Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 18 Jan 90 01:34:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 01:34:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #437 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 437 Today's Topics: Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (stolen propaganda?) Re: NASP Recon. Drones Re: Electric Car from GM? SSX creator(s) Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (summary) Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (summary) Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (summary) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Jan 90 19:30:36 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (stolen propaganda?) In article <13093.25b335f9@maven.u.washington.edu> games@maven.u.washington.edu writes: >The government wants 1 billion to do this? Gary Hudson says that he needs >only 25 million to get a prototype in flight... I think you may be confusing Phoenix with Liberty. (The former is Hudson's reusable SSTO spacecraft, the latter is his cheap expendable.) The projected bill for Phoenix development was always rather higher than that, unless my memory fails me badly. He was talking about costs comparable to an airliner, that is, a good fraction of a billion overall. >What I would like to find out is : Who is the brilliant guy that stole his >literature, and is passing it off as a new SSX? I strongly suspect it was done with his cooperation and support, given that Max Hunter (who is definitely involved) is a long-time associate of his. -- 1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 90 17:09:30 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!samsung!umich!ox.com!itivax!vax3!aws@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: NASP Recon. Drones In article <1990Jan16.105348.15772@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> hogg@csri.toronto.edu (John Hogg) writes: >>> [info on mach 20 recon platform deleted] >>Why do we need this albatross? What does it buy that present or improved >>satellite recon couldn't? >A good question, however, is, ``What does this drone buy that Open >Skies doesn't?'' Not a thing. The problem wiht open skies is that it only works when you don't really need it. For the other times, it is nice to have a recon capability which is safe, fast, and effective. Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen W. Sherzer | Is the local cluster the result | | aws@iti.org | of gerrymandering? | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 13:41:16 EST From: JC%RMC.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Electric Car from GM? > m2c!wpi!tmurphy@husc6.harvard.edu (Tom [Chris] Murphy) writes: > I have yet to see specifics about the GM Impact (the car's name I believe) I find it hard to believe that an automobile manufacturer would choose the name 'Impact' !! John Coughlin Net: JC@RMC.BITNET Vox: 613-541-6439 Fax: 613-547-3053 ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 90 17:32:53 GMT From: agate!shelby!portia!izahi@apple.com (Raul Izahi Lopez Hernandez) Subject: SSX creator(s) Hi there, Since I could not post a follow up for some strange network reasons I send this. In October 1989 issue of Ad Astra magazine there is a brief article about the SSX and they attribute it to Max Hunter's creative mind among others. Max is well know for his work in major rocket projects and the Space Shuttle. Ad Astra even includes a nice artistic rendering of the vehicle. RAUL IZAHI ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 90 16:51:47 GMT From: snorkelwacker!spdcc!xylogics!barnes@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jim Barnes) Subject: Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (summary) In article <9001121009.AA01853@zit.cigy.> bpistr@cgch.UUCP writes: >For about a billion dollars over four years we can build and fly SSX >prototypes. If SSX works even half as well as predicted, SSX-type vehicles >will be a revolutionary improvement in our access to space. ... lots of good stuff deleted ... If these cost/time to develop estimates are true, then why isn't someone (like Boeing) doing this now? My recollection (I don't have any references at hand, so my memory may be wrong) is that Boeing takes longer and spends more money just to develop a new commercial plane (e.g. the 767). ---- Jim Barnes (barnes@Xylogics.COM) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 90 22:47:07 GMT From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (summary) In article <9001121009.AA01853@zit.cigy.> bpistr@cgch.UUCP writes: > Space Ship Experimental > The Case For SSX Fascinating. This sounds a whole lot like the "Phoenix" proposal that Gary Hudson was involved with a number of years ago. Is it the same? Last I heard, Max Hunter was connected with it in some way. -- Mike Van Pelt I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the Headland Technology word 'fair' in connection with income tax policies. (was: Video Seven) -- William F. Buckley ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 90 05:56:35 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: SSX: Space Ship Experimental (summary) In article <11484@thorin.cs.unc.edu> beckerd@grover.cs.unc.edu (David Becker) writes: >An area where this concept might need some serious new techonology would >be rockets designed to operate for hours instead of minutes. >Expendables run for minutes and chuck the engine. The shuttle .. well >excessive maintainance is what this SSX is supposed avoid. When have >have rocket engines been designed to operate with low maintainence for >lots-o-launches? ... At least one existing engine, the RL-10 used in Centaur, is cleared to fire for an hour or more on a single mission, if anyone can find enough fuel to keep it running that long. Most regeneratively-cooled engines have an almost unlimited life in principle. The SSMEs are an unusually bad case because they tried to push the technology very hard and it has pushed back. The high-time RL-10 has fired for four hours with relatively modest maintenance. Firing times of half an hour or more, spread over a number of firings, with minimal maintenance, are not uncommon for conservatively-designed engines. -- 1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #437 *******************