes that's true today because they like to keep on going projects going where
possible. But if the shuttle program were to be canceled, contracts stopped,
and were NASA asking for a whole new set of contracts for a whole new set of
programs, I believe money would dry up just as it did between the Apollo
program and Shuttle program. 

  Maybe SSTO would get funded and maybe it wouldn't, but just canceling the
Shuttle would be not much of a guarantee that the money would stay within NASA.

  George 

Keep in mind that Hubble can be pointed whereever, whenever and for however 
long is necessary without worrying about atmospheric conditions. Keck is 
still "ground based" and can only image objects that pass through it's field 
of view (which I assume is something better than straight up only) and only 
when they're overhead. One of the nice things Hubble did last year was take 
pictures of the new developing supernova within hours of when it was 
discovered and for a long enough period to show the progression. Space 
based telescopes will always have this advantage over ground based ones 
and even with the SDI adaptive optics technology for compensating for the 
atmosphere, it's still doesn't fully filter it out. You need large numbers 
of photons to get enough filtered through the atmosphere to image. There's 
a lot more absorption in the ground based case in ANY frequency simply by 
the fact that the atmosphere is present in only that case.

You want another dry spell in space like after the Challenger disaster? You 
want to rush DC-X and the other SSTO projects so they're flawed compromises 
as well? Let them work against their current schedules and when they're 
operational, they'll displace the shuttle program if they really perform to 
spec. Remember, the original shuttle goals would displace the shuttle if it 
had lived up to spec...

re .5

Cost benefit is not important in science?  Get real.  It is VERY important, or
anyway shoudl be.  It is your and my tax dollars at work.

Yes, another $2B hubble telescope for IR or UV will gather a wealth of
information.  

Where would you like to spend your tax dollars, if the decision on where to
spend that $2B was given to you.  On one space based telescope, on 20 ground
based telescopes or on 200 projects, each of which might lead to a cure for
cancer?

Re claiming that something couldn't happen

You did George, I quote from .3:  

>There's one MAJOR issue that you are over looking. Just about everyone who
>discusses this issue... assume that if you take money from one NASA
>program it could be given to another. This is nonsense. 

Calling something nonsence sure implies to me you feel it won't happen.

re .6

Yes, a space based telescope can be pointed, let us not say anywhere, but surely
a lot more places than a ground based telescope.  BUT, for the price of one
Hubble, you can buy 20, that's right TWENTY Keck observatories, the very best
ground based telescope ever, and with resolving power that will be at least
equal to Hubble.  I would think that even 10 could give you at least as good a
coverage as the Hubble.

Re absorbtion

Yes, there is more absorbtion, but you can build FAR larger lenses on the
ground, and use multiple mirror technology to achieve even greater effective
diameters.  The numbers of photons a Keck could recieve is far in excess of
Hubble's, inspite of any atmospheric absorbtion.  HKeck has a mirror that is
about an order of magnitude larger than Hubble's.

Re dry period

I wouldn't mind at all, if the end result was a better space vehicle, in fact,
if I could move the shuttle monies to next generation launcher development, I
would.

Would I rush them to replace shuttle, NO, haven't we learned anything?

BUT, at this time, we are in danger of only funding one, MAYBE.  The lesson I
take from shuttle is not to put all your eggs in one basket.  Fund options,
certainly that is what the early NASA did.  Then choose the best when it becomes
apparent.  A program with competition from competing technologies, has, IMHO, a
FAR greater chance of providing a favorable outcome than one without competition.

re keeping the money within NASA, from .5

Honestly, if the money went almost ANYWHERE ELSE, I think it would be better
spent than on shuttle.  It is time we faced facts:  The shuttle is an aging,
obsolete system that is probably far more expensive than the expendable rockets
it replaced.  Certinaly it is far less reliable.

It is time to cut losses on the shuttle.....

Tony

RE           <<< Note 864.7 by DCOPST::TONYSC::SCOLARO "One Way out" >>>

>Cost benefit is not important in science?  Get real.  It is VERY important, or
>anyway shoudl be.  It is your and my tax dollars at work.

  I said not as important. There are certain things you will never see unless
you spend large amounts of money but they are worth while. For example, we
could have gotten rocks from the moon much cheaper per pound with a robot
sample return mission like the Russians did but I feel it was worth sending
people to the moon. 

>Yes, another $2B hubble telescope for IR or UV will gather a wealth of
>information.  

  That's right, it would. Things you'd never see from the ground because
the atmosphere filters things out. Now I'm sure that you have read various
OPINIONS saying that the light would come through but as I said, I'd like
to see it before I believe it.

>Where would you like to spend your tax dollars, if the decision on where to
>spend that $2B was given to you.  On one space based telescope, on 20 ground
>based telescopes or on 200 projects, each of which might lead to a cure for
>cancer?

  Again, there's no guarantee that you would have that choice. You can't just
say "let's spend on this space program instead of that one". If it's obvious
that the contract for one program will go to Sam Nunn's state and the contract
for another will go to Joe Rookie Senator, you don't really have a choice.

>I wouldn't mind at all, if the end result was a better space vehicle, in fact,
>if I could move the shuttle monies to next generation launcher development, I
>would.

  That's one gigantic "if". You planning on running for Congress?

>The shuttle is an aging,
>obsolete system that is probably far more expensive than the expendable rockets
>it replaced.  Certainly it is far less reliable.

  It's success rate is 95% which is about average for any launch system.

  George

re .7
    
>Yes, there is more absorbtion, but you can build FAR larger lenses on the
>ground, and use multiple mirror technology to achieve even greater effective
>diameters.
    
    One of the technical challenges with building an extremely large
    telescope that will be used in gravity is coping with the distortion
    under its own weight. To that extent space has an advantage. The
    workaround for Earth bound telescopes is to build the mirror (not
    lens!) from many segments. Hence it is not clear what the reason is for
    what you state above. (NB: I am not disagreeing with it.) I would offer two
    possible reasons viz. launch costs and attitude control.
    
    Perhaps the ideal telescopes of the 21st century will be moon based,
    either on the ground or in lunar orbit. The lower gravity, lack of
    atmosphere and lack of light pollution (not mentioned in this topic so
    far) would all be positive factors. Of course this assumes lunar
    infrastructure sufficient to provide and process raw materials.
    I can dream...

    Incidentally, isn't Keck privately funded (by Mr Keck)? If so, it is
    perhaps not the best example of how the government should be spending
    your money as alternative to Hubble.
    
>The shuttle is an aging, obsolete system
    
    I don't believe that it is correct to describe it as obsolete either in
    the sense that it is no longer in use or that it has been superseded.
    
    I fully agree with the idea of having alternatives to the shuttle and
    having competition but we have to be realistic about where we are
    today. Are you really suggesting a 3 (5? 10?) year moratorium on space
    based science while alternatives are developed?

There already IS a manned space station. Seems untill that one is working
to capacity, or has demonstrated it's overwhealming usefullness there isn't
much point in setting up another.

Why not stop the shuttle NOW. During the development period of the new launch
technologies buy Russian capacity. Test your new technologies and perfect
them without the distraction of running the shuttle program. If you need
space real estate to test the new systems, put the PSU into MIR for a 
few months. 

It seems the folks at NASA and in Russia are a great deal closer to 
co-operation than we might have expected. Perhaps something positive 
can be made to come out of this.

I get a bit concerned when I hear the arguement that it is better to
head in our current direction for no better reason than to avoid change.
Seems to be a common ethos in Digital, also seems to be a definate
path to ruin or stagnation. Could it be a consequence of the risk-avoidance
management styles in Digital or NASA? "better to make nothing than make
a mistake".....

Terry

Let's try a different slant.

I don't think the shuttle should be scrapped because we need to have the 
capability to get up there and do service missions and to do DOD stuff. You're 
not going to convince the DOD to book time on a Russian launcher 8^)
The Russians don't have the shuttles capability to do the servicing missions 
that have really proven the shuttle's usefulness (albiet at a price that is 
high). We're talking two different things... capability vs affordability. 
Getting iron into orbit is different than what you're doing in orbit. You can't 
move MIR over to a satellite orbit for a servicing mission. You can't do the 
Hubble fix off MIR (Yes, Hubble is SUPPOSED to be serviced periodically even 
before the optics problem). I don't think any one mission type can justify the 
shuttle but as it stands now, it's a lot more general purpose than anything 
we've built to date. Remember, this is a 70s design that has been massaged by 
committees and financing. This isn't the original design concept. DC-X is a 
concept vehicle. I doubt that the (IF done) final operational ship will much 
resemble the current design. We will learn and adapt and evolve. Otherwise,
why not just build the full size ship and "save" the concept vehicle(s) cost?

My feeling at the moment is to postpone Freedom, develop SSTO to obsolete the 
Shuttle and use MIR in the meantime for any long duration needs to be in space. 
We're almost doing this now but we haven't dropped the Fred pursestrings and 
we're spending more money on yet another (probably) never to be built design. 
Makes more sense to spend the money adapting the current subsystems that have 
been built to work  WITH MIR rather than trying to compete with MIR and build 
a similar infrastructure jsut to ge a few different bells and whistles. Seems 
like making a joint space community based around MIR makes more sense in the 
long run. The shuttle offers MIR some unique capabilities as well and SSTO would
also.

    This talk about the Hubble, reminds me about the talk about
    planes in the very begining of aviation history. 
    
    Why should people go tru the trouble of developing and building
    planes when ballons where "so obviously" more cost effective...
    And better all around !!!
    
    The fact of the matter is that space based telescopes already
    have and will continue to aquire capabilities that ground based
    telescope will never be able to have no matter how much work
    and money is spent on them.  Its a technological phase change,
    were new rules apply and different laws exist.
    
    And in science news things are learned not by going over what
    other people have done but by looking and working in different
    domains. And that is what space represents, new ways to look
    at things.  Ex: Nothing you can do to a ground system will
    never ever enable it to bring you a few hundred pounds of Moon
    rocks or looking at the other side of the Moon. Or to see tru
    wave-lenghts that are filtered by the atmosphere and so on.
    
    Or do people want to get back to ballons and abandon planes.
    After all "what can an airplane do that that a ballon cannot 
    do better". So rather then saying lets abandon space astronomy,
    people should be asking themselves what the next generation 
    of space systems should do ?
    
    As for the shuttle, yes its expensive, yes its not to reliable.
    But at least its here, and better then nothing at all. Because
    the question that people are asking themselves is not, what
    kind of maned launcher should we have ? But rather should we 
    have any maned launchers at all ? Or even, should we have any 
    launchers at all no matter of what kind ?
    
    Thus the best plan, it to keep the shuutle while developing 
    the next generation launchers in parallel. After all one of
    the reasons that the shuttle is such a mess is that just like
    Digital it tryed to be all things to all the people all the
    time.
    
    	Gil

re .12

Sorry, I couldn't disagree more.

If you think I am argtueing for the status quo, you are sadly mistaken.

Your fact of the matter is, with respect to visible astronomy, dead wrong.  

Hubble is so far ahead because so much money has been spent upon it.  Take that
same pot of $2B, apply it to ground based telescopes and you have capabilities
that Hubble cannot nearly match.  

The problem is not space based telescopes, I believe that one day they will be
the 'phase change' (usually refered to as paridigm shift) agents that you
suggest.  That will happen when we have regular, cheap access to space, not
before, before you are constrained by size, weight, customizing, etc.

Things are indeed learned by doing new things.  Is not optical interference
ground based astronomy a new thing?  Are not adaptive optics a new thing?

Yes, it probably makes sence to keep the shuttle flying, but only for necessary
missions, like the hubble repair.  (I have never said to cut hubble, only that
it is a good example of the bad cost benefit of current space activities).

Stop the station and develop next gen launchers.

This means stopping the shuttle flights to test Fred activities.

Tony

    Re.13

    Are you aware that the additional cost of one shuttle launch is only
    a small portion of the fixed overall shuttle costs.

    Before I knew this, I too was for the reduction of Shuttle Missions
    but since the difference between 0 and 10 missions per year is only
    10% (or is it 5%) of the overall costs.   They may just as well use 
    it to the maximum...

    With the Shuttle it seems that the only way to significantly reduce
    costs it to cancel it. Something that no-one really wants, not even
    congress.

    Gil

  Another thing I'd want to look into before scraping the Shuttle program is
the percentage of cost that would be overhead for manned flight in general.

  For example, maintenance of the launch facility at the Cape, maintenance of
landing facilities at Edwards, maintenance of flight control facilities at the
Johnson space center, and personal at all of those places may be needed for any
type of manned launch system. Certainly maintaining an astronauts office
staffed with astronauts is something that would be needed by a SSTO system. 

  It's possible that even after scrapping the Shuttle a large percentage of
expenditure currently credited to the Shuttle program would have to continue
in order to support the SSTO. 

  George 

Re:  shuttle costs


Fine, if there are so high fixed costs pull the whole thing down.

We REALLY don't need it.

Re fixed costs of ssto

George, how mistaken can you be.....

They lanuched DC-X with a launch control crew of 3!!!!!

They can launch and land at the same place, EASILY.  

And forget about conventional notions of launch facilities.  Probably the
largest expense would be in the cryo systems.  after that, some, especially the
tsto, would look much like airliners, in terms of the support required (and
might even be able to use the same type of folks!!!)

Tony

RE          <<< Note 864.16 by DCOPST::TONYSC::SCOLARO "One Way out" >>>

>George, how mistaken can you be.....

  Tony, do me a favor? Leave out all the "how wrong can you be", "you really
don't know much about this", "boy are you off", and other notes about me
personally. Let's stick to discussing the space program without all the
insulting comments. 

>They lanuched DC-X with a launch control crew of 3!!!!!

  Fine, they launched a large barrel shaped object with a crew of 3 and it flew
about 100 feet. They launch the DEC helicopter every day from behind my
building with a crew of one and it flies all the way to Logan. 

>And forget about conventional notions of launch facilities.  Probably the
>largest expense would be in the cryo systems.  after that, some, especially the
>tsto, would look much like airliners, in terms of the support required (and
>might even be able to use the same type of folks!!!)

  This could have been a direct quote from the Shuttle proposal. By now it was
suppose to be able to take off from a number of different places and land just
about anywhere. The cryogenic fuel is a major expense and a major factor gateing
launch windows.

  About 3 years ago there was an article in AWST about supersonic aircraft. They
said that there was a demand for Mach 5 airliner but that Mach 3 was as fast as
we'd see for quite a while because of the large cost of cryogenic fuel used
for Mach 5+ and because of the dramatic increase in the cost of managing heat
at that speed.

  Their feeling was that because of the safety and cost problems associated with
supporting cryogenic fuel at most airports and because of heating problems a
Mach 5 airliner would be much more expensive than a Mach 3 Kerosene burning
aircraft. 

  As for the subjective comment about how "we don't need the Shuttle", of
course we don't. It's almost impossible to argue that point. In fact, we don't
need to go into space at all. For that matter, if a giant space frog came along
and swallowed the entire earth the rest of the galaxy would hardly notice so I
suppose you could say we don't really "need" do live on earth much less off it.

  However, given that it would be nice for mankind to stay around (an arguable
point at best) it makes sense to try to spread beyond where we now live and the
Space Shuttle is the best thing we have going today to push forward the science
involved in living and working in space. 

  George 

George,

Sorry about the comments you objected to.

Great point about the Helicopter and the ssto craft.  Proves my point nicely
that ssto is moving in the direction of commercial aircraft, and the shuttle,
which requires thousands to launch it is not.

re quoting from the shuttle proposal

POSSIBLY, from the original proposal, but it was vastly changed before any
designs were put into practice.

Maybe if We said second generation shuttle instead of ssto you woudl be happy?

Douglas didn't hit the DC-3 on the first shot, there was a DC-1 and a DC-2 (and
the DC-2 was almost all of the DC-3, but the DC-1 was a out and out failure).

How does the cryo fuel gate launch windows?  Is it because, if you have to hit a
certain orbit, you can only have the fuel in the tanks so long before it gets
too hot?  If so, maybe that is a problem, but I think not.  DC-X is designed for
2 launches per day.  turn around time is a couple of hours.  So, if you have
some bad weather at 10:00, redo the whole process if you have to, you can still
launch at 4:00.

George, woudl you care to guess which uses more cryo fuel, a HST that is going
from New York to Tokyo or a ssto?  Since the mach 5 hst is burning fuel for 2
hours and the ssto is burning fuel for 20 minutes, I would guess the ssto uses
much less, but I could be wrong (less h2, the ssto also uses o2, so maybe there,
but the probelmes with the cryo stuff is for the h2, no?)

Also, for a jetliner you have to manage the heat for the entire trip.  I doubt
that heat ever becomes a problem for a ssto.

And you are mistaking an agressive 'lets jettison what doesn't work (i.e. the
failed shuttle) and head for something that does work' with a luddite anti-space
attitude.  George, I also ask you to refrain from comments like that to me.  I
am probably as pro-space as anyone.  I go to the Air and Space museum in DC just
to touch the moon rock on display.......

This does not mean that I think blindly following our present failed course is
the best way to promopte LONG TERM human presence in space.

Tony

RE: <<< Note 864.18 by DCOPST::TONYSC::SCOLARO "One Way out" >>>

>Great point about the Helicopter and the ssto craft.  Proves my point nicely
>that ssto is moving in the direction of commercial aircraft, and the shuttle,
>which requires thousands to launch it is not.

I'll believe that a man-rated spacecraft can be launched with three people
supporting it on the ground when I see it. Heck, a B747 takes more people than
that to launch it.

>re quoting from the shuttle proposal
>
>POSSIBLY, from the original proposal, but it was vastly changed before any
>designs were put into practice.

Yes. I assume that this sort of evolution will also happen with DC-X if it
gets the chance to progress towards a man-rated craft.

I'm all for DC-X and any other aggressive/"new" approaches to space access. I
cannot believe all of the (seemingly near-term) projections for DC-X, though
(in particular the three-person-ground-support bit).
						-- Tom

Re .19

Sorry, it is true.

Test flight happened with three controllers.

Now, possibly that is the missed communications.  I meant 3 controllers,
possibly you thought I meant 3 flight crew?

And DC-X is not yet man-rated and I'm not sure it or the sx-2 will ever be or
even need be.

And don't assume that the politico's have learned nothing.  The Shuttle is a
failure, in large measure because of the tampering with the design for pure
political/short-run economic expediency.  This will not happen to the shuttle
follow-on (it will however happen again, I guarentee it, just not with the
shuttle follow-on).

Tony

True, the bunny-hop was handled by three people. I'm sure that the "daily" 
flight of the man-rated version will require a lot of the same facilities 
and "overhead" of a 747 and might be able to share a lot of them in a 
commercial/military environment. This is one unit being supported by the 
developers, not a commercial quality unit being supported by generic 
mechanics on the flight line. No spares issues, no ongoing support issues, 
no inspections for long term wear. Just a one of a kind on a once in a 
while mission during testing.

After all, surely the man-rated vehicle will require a lawyer and an insurance 
agent and a DOT person and a union representative and a OSHA person to join 
the team 8^)

And, with the pilot onboard, you won't even need the controllers on the 
ground!

RE: <<< Note 864.20 by DCOPST::TONYSC::SCOLARO "One Way out" >>>

>Sorry, it is true.
>Test flight happened with three controllers.

Big deal. I was plainly talking about a man-rated craft.

>The Shuttle is a
>failure, in large measure because of the tampering with the design for pure
>political/short-run economic expediency.  This will not happen to the shuttle
>follow-on....

Why don't you think it will happen to the shuttle follow-on?
						-- Tom

>Big deal. I was plainly talking about a man-rated craft.

What's so special about man-rated?  I think it is a HUGE DEAL.  I mean a
productivity improvement of two orders of magnitude is very significant.

re why shuttle follow-on will not be twisted by Congress

Simple.  The shuttle was.  It is now widely recognized that that tampering was
penny-wise and pound foolish.  This will be a very useable arguement with
Congress to prevent tampering.  The same cannot be said of a project after a
successful shuttle follow-on.  Remember, shuttle came after Apollo, which was
just about 100% a technical decision.  It was successful, Congress then felt
comfortable playing with the shuttle design....

Congress is a cyclical animal.  It will not make the same mistake twice in a
row.  Now every other time, that is a different question ....

Tony

RE          <<< Note 864.18 by DCOPST::TONYSC::SCOLARO "One Way out" >>>

>Great point about the Helicopter and the ssto craft.  Proves my point nicely
>that ssto is moving in the direction of commercial aircraft, and the shuttle,
>which requires thousands to launch it is not.

  No, not a great point. The point is that it is very easy to build a machine
that will burn carbon based fuels and hop a couple hundred feet. Building
a man rated machine that will fly into orbit and back is an entirely different
thing. My point is that the thing they build is LIMITED like a helicopter.

>Maybe if We said second generation shuttle instead of ssto you woudl be happy?

  I was exercising a bit of poetic license when I said "original proposal".
I was referring to the set of proposals that were eventually sold to Congress
saying that the Shuttle would be an airline to space.

>Douglas didn't hit the DC-3 on the first shot, there was a DC-1 and a DC-2 (and
>the DC-2 was almost all of the DC-3, but the DC-1 was a out and out failure).

  The DC-1 was not a failure. It was the prototype to the DC-2. Only one was
built and it operated for many years before finally crashing in a field near
Madrid due to pilot error. From what I heard, the hull was used for many more
years by a group of nuns running some sort of shelter for the poor. 

  The DC-2 was also very successful. It had an oval shaped hull (tall and flat
on the sides) as apposed to the circle shaped hull of the DC-3. It was also
about 10% smaller than the DC-3. There would probably be some left today but
they all seemed to be broken up for scrap during the war. 

> How does the cryo fuel gate launch windows?  

  If they miss the window for one day, often times the window for the next day
is not possible because the tanks can not withstand being reloaded right away.
Someone else can probably explain this a whole lot better than I can.

>George, woudl you care to guess which uses more cryo fuel, a HST that is going
>from New York to Tokyo or a ssto?  

  The problems they mentioned had to do with equipping airports with cryogenic
fuel systems, safety factors, and the effects of super cold liquid on equipment.
These problems would exist regardless of burn time.

>Also, for a jetliner you have to manage the heat for the entire trip.  I doubt
>that heat ever becomes a problem for a ssto.

  Ditto heat shields. It's a technology that airlines are not equipped to handle
today regardless of the time in flight.

>This does not mean that I think blindly following our present failed course is
>the best way to promopte LONG TERM human presence in space.

  I don't doubt that. My feeling is that the Shuttle is not a failure. It does
what it was designed to do but not what it was sold to do. I don't think I ever
believed that it would work like an airline. My problem with the new designs is
that I believe they will have the same problems that the shuttle now has. I
don't see any credible plan to make launches any simpler. 

  George

  Over the weekend I was thinking of what it is about the new SSTO designs that
bothered me. Like the space station, they strike me as a plan that doesn't seem
like it's going to work. 

  Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that if built they will fly people into
space and return them safely to earth, but I seriously doubt the claim that they
will be dramatically cheaper than the Shuttle or that they will be operated
by a crew of 3.

  The thing that bothers me is that when I look at the current Shuttle, the
costs do not seem to be related to the fact that the tank and boosters are
external or that they are jettisoned in flight. Rather, most costs and problems
seem to be related to the following: 

  - Maintenance of the SME's
  - Maintenance of the APU's and fuel cells.
  - Problems with the tiles used for the heat shield
  - Leaking valves used to control cryogenic fuel
  - Sensors used to monitor complex systems.

  Conversely, stacking the SRB's and tank and mating the orbiter to the tank
are things you hardly ever hear about. I can't remember a single problem or
delay associated with that effort and the mating is generally done in a couple
days.

  When you think about the SSTO designs, they all have the problems mentioned
above. They all seem to require SME's for the final push into space, they will
all have APU's and fuel cells, they will all need some sort of heat shield, and
their system of valves and sensors will no doubt be even more complex than the
shuttle. Add to that the cryogenic ram jet technology "breathing" problems
associated with the onboard tanks holding cryogenic fuel and the added safety
problems of onboard cryogenic fuel and suddenly the entire design sounds far
more complex (read expensive).

  So the question is, what will this ship give us that the Shuttle does not
give us? Low cost access to space? I don't think so. The next step along the
chain of building more advanced launchers? Yes.

  I'd buy the next step theory but I'd rather see a lot more testing and some
overlap with the Shuttle so that we can maintain our presence in space. I don't
see any benefit in abandoning the Shuttle and waiting 10 years for yet another
expensive system capable of making it's 10-12 flights per year into space.

  George

Oh boy, this is fun.

RE: <<< Note 864.23 by DCOPST::TONYSC::SCOLARO "One Way out" >>>

>>Big deal. I was plainly talking about a man-rated craft.
>
>What's so special about man-rated?  I think it is a HUGE DEAL.

My 'big deal' comment was about the DC-X having a 3-person support crew.
(Actually, from what's been said recently, I guess it's 3 CONTROLLERS; I
imagine that the total ground support crew (those people directly involved in
preparing for a launch) is larger than 3.)

Of course anything man-rated is a big deal; that is why I can't see a man-rated
craft having a support crew (even a controller crew) of only 3 people. And that
is why I find the fact that the DC-X requires only three controllers to be
irrelevent, in the context of shuttle comparisons.
						-- Tom

re .24

George reread, more carefully.  I said:

>ssto is moving in the direction of commercial aircraft

You ignored that point completely, and that was the whole point.  You started
talking about how the ssto is a helicopter??????  Besides DC-X is hydrogen
fueled, it uses the same engines that SX-2 will use, just 4 instead of 8.

Re failure.

George, you think too much like an engineer.  Something can be tecnhically great
and still be a failure.  If the DC-1 was a success, why was only one built?  If
it was a prototype, why even name it?  They intended to go forward with that
design, but went to the DC-2 because it was obviously better.  

I think I also said that the DC-2 was almost the DC-3, so there was no need to
lecture there, I think we are in agreement.

Re cryo fuel

So you are talking about the problems of putting cryo fuel at every airport,
totally irrelevant.  You put it at two and you have twice the flexibility of the
shuttle.

Why ditto heat shields.  An airline is designed to go through the atmosphere. 
This generates heat (the SR-71 was so hot on landing that no one could get out
until it cooled).  It is difficult to keep hydrogen liquid when you are heating
the hull of the airplane for 2-4 hours.  A ssto craft will experience
atmospheric heating for minutes at most.

re shuttle and failure

Again, yuou are talking technical.

From a political and economic perspective the shuttle IS a failure.  PERIOD.

The shuttle DOES not do wat it was designed to do, that is go into space each
week!

RE ssto';s and being cheaper

re ssme's. 

BAD DATA.  No ssto craft that I have heard of will use ssme's.  DC-X uses
RL-10's, which have been in use for 20 some years and are far more reliable than
ssme's.

re apu's and fuel cells

2 points.  1) shuttle fuel cells are older designs, perhaps newer designs are
available.  2)  with a flight profile of hours instead of days, perhaps fuel
cells are not required.  Also, apu power is FAR less, at least for DC-X

re tiles

OLD DATA agail.  Completely new thermal system, with common tiles, as opposed to
the 10K individual tiles the shuttle requires.  VASTLY decreases the time
required for tile maintenance.

re valves and sensors

Again, you are moving from a design, ssme, that has no tollerance to one that is
much more proven, with greater tollerance.  Also, the experience so the shuttle
should enable better in situ design for sensors and valves.   


Remember, since DC-X carries no wing, in fact minimizes return weight, all the
constraints imposed by the shuttle system are eased.  George, you are comparing
a model t and a ferrari to discredit the ferrari.

George, also remember, I am advocating pursuing ALL 3 current ssto or tsto
technologies, BECAUSE problems will surface and it is better to have back-ups
and competition than to be saddled with one lousy design.

re .26

>Of course anything man-rated is a big deal; that is why I can't see a man-rated
>craft having a support crew (even a controller crew) of only 3 people. And that
>is why I find the fact that the DC-X requires only three controllers to be
>irrelevent, in the context of shuttle comparisons.


Sorry, I don't get it, why shouild I care about man-rated????

Tony

RE: <<< Note 864.27 by DCOPST::TONYSC::SCOLARO "One Way out" >>>

>Sorry, I don't get it, why shouild I care about man-rated????

I was contrasting the complexities and requirements of man-rated craft vs.
not-man-rated craft.

Why should you care about man-rated craft? I dunno. What do you want cheap
access to space for?
						-- Tom

What do I want cheap access to space for, plenty.....

Communications satelites, some of the irridium concepts I have heard are pretty
interesting.  Maybe nearly Dick Tracy .......

I'm a sucker for 500 channels :)  Gotta have more shopping channels :)

Maybe we could use the cheaper launch to get more, lower function, higher
reliability space probes out there.  With launch costs at $50M a pop, even with
ELV's, you cannot afford single purpose missions.  And, like George says, as the
complexity goes up, the reliability goes down.

And, even as we move into space, a non-man rated launcher, that delivers cargo
at 1/100 the cost of the shuttle would be ideal to use in constructing a space
station and supplying it, or in launching the components/fuel for interplanetary
missions.

You don't have to have EVERY launcher man-rated to still maintain a space
presence.  And if DC-X proves reliable and cheap enough then, and only then,
upgrade it to a man-capable launcher.

tony

RE          <<< Note 864.27 by DCOPST::TONYSC::SCOLARO "One Way out" >>>

>George reread, more carefully.  I said:
>ssto is moving in the direction of commercial aircraft
>You ignored that point completely, and that was the whole point.  

  I didn't ignore anything. I disagree that they are moving in the direction
of commercial aircraft. I see no evidence that they are addressing the major
problems that require an enormous support staff to get the thing off the
ground.

>You started
>talking about how the ssto is a helicopter??????  Besides DC-X is hydrogen
>fueled, it uses the same engines that SX-2 will use, just 4 instead of 8.

  If it was burning cryogenic fuel, then I have a hard time believing that
only 3 people were involved in getting it off the ground. Also, once you add
the fuel cells, APU's, life support, safety personal, crew support, and what
ever you are right back to a big staff.

>George, you think too much like an engineer.  

  Thank you,

>Something can be tecnhically great
>and still be a failure.  If the DC-1 was a success, why was only one built?  If
>it was a prototype, why even name it?  They intended to go forward with that
>design, but went to the DC-2 because it was obviously better.  

  I have no idea why they called it what they did. The DC-1 was the proto-type
for the DC-2. They were almost the same size and same design. The DC-3 was
about 10%-15% bigger, round instead of oval, with updated avionics. Both the
DC-1/DC-2 and DC-3 were successful.

>So you are talking about the problems of putting cryo fuel at every airport,
>totally irrelevant.  You put it at two and you have twice the flexibility of
>the shuttle.

  I doubt it. I believe that the big expense of flying any manned reusable space
craft is going to be maintenance of the engines, APUs, fuel cells, sensors etc
as I noted before. I see no evidence that the new designs will not have to be
overhauled in the Orbiter Process Facility as the Shuttle is today which means
they will probably take off from the Cape. 

>Why ditto heat shields.  An airline is designed to go through the atmosphere. 
>This generates heat (the SR-71 was so hot on landing that no one could get out
>until it cooled).  It is difficult to keep hydrogen liquid when you are heating
>the hull of the airplane for 2-4 hours.  A ssto craft will experience
>atmospheric heating for minutes at most.

  The problem is that the thing has to land which means entering the atmosphere
at Mach 24. The SR-71 topped out at about Mach 3. So the new craft will have
some sort of reentry system (i.e. heat shield/tiles/whatever) that will have
to be maintained.

re shuttle and failure

>Again, yuou are talking technical.
>From a political and economic perspective the shuttle IS a failure.  PERIOD.
>The shuttle DOES not do wat it was designed to do, that is go into space each
>week!

  From what I've seen, I don't believe any of these designs will go into space
every week either. I believe that maintaining all of the on board systems will
limit them to 10-12 launches a year just as the Shuttle is limited by the
systems on the Orbiter. 

>BAD DATA.  No ssto craft that I have heard of will use ssme's.  DC-X uses
>RL-10's, which have been in use for 20 some years and are far more reliable
> than ssme's.

  No RL-10 has ever been used twice. Imagine swapping 10 engines instead of 3.
And other designs start talking about cryogenic ram jets and air intakes that
change in flight from supporting one set of engines to supporting another. Tell
me that won't be a maintenance nightmare. 

>2 points.  1) shuttle fuel cells are older designs, perhaps newer designs are
>available.  2)  with a flight profile of hours instead of days, perhaps fuel
>cells are not required.  Also, apu power is FAR less, at least for DC-X

  So fine, put new fuel cells on the Shuttle. As for the flight profile of
hours, I don't buy that. With only 10-12 flights per year, which is the best
I believe they will achieve, they will want to stay up longer per launch.

>OLD DATA agail.  Completely new thermal system, with common tiles, as opposed to
>the 10K individual tiles the shuttle requires.  VASTLY decreases the time
>required for tile maintenance.

  So fine, put the new tiles on the Shuttle.

>Remember, since DC-X carries no wing, in fact minimizes return weight, all the
>constraints imposed by the shuttle system are eased.  George, you are comparing
>a model t and a Ferrari to discredit the Ferrari.

  Exactly. The Model T was a simple car that anyone could fix. The Ferrari is
so complex that mechanics need special tools just to change the spark plugs.
From what I've seen, these are designs for the most complex Ferrari's ever
made. And as the old saying goes, "My Ferrari will pass anything on the road
except a service station". 

>George, also remember, I am advocating pursuing ALL 3 current ssto or tsto
>technologies, BECAUSE problems will surface and it is better to have back-ups
>and competition than to be saddled with one lousy design.

  Fine, I'm for a next generation as well, but because I don't believe, as
you do, that the new one will be any simpler than the Shuttle, or that it will
fly any more often, I'm in favor of flying the old system until the new system
is ready. 

  Bottom line is that the reason the Shuttle doesn't fly every day is because
of the complexity of the Orbiter, not because of the drop away tanks and
boosters. None of the SSTO systems are designed to be simple. If anything it
will take more complexity to achieve SSTO which means more money, more time in
the Orbiter Processing Facility, and an enormous launch staff. 

  George

>  I didn't ignore anything. I disagree that they are moving in the direction
>of commercial aircraft. I see no evidence that they are addressing the major
>problems that require an enormous support staff to get the thing off the
>ground.

Then you are being deliberately blind.  

re cryo fuel.

Yes, Geroge, the DC-X, to the best of my knowledge, uses the same systems as the
SX-2 will use.  It has been represented that the only difference is 4 engines
instead of 8 and that DC-X is 1/3 scale while SX-2 is 1/2 scale.

And no, you are not right to a large staff.  What makes you think that the DC-X
apu load is ANYTHING like the shuttle load.  Why do you insist that it has fuel
cells?  I don't know it has fuel cells or not, but batteries become an obvious
possibility with a 2 times a day launch profile.

re successful

We have distinctly different definitions.  To you something is successful if 'it
works'.  To me something is successful if it has positive impact.  By my
definition, the DC-3 is a MONSTER hit, DC-1 is an out and out failure, DC-2 is
perhaps a footnote.  Shuttle is a FAILURE.

>I see no evidence that the new designs will not have to be
>overhauled in the Orbiter Process Facility as the Shuttle is today which means
>they will probably take off from the Cape. 

Sorry, BIG TIME blindness on your part here.  How come they are then doing the
test flights out of white sands.  By your definition, they should have to do the
test flights out of the cape.  George, this chain has no logic to it.

>  The problem is that the thing has to land which means entering the atmosphere
>at Mach 24. The SR-71 topped out at about Mach 3. So the new craft will have
>some sort of reentry system (i.e. heat shield/tiles/whatever) that will have
>to be maintained.

A problem, NOT.  Yes, it will have a reentry system.  But this has nothing to do
with cryo fuel, why bring it up when the discussion was on cryo fuel tanks?  And
the heat load on reentry will not be great and the amount of cryo fuel left over
will be small, as the craft will weigh only a small fraction of its launch
weight.

>And other designs start talking about cryogenic ram jets and air intakes that
>change in flight from supporting one set of engines to supporting another. Tell
>me that won't be a maintenance nightmare. 

Geroge, it won't be a maintenance nightmare.  What you are describing is COMMON
aerospace technology.  The only tricky part is that you are using cryo fuel as a
heat exchange medium.  The fuel is not designed to go through the modifyable
engine parts and remain in a cryo state. it is designed to cool those surfaces
before it travels to the combustion chamber.  This is literally rocket science,
but very standard.  VERY.  It is probably no different, in execution difficulty
than afterburners.

>With only 10-12 flights per year, which is the best
>I believe they will achieve, they will want to stay up longer per launch.

Even with 10-12 launches per year, they will not stay up longer.  If they do, it
will be a complete change of the design center.

>  So fine, put the new tiles on the Shuttle.

CANNOT BE DONE.  The shuttle has many irregular surfaces.  As far as I know it
cannot use a small number of tile types.  To adequately cover the shuttle,
virtually each tile must be unique (ok, maybe they get bilateral symetry)

George, I think you miss a VERY major point.  The shuttle design is now some 20+
years old.  It is literally not worth it to redesign the whole thing to take
advantage of modern electronics.  Yet the modern electronics are at the very
heart of the advanced designs.  ANY one of the 3 will easily beat shuttle in
launch costs.  Perhaps model t and ferrari was an inappropriate metaphor, how
about eniac and apple mac?  probably more likely correct.  The mac can do
anything the eniac does, and better, because of the advance of technology, yet
why apply solid state transistors to eniac?  much better to rebuild the whole
thing.

>None of the SSTO systems are designed to be simple. 

This is a DEAD-ON 100% ERROR.  You could not make a more incorrect statement. 
Simplicity has been the central design goal!!  George, if you are going to
argue, at least get the facts correct.

Believe it, the new system WILL have dramatically lower costs than shuttle.  We
only need the courage to move on to them.  And the wisdom to comprehend the
opportunity.

Shuttle is a hybridized beast that no one loved.  it taught us many things.  Now
it is time to be put to pasture........

>>  So fine, put the new tiles on the Shuttle.

You remove the compound curves, we'll put on the tiles. Comes
from the smooth, symetrical design

Remember too, that they built the prototype out of existing 
hardware and spares. They didn't develop any new technology, 
they just put it together differently. They know the service 
issues and the spares needed and the gotchas out there. Just 
a new configuration.

They also aren't designing to run the engines at over 100% 
rated power since they will be able to land safely on 75% (6 
of 8) running.

They're talking about having hydrogen fuel available for 
vehicles in the next 20 years. I think this technology is 
getting to the "common man" capability.

          <<< Note 864.31 by DCOPST::TONYSC::SCOLARO "One Way out" >>>

>And no, you are not right to a large staff.  What makes you think that the DC-X
>apu load is ANYTHING like the shuttle load.  Why do you insist that it has fuel
>cells?  I don't know it has fuel cells or not, but batteries become an obvious
>possibility with a 2 times a day launch profile.

  This seems to be a major point in our argument. You seem to have accepted
without question their argument that the full blown, space capable, manned
version will be easy to maintain and take few people to service. You seem to be
saying that I am blind because I don't accept that argument. 

  I believe that skeptical would be a better word than blind. I just don't
believe it. It was the same argument we heard for the Shuttle. Also, if it
were that easy to simplify, why couldn't they apply that technology when they
were overhauling the Shuttle to make them easier to maintain? Answer: They
can't or they would. And yes I saw your symmetry argument, I don't buy it.

>To me something is successful if it has positive impact.  By my
>definition, the DC-3 is a MONSTER hit, DC-1 is an out and out failure, DC-2 is
>perhaps a footnote.  Shuttle is a FAILURE.

  Tony, listen to me as I speak slowly. The DC-1 was the proto-type for the
DC-2 which lead to the DC-3. They never intended to build more than one. It was
built at a time when other companies were building bi-planes and high wing
mono-planes of cloth and wood. It was the ship that tested the concept for the
most successful line of aircraft in the history of aviation. 

  In fact if you look at pictures of the Wrigh Flyer, the DC-1, and the MDC-90s
the DC-1 looks a lot more like the new planes both in appearance and in design
than it does like the Wright's plane even though there were only 20 years
between the Flyer and the DC-1 and 70 years between the DC-1 and the MDC-90. It
was probably one of the 5 most remarkable things that ever flew period. 

RE reentry

  You criticized me for talking about reentry saying that the discussion was
about cryogenic fuel. Not true. There were two separate discussions, one on
cryogenic fuel and one on reentry. They started when I talked about the AWST
article pointing out two problems with air or space craft that fly above Mach
5, cryogenic fuel and heat from air resistance. They are both problems that
will make the final spacecraft very complex.

>The fuel is not designed to go through the modifyable
>engine parts and remain in a cryo state. it is designed to cool those surfaces
>before it travels to the combustion chamber.  This is literally rocket science,
>but very standard.  VERY.  It is probably no different, in execution difficulty
>than afterburners.

  I understand that. In fact, that's the way the SSME's work. You have not
convinced me by that argument that we are looking at a simple system.

>>None of the SSTO systems are designed to be simple. 
>This is a DEAD-ON 100% ERROR.  You could not make a more incorrect statement. 
>Simplicity has been the central design goal!!  George, if you are going to
>argue, at least get the facts correct.

  Again, you are getting confused with what they are saying and what they have
proved. Just because I see that argument, that doesn't mean I believe it. The
problems they have to overcome are just as complex as the ones the Shuttle
faces. The prototype out at White Sands so oversimplifies the final goal that
it proves little if anything. 

  And if it is that simple to build these things then fine, let them go ahead
and build one. If it's that simple (which I highly doubt), it shouldn't be that
expensive to build the 1st space rated manned prototype or to fly it. In that
unlikely event, we can cancel the Shuttle. But in the more likely event that
they are going to end up with another complex system that takes an army to
support, at least we have the Shuttle until it is ready. 

  George 

re why not retrofit the shuttle

Simple, they CANNOT.  It is a large and complicated beast with 20 year old
technology.  Your typical 1985 pc would blow the space shuttle's computers out
of the water.

They symetry arguementy is real and 100% true.

Re failures

Fine, the DC-3 is a monster hit, the DC-2 is a footnote, at best.  The other
aircraft that were competing for the airlines market at the time of the DC-3
were, although technically successes (they flew), failures, because no one even
remembers their designations or manufacturers (boeing 247???).

Re reentry

But you are trying to say because an airliner will have a heat problem from air
resistance that a ssto will.  This is patent nonsence.  The airliner will have
to deal with heating for a 2-4 hour flight.  The ssto will have to deal with
heat for a couple of minutes at the start of the flight and at the end, VASTLY
lower requirements.

re ssme's

Again, the problem with the SSME's is that they are forced to go to 107% of
design thrust.  If they never had to go over design thrust, they would be more
reliable.  SSTO avoids this problem.

re proved.

George, you said they are not designed for simplicity.  I called you on it then
you modify your statement to say that they have not PROVED they are simpler.  

I have to grant you are correct.  They have not proved it.

Yet, you insist their problems are on the same scale as the shuttle and this is
pure blindness., or deliberate misrepresentation.  Their problems are far easier
and they have the advantage of 20 years technology development.  Do you think
technology has stood still the past 20 years?  

George, do you have any idea how much DC-x cost?  I think it is about $65M. 
SX-2 is slated to be built in 2 years at a cost of $200M.  Just looking at these
costs, how can you not visualize the potential.  Each shuttle cost in 1982 $,
about $2B.  SX-2 is half scale.  Assuming a trippling of cost to go to full
scale, you still wind up at less than 1/3rd the cost of the shuttle.  And they
met their budget for DC-X, something NASA has not done for 20 years!!!

This is a revolution.....

Viva la revolution, stomp the shuttle! :)

Tony

re .31
    
>Even with 10-12 launches per year, they will not stay up longer.  If they do,
>it will be a complete change of the design center.
    
    So what is the design centre? Without specifying this it isn't possible
    to predict whether it will be a success.
    
    If the end result of DC-X is a reusable launch vehicle that is cheaper
    and more reliable than the current crop of ELVs and the shuttle then
    that's good. Build it and use it.
    
    On the other hand with the (here) implied mission profile, it isn't
    going to be all things to all men. Of course with the benefit of the
    shuttle experience this isn't necessarily a bad thing but we still have
    to address the issue of space science. I can conceive of several
    answers, all of which have precedents in current operations (i.e nothing
    particularly innovative) and which can be used in combination.
    
    a) use of sensing satellites (like ERS,TOPEX)
    b) use of retrievable platforms (possibly with some kind of teleoperations)
    c) space station
    
    A cheap reliable launch system obviously has a role to play in all
    three of the above. Only (c) provides the flexible environment necessary
    for really doing science. A great number of the experiments, currently
    being launched on the shuttle, don't work properly and require "on-site
    patching". It could be that the new launcher is so cheap that it
    doesn't matter (i.e. you bring it home, fix it and re-launch it) but it
    seems to me that a move to a launcher not designed for extended in-space
    operations strengthens the argument for a space station.

re .35

Obviously YES.

I would like VERY much to have a permanently manned space station.

With the shuttle as your mode of transportation, the hope of obtaining a space
station is VERY dim.

I predict that even the watered down space station now proposed will continue to
be subjected to the death of a thousand cuts because it costs too much.

And what is the number 1 reason it costs so much, LAUNCH COSTS.

Tony

I have read all of the arguments on both sides, on the one side a pro-DC-X 
fanatic, and the other is apparently a pro-nasa skeptic. 

I think you both have major blind spots. 

The SHUTTLE.
Be reasonable, can you see the U.S. government just scrapping the shuttle, 
after all, there are countless VOTERS out there whose JOBS depend on the 
shuttle, most of them indirectly. Also, the NET cost to the U.S. of the shuttle
is almost NIL. ?? How come you say!? It's like this. The government takes money
in taxes from mostly everyone. It spends that money on JOBS. The directly 
connected jobs are obvious, but every item used to make the shuttle fly was 
made by someone with a job that at least in part was paid for by the shuttle 
program. The VAST majority of expenditure is confined to the territory occupied
by U.S. VOTERS. This means that all this money is merely being forcibly 
circulated by the government!.

DC-X
I agree that MOST of the DC-X promise is just claims, BUT... SO-FAR, they seem
to have achieved everything they said they would by this time.
1. The have run the engines up to FULL power for several seconds, and then
   shut-down, maintained, re-fuelled and started up the engines in *_8 HOURS_*
   The shuttle takes about *_40_* times longer to do the same thing.
2. We are told the electronics in DC-X (and it's decendants) is and will be
   modern PLUG-AND-PLAY modular construction. This has to make it massively
   cheaper than the shuttle, where a simple component failure can take days 
   to fix.
3. The DC-X has got off the ground (albeit only a bunny hop so-far) on a budget
   that NASA would not have even got tool-to-metal with. If this were NASA 
   project we would still be in the concept evaluation stage with at least 
   another year before they even decided which idea to spend money on.
4. The declared INTENT of the DC-X program is to create a vehicle that can fly
   from and to a hundred-yard circle of concrete anywhere (that someone pays
   for the ground facilities), land, be serviced in much the same way that a 
   modern airliner is serviced, and take off again the *_SAME DAY_*. They can
   afford to slip to *_20 TIMES_* the so-far demonstrated turn around time and
   still be better than the optimistic pipe dreams of the original SHUTTLE 
   expectations.


What I expect to see is the shuttle will continue to be operated until such 
time as there is an alternative that the government cannot continue to ignore.

With luck, the DC-X successors will be among those trying to nail down the 
shuttle's coffin lid, but if not, we should still record it as a darn good try.

I feel that enough has been said, please let the argument die away, and let 
open discussion take it's place.

	John Travell. (Un?fortunately NOT a U.S. Voter!)

I think .37 makes some very good points, save for the part about costing the
Government nil.

The problem is several-fold different.  1) there is tremendous pressure in the
U.S. to cut direct expendatures.  This thirst to cut ignores possible second
order effects of cuts (like lost jobs means lower tax reciepts and higher
outlays for unemployment compensation).  2)  I cannot buy the logic that
government spending is costless, else why not just spend some more to crank the
economy out of the present doldrums.  After all, it doesn't cost anything.

Tony

RE          <<< Note 864.34 by DCOPST::TONYSC::SCOLARO "One Way out" >>>

>Simple, they CANNOT.  It is a large and complicated beast with 20 year old
>technology.  Your typical 1985 pc would blow the space shuttle's computers out
>of the water.

  So replace the Shuttle's computer with a 486 based system or an Alpha. Heck,
our group would sell them DECelx if they wanted to go with an Alpha embedded
system hosted from OSF/1. 

>They symetry arguementy is real and 100% true.

  For all the designs?

>Fine, the DC-3 is a monster hit, the DC-2 is a footnote, at best.  The other
>aircraft that were competing for the airlines market at the time of the DC-3
>were, although technically successes (they flew), failures, because no one even
>remembers their designations or manufacturers (boeing 247???).

  Keep changing the topic enough times and you can win any argument. So what?

>But you are trying to say because an airliner will have a heat problem from air
>resistance that a ssto will.  

  As I said last time you claimed I was saying that, no. I'm saying that what
ever system is used it will have to enter the atmosphere at Mach 24 and will
thus have a heat problem not experienced by the flying barrel at White Sands.

>Again, the problem with the SSME's is that they are forced to go to 107% of
>design thrust.  If they never had to go over design thrust, they would be more
>reliable.  SSTO avoids this problem.

  That's not the only problem. Cryogenic fuel systems are complex no matter
what level they operate at. If they could reduce the cost of the shuttle by a
power of 10 by avoiding this problem they would just add a 4th engine or
upgrate the present SSME.

>Yet, you insist their problems are on the same scale as the shuttle and this is
>pure blindness., or deliberate misrepresentation.  Their problems are far easier
>and they have the advantage of 20 years technology development.  Do you think
>technology has stood still the past 20 years?  

  Here we go with blindness again. 

  The problem is exactly the same as the shuttle's problem, fly people and
materials into space, keep the people alive, return the people safely to earth,
and get ready to fly again. I have no doubt that a new system could do it
better, I'm just not convinced that the design will do what the shuttle does
cheaply. I'm not "blind" to it, I just don't believe it.

>George, do you have any idea how much DC-x cost?  

  You mean the flying barrel? No, and I'll bet anything that you have no clue
how much the man rated space capable version will cost either. 

>I think it is about $65M. 
>SX-2 is slated to be built in 2 years at a cost of $200M.  Just looking at these
>costs, how can you not visualize the potential.  

  Because I don't believe everything I read. Let me demonstrate. Hey Tony, I
have a water pistol. I think ... I think ... that it could put out any burning
building. How about if you pay me $5,000 for my water pistol. You could mark it
up 100% and sell it to any town to replace their fire truck. 

  There, now just looking at the costs, how can you not visualize the
potential? Are you "Blind" or are you going to send me a check for $5,000?
Could it possibly be that someone could write a proposal that was not correct?
No, of course not, and if you don't believe that you are "Blind". 

  As I said, if it's that cheap, let them build it. I'll believe it when I
see it. No need to cancel the Shuttle.

  George

Maybe I didn't say it how I thought it...

Because the vast majority of the TAX dollars spent on the shuttle are re-invested
in the U.S. economy, the NET cost to the NATION (NOT the government!) is that
small portion of the program budget spent OUTside the U.S.


I totally agree that the shuttle as such is massively too expensive, and there 
is an almost desperate need for a viable replacement. 
However, I also agree that it would be a gross folly to ground the shuttle and 
not have a human presence in space, as doing so would be seen by certain luddite 
socialist minded politicians as a perfect excuse to permanently deprive space 
activities of the budget they get now.


FUND the shuttle until there is a suitable alternative.

FUND a number of competing SSTO and TSTO projects, but keep them on very tight
budgets, and stop funding a project when it's projected costs start to spiral.

KEEP a primary goal of CHEAP access to space, the target should be to make it no 
more expensive to transport mass sub-orbital across the continent or ocean (and 
equally, to orbit) than it is to AIRfreight the same mass the same distance.

	John Travell. (with a view from outside the tax boundaries!)

re .36
    
>I predict that even the watered down space station now proposed will continue
>to be subjected to the death of a thousand cuts because it costs too much.
    
    We may be in agreement on this one.

>And what is the number 1 reason it costs so much, LAUNCH COSTS.
    
    Can you cite figures for this? Let's stick to the space station proposal
    as it was before the start of the latest "review". You need to present
    figures for startup and for recurring costs.
    
re .39
    
    If it aint broke don't fix it.
    
    I don't think the shuttle's computers are the right thing to be
    attacking. They have a very good reliability record. When was the last
    time a PC crashed when you were using it. For me, it was two days ago.
    Would you fly in anything with that kind of record? Of course the
    shuttle's computers are dwarfed in terms of memory capacity and CPU
    speed but there is little evidence that changing them would increase
    reliability or reduce cost.
    
re .40
    
    My gut feel is that your economics are suspect. The US government is
    not just circulating money. It is spending hundreds of billions of dollars
    more than it is receiving, each year. Hence the pressure for cuts alluded
    to in another reply.

re Note 864.40 by WIZZER::TRAVELL:

> However, I also agree that it would be a gross folly to ground the shuttle and 
> not have a human presence in space, as doing so would be seen by certain
> luddite  socialist minded politicians as a perfect excuse to permanently
> deprive space  activities of the budget they get now.
  
        I thought socialists were people who favored increased public
        sector economic activity?  I thought it was socialists in
        another country that put up a permanent manned space station?

        Bob

In my book, a `socialist' is anyone who favours spending money on `social' 
problems, i.e. prop up the poor and unemployed with taxpayer's money. 

Perhaps a good reason I am not in politics is that I would support scrapping 
ALL of the current `social' programmes, and possibly replace them with a 
`community employment' that requires people to do some work for their money!

>    My gut feel is that your economics are suspect. The US government is
>    not just circulating money. It is spending hundreds of billions of dollars
>    more than it is receiving, each year. Hence the pressure for cuts alluded
>    to in another reply.

I do not believe that the overspend is on space, surely most of it is on 
`social' programmes!... 
But this is a digression!.  lets get back to the real discussion.


My own preferred ideas are for a TSTO loosely based on something like a bigger 
and re-usable Pegasus dropped at relatively high altitude from beneath a fairly
conventional `lifter' aircraft. 
By having the orbiter slung beneath the lifter, you eliminate the need for 
anything like the shuttle gantry. you just tow the orbiter into place and jack
it up, or maybe build the lifter with telescopic U/C and let it `sit down' onto
the orbiter latches. 
The lifter should be high wing, maybe a bit like a Galaxy, with a cutaway body
behind the flight cabin, so that the orbiter is suspended close under the wing
where you would normally have the payload. This would totally eliminate the 
roll problems experienced by the B52 when dropping Pegasus, but may well 
introduce new ones.

	John Travell.

RE     <<< Note 864.43 by WIZZER::TRAVELL "John T, UK VMS System Support" >>>

>In my book, a `socialist' is anyone who favors spending money on `social' 
>problems, i.e. prop up the poor and unemployed with taxpayer's money. 

  I believe that socialism usually refers to the practice of government control
of companies and utilities. I don't remember any definition of socialism that
is based on entitlement programs. In fact, paying for a space flight system
is more socialist than paying for the poor. Having it done by private companies
would be capitalist.

RE lifting the orbiter like Pegasus

  Same argument as before. If you look at what eats up the cost and takes the
time and support personal, it's the orbiter itself not the boosters and launch
pad. It's the SSME's, the APU's, fuel cells, life support, even the space
toilet with it's chronic problems that makes manned space flight so expensive.
Those things would be present no matter what you used to hoist the thing up to
50,000 feet. 

  And yes, I've heard the "claims" that the new systems would address this, I'm
not "blind", just skeptical. 

  George

re .43
    
>I do not believe that the overspend is on space, surely most of it is on 
>`social' programmes!... 
    
    If your budget is not balanced then every program is overspent. The
    question is how do you get back in the black, with your choices ranging
    between the two extremes of proportional reduction across the board to
    eliminating some programs while leaving others untouched. In reality
    the cuts come where the government thinks it can most get away with it
    and ditto the tax increases. I can well imagine that in dollar terms
    NASA's budget is dwarfed by other programs, not least though by defence,
    which is not normally considered a social program (except by the thousands
    of employees in the related industries).
    
>But this is a digression!.  lets get back to the real discussion.
    
    It's a fact of life that politics and economics are relevant to the future
    direction of the US space program (or that of any other country).

From the previous update, it becomes emminently clear that they are running cryo
hydrogen in DC-X.  

There is a reference to the liquid hydro fuel cooling something or another.

To get hydrogen liquid, requires VERY cold temperatures.

And they stated (again, only a claim, but one from a crew with an excellent
track record so far), that the only thing preventing a second flight on the day
of the first flight was the condition of the crew, i.e. totally exhausted from
fixing all those little things.

Also, learning is taking place, they are going to revamp proceeduresd before the
second launch.

Tony

Well, just got finished reading an editorial in the latest Business Week.

Surprised me.

They recommend killing Freedom, AND using the money saved to develop a HST, NASP
and other low cost space access technologies.  Interesting how Business Week
comes down on this issue now.....

FWIW, they also supported the SSC.

Also funny how they didn't say stop the funding, father stop the station and
redirect the money.

They said (and I think it is probably true to some extent) that Freedom was an
extension of Cold War political conflict and in the absence of Cold War
politics, we should reevaluate our research priorities.

Tony

re .36
    
>And what is the number 1 reason it costs so much, LAUNCH COSTS.
    
    Just to provide some figures for this...
    
    From AvLeak, as at May '89 (and in 1989$)
    
    Development and Operations (to end '96):	$24.7G
    Launch					$4.3-6.3G
    
    Total					$29-31G
    
    Obviously the station is a rapidly moving target and this year's
    configuration is another kettle of fish.
    
    P.S. Someone actually thought there would be any hardware up by 1996.
    Sadly this doesn't look like being the case.

Sorry to disagree with .48.

The effect of launch costs goes deeper than the actual launch costs.  The high
cost of launching and servicing the station has forced design trade-offs
elsewhere that have increased the cost.  The effect is probably uncalculatable,
save with the use of NASA internal information.

Tony

    The cost of the Freedom space station IS mostly launch costs.
    Last time I looked, some time ago.  It was something like ...
    
    		$  20 B		develop & construct
    		$ 100 B		launch  & visits for 20 years 
    
    But still,  even at such  a cost I still think they should go
    ahead with it. 
    
    As they should keep the shuttle running until its replacement
    is operational. Access to space is key to the future of human
    kind, and letting things go until "something better" comes up
    is no solution.   People learn by doing, the moment they stop
    doing is the moment when they stop learning.
    
    What the shuttle replacement is going to be I don't know, but
    not even NASA ever proposed a shuttle II. So it comes down to
    DC-X or some other SSTO design, NASP is out of funding so its
    not even in the running.
    
    I would love for DC-Y to work, or anything else for quick and
    cheap access to orbit. But I've got to admit that I don't see
    how, they claim new technology,  but don't mention any except
    maybe for faster then "shuttle" computers.
    
    The hard part,  cryogenic handling and engine performance its
    taken as granted ???     I mean it takes more then wishing to 
    turn out a rocket engine with unlimited burn times, as we saw
    in the shuttle program !!!
    
    Gil
    

Well, it is also materials technology.

George can say retrofit it to the shuttle, but we are talking about the entire
frame.

Carbon composites, aluminum-lithium, etc.

It is materials technology, not rocket technology that makes a SSTO possible. 
Strength to weight ratios have climbed considerably over the past 20 years,
carbon-carbon was unknown in 1970, now tennis rackets are amde of the stuff.

Tony

RE          <<< Note 864.51 by DCOPST::TONYSC::SCOLARO "One Way out" >>>

>carbon-carbon was unknown in 1970, now tennis rackets are amde of the stuff.

  Carbon-Carbon is exactly what is used for the tiles placed on the nose and
leading edge of the shuttle's wing. It is also used inside the engines to
control exhaust. 

  George

Right George

I think I made a mistake.  Not carbon-carbon, rather carbon fiber.  I'm not
talking about heat shield material, rather structural material

Tony

    Regarding the discussion of alternative launch vehicles (SSEO, etc.)
    there is no one optimal solution within attainable technology.  What is
    required is a balanced program consisting of expendables, STS,
    air launch (pegasus), and SSEO that allow for the utilization of each
    system's relative strengths.  For example, although the DC-X, Y or
    whatever offers promising launch cost savings, it cannot completely
    replace all the capabilities of the shuttle.  One big advantage the
    STS system has is the ability to return payloads for refurbishment,
    reuse, etc.  Not to mention its demonstated utilization as an EVA
    platform.
    
    Multiple alternatives require $'s.  In some respects, this adds
    credence to those who call for privatization and/or
    internationalization of some of these services.  The initiatives that
    being made to use some Mir technology may be the first step in this
    direction.   

re .54
    
>    For example, although the DC-X, Y or
>    whatever offers promising launch cost savings, it cannot completely
>    replace all the capabilities of the shuttle.  One big advantage the
>    STS system has is the ability to return payloads for refurbishment,
>    reuse, etc.  Not to mention its demonstated utilization as an EVA
>    platform.
    
    It is not clear exactly what DC-Y might ultimately be capable of but I
    don't see any reason why it couldn't return payloads or be used for EVA.
    
    One difference that looks like will exist is that the shuttle's payload
    capacity would be significantly greater than that for DC-Y.

  As I understand, the DC-X and other SSTO craft being built are prototypes
being built to test various new concepts. These tests may or may not actually
require the thing to actually go into orbit. 

  In any case, if it works, I believe that the plan would then be to build
larger craft based on what was learned from the various tests. The larger
craft, if the concept really works, would make the Shuttle obsolete. 

  George

    re: last 2
    True, the DC-Y has not been spcecified completely, but logic would say
    that return load carrying could be significantly restricted due to the
    needed fuel for vertical landing(s).  The shuttle uses fuel for deorbit
    burn and manuvering and it's return weight capacity is dictated by
    dynamic loading, cg, and gear carrying weight.  (NASP had some advantages of
    both.)  
    
    I'm not an advocate of one system over another, however I do believe
    that there are strengths (and weaknesses) of both systems and believing
    that one would make the other obsolete, might be stretching things a
    bit (at least for the next 10-20 years).  

RE                       <<< Note 864.57 by LANDO::STONE >>>

>    I'm not an advocate of one system over another, however I do believe
>    that there are strengths (and weaknesses) of both systems and believing
>    that one would make the other obsolete, might be stretching things a
>    bit (at least for the next 10-20 years).  

  I agree. I was speaking more generally of the family of SSTO space craft,
not just the DC-X which makes the vertical landing.

  George

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 11-OCT-1993 12:43:43.43
To:	[email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	 Seminar 1994

Subject: 1994 Asimov Seminar (on space development)
Status: ON 32768
Mailed To: [email protected] 

   Here's some information on a seminar I've attended in the past.  I
thought it might be of interest to members of this mailing list. 

  The Development of Space

The 1994 Asimov Seminar at the Rensselaerville Institute will be held
August 6-10.  The participants will be looking at ways to put man in space,
facilitate a permanent presence, and create trade and business with Earth
and other off worlders.  The seminar advisors will include Ben Bova,
renowned science fiction author and past editor of Analog and Omni Maga-
zines.  Ben has worked for the space program and will be helping the Asimov
steering committee secure experts in the aeronautics and space fields to
complete the advisor panel.  With their help, the participants will find 
the  best way to create habitats, foster commercial concerns, and pursue
scientific endeavors. 

  Background

In 1972, world-renowned author Isaac Asimov thought discussing current
technology and social topics with a group of interesting and diverse people
in a casual and beautiful rural setting might make a great summer vacation.
The Rensselaerville Institute, a non-profit research organization located
in the foothills of the Catskill Mountains in rural Albany County, NY,
invited Dr. Asimov to host a four-day retreat. During this retreat, 50-70
people gathered to think about the future of life in large cities.  This
successful event became one of the regular summer programs at the Insti-
tute. Today, the program is still going strong.

Each year a different topic is chosen.  These topics will often have a
technological or scientifically based theme or be related to science
fiction or futurism. This relationship is not guaranteed. Past themes have
included the governance of a closed, limited colony in space, bioengin-
eering, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, treaties in space,
global warming, artificial intelligence, human response to global-scale
catastrophes, and alternate histories.  Normally, these topics are presen-
ted in a manner that invites role-playing to a greater or lesser extent.

The whole session is not taken up by work on the given topic, however.
There are plenty of opportunities for hiking, swimming, boating, tennis,
and other recreational activities. Occasionally these activities include
cross-country croquet and "Calvin ball."  One evening features an outdoor
barbecue.

Many have enjoyed themselves so much they come back year after year. New
participants have remarked on the lack of "cliquishness" among recidivists
(as people who have been to more than one session call themselves).  Most
of the recidivists take pride in the diversity of the group and see new
people as a way to maintain and broaden this multi-cultural environment.

The seminar takes place during late July or early August every year. 
Unfortunately, Isaac is no longer with us. His design and direction of the
seminar is maintained by a steering committee selected from the partici-
pants every year. More information about the seminar and this year's topic,
"The Development of Space," can be obtained by writing to the address below.

The Asimov Seminar                or call 1993 Steering Committee member
P.O. Box 54                       Don McGrain at (609) 629-3732, or send   
Rensselaerville, NY 12147         e-mail to Compuserve 71554,3331.
                                  ([email protected])

Doug Loss                   [email protected]
Data Network Coordinator    Voice: (717) 389-4797
Bloomsburg University       Bloomsburg PA 17815

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% From: [email protected]
% Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 12:20 EDT
% To: [email protected]