Message-ID: <4c5wcCm00WBwM31k5u@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 02:34:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #467

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 467

Today's Topics:
       Re: Shuttle Reliability (was: Re: Saturn V and the ALS)
		       Re: Saturn V and the ALS
	      Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)
	sci.space Personal Ambition Survey -- Revised Results
		       Re: Saturn V and the ALS

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 18:14:22 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela!aws@apple.com  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Reliability (was: Re: Saturn V and the ALS)

In article <9104251625.AA25561@gemini.arc.nasa.gov> greer%utdssa.dnet%utadnx@utspan.span.nasa.gov writes:

>If we looked at how many items in all the planned manifests of the Shuttle
>were successfully executed, how low would the success rate be then?  Far below
>50% I would imagine.  Can anyone out there venture a guess?

There is a good graph of this in the November 12,1990 Avation Week on page
27. It shows Shuttle actual flights vs flights on the manifest for the past
ten years. The first manifest had the 55th flight happening around the end
of 83. Eight and a half years later we have had less than 40 flights. Even
manifests made as recently as the Fall of 89 are off by a factor of two.

From looking at the graph I would say that post-challenger performance
against the manifest has been just about 50%. 

   Allen

-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back |
|   aws@iti.org   | to you, hunt it down and kill it.                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 18:38:00 GMT
From: rochester!sol!yamauchi@louie.udel.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <1991Apr25.164607.1096@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1991Apr24.190403.27151@en.ecn.purdue.edu> irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu (/dev/null) writes:
>>Re tooling and parts finding for the old
>>Saturn V is a nightmare that does not give us much benefit besides
>>a rocket

>I don't think anyone will dispute that reviving the
>Saturn V is not going to advance launcher technology.  It's not supposed to.

>>If we don't try to become better, we only go backwards!
>>(Many other nations would thank us for this)

>The Europeans thank you profusely for not coming through on the shuttle's
>promises; Arianespace has made a bundle out of your failure.

On the other hand, wasn't Ariane designed from scratch?  Or is it
simply a derivative of American launchers (Titan/Atlas/Delta/etc.)?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Department of Computer Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 19:17:41 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@apple.com  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Energia (was Re: Saturn V blueprints)

In article <920@idacrd.UUCP> mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) writes:

Charles Frank Radley wrote:
CFR> Federal law prohibits The Us Government ( including NASA ) 
CFR> from purchasing launches on foreign launch vehicles.

and Robert McGwier responds:

RMc>You are incorrect.  There will be US built satellites launched on Long March's
RMc>sometime in the near future and there are now DOZENS of launches on
RMc>Arianes.  I have PERSONALLY built satellites in the US that were launched
RMc>on Ariane.

RMc>How's about checking your facts before making false flat statements.

and Philip Fraering would like to point out:

He meant government satellites, not privately built.

 
--
Phil Fraering
dlbres10@pc.usl.edu
Joke going around: "How many country music singers does it take to
change a light bulb? Four. One to change the bulb, and three to sing
about the old one."

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 05:14:49 GMT
From: rochester!sol!yamauchi@louie.udel.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: sci.space Personal Ambition Survey -- Revised Results


I received a few more responses, so here is the revised edition of the
survey results.

				Brian

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

		  sci.space Personal Ambition Survey

Number of replies: 			84

Nationality (of sending machine):

		United States:		64	(76%)
		Canada:			5	(6%)
		Australia:		3	(4%)
		New Zealand:		3	(4%)
		United Kingdom:		3	(3%)
		Sweden:			2	(3%)
		Denmark:		1	(1%)
		Finland:		1	(1%)
		France:			1	(1%)
		Germany:		1	(1%)

1) As a child, did you want to become an astronaut?

	Yes: 67	(80%)		No: 17 (20%)

2) Would you still like to travel into space someday?

	Yes: 78	(93%)		No: 5 (6%)		Maybe: 1 (1%)

3) If you were offered a position as a space shuttle astronaut
tomorrow, would you take it?

	Yes: 64 (76%)		No: 20 (24%)

Yes votes include:

	Absolutely:				3
	Without hesitation:			3
	In a heartbeat: 			2
	In a second:				2
	Definitely!:				1
	In a New York minute:			1
	In an instant:				1
	Oh Yeah!:				1
	Try and stop me:			1
	Would have gone in February 1986:	1
	Yes!:					1
	YES!:					1
	YES!!!!!:				1
	YES YES YES YES!:			1
	Yes, but don't tell my wife:		1

4) What is your current profession/field?  (For students: what is your
major field of study?)

	Computer Professional:				27 	(32%)
		Software Engineering:	17
		Systems Analysis/Engr:	8
		Systems Administration:	1
		Technical Consultant:	1
	Computer Science (Research):			13	(15%)
		Undergrad:		3
		Grad Student:		6
		Research Scientist:	3
		Also Physics:		1
	Astronomy/Astrophysics/Space Science:		11	(13%)
		Undergrad:		2
		Grad Student:		3
		Researcher:		3
	Aeronautical/Aerospace Engineering:		10	(12%)
		Undergrad:		4
		Grad Student:		2
		Engineer:		3
		Engineering Manager:	1
	Electrical/Computer Engineering:		6	(7%)
		Undergrad:		2
		Engineer:		1
		Supervisor:		1
	Mathematics: 					3	(4%)
		Undergrad:		1
		Grad Student:		1
		Professor:		1
	Physics:					3	(4%)
		Undergrad:		1
		Grad Student:		1
		Also Computer Science:	1
	Administrator:					1	(1%)
	Agricultural Engineering: (grad student)	1	(1%)
	Atmospheric Sciences:				1	(1%)
	Biomedical Engineering:				1	(1%)
	Cognitive Science:				1	(1%)
	Engineering: (undeclared student)		1	(1%)
	Library/Information Science:			1	(1%)
	Materials Science/Engineering:			1	(1%)
	Mechanical Engineering: (grad student)		1	(1%)
	Philosophy:					1	(1%)
	Plant Science: (professor)			1	(1%)
	Telecommunications Research:			1	(1%)

5) Is your current position directly related to space exploration?
(For students: do you plan to work in a position directly related to
space exploration?)

Students: 	32 (38%)	Yes: 			17	(53%)
				Maybe:			5	(16%)
				No: 			10	(31%)

Professionals: 	52 (62%)	Yes:			13	(25%)
				No:			39	(75%)

Total:		84 (100%)	Yes:			30	(36%)
				Maybe:			5	(6%)
				No:			49	(58%)

6) If the answer to #5 is no, and the answer to #1, #2, or #3 is yes,
what made you decide not to get directly involved with space
exploration?

Limited Opportunities:					9	(17%)
No Chance of Becoming an Astronaut			7	(13%)
	Due to Non-US/USSR Citizenship:	3
	Due to Physical Requirements:	3
	Low Chance in General:		2
New Zealand/Korea/Australia/Sweden/Canada/UK
	Doesn't Have Much of a Space Program:		6	(12%)
Other Interests:					6	(12%)
Low Pay:						4	(8%)
Disenchantment with NASA Bureaucracy:			3	(6%)
Didn't Really Decide:					2	(4%)

Guidance Counselor:					1	(2%)
Involved in Volunteer Space Activities:			1	(2%)
Limited Non-Defense Opportunities:			1	(2%)
Mathematical Aptitude:					1	(2%)
Mathematical Aptitude, Lack Thereof:			1	(2%)
Mission Specialist Application Rejected:		1	(2%)
NASA Incapable of Doing Space Exploration:		1	(2%)
Not an Engineer:					1	(2%)
Parental Pressure:					1	(2%)
Personal Constraints:					1	(2%)
Previous Lack of Interest:				1	(2%)
Slim Chance of Getting Into Space and
	 Doing Real Science:				1	(2%)
Trapped in a Career:					1	(2%)
Washed Out of Air Force Flight School:			1	(2%)
Wife/Family/Home:					1	(2%)

TOTAL:							52	(100%)

Note: Some people gave multiple answers for question 6.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Department of Computer Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 26 Apr 91 05:50:34 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <1991Apr25.200311.20672@en.ecn.purdue.edu> irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu (/dev/null) writes:
>... You know what I was trying to say:  Trying to build a
>better launcher is not a mistake.  When the mistake happens is when
>you have built it and discovered it is not a good launcher and you
>use it anyway.  THAT is the mistake.  As I said before:  Build your new
>launcher and if it doesn't meet your design goals, scrap it and
>try again.  

If that's what you were trying to say, I suggest thinking a bit harder
about Congress's reaction to this idea.  "You took umpty-zillion dollars
to build this operational launcher -- which you assured us was going to
be the best thing around -- and now you want to scrap it?"  Fat chance.
You can't scrap multi-billion-dollar failures.  Example:  the shuttle.
The only way to build something you can scrap if it doesn't meet specs
is to make it explicitly an experimental program, and not try to sell
it as God's gift to payload owners.

>You know that someday launch costs are going to hit about
>$500/lb.  By trying to build the launcher we are making sure that
>the technology of cheap rockets is a North American technology.

By trying to build production launchers with experimental technology,
you are making sure that your launchers will never be cheap.  The whole
approach does not work.  What works is what you do in aviation, to the
enormous benefit of aviation in general and US aircraft builders in
particular:  build X-planes for experiments, 747s for production, and
don't forget that there is a difference.
-- 
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #467
*******************