Date: Thu, 18 Mar 93 05:10:59 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #329 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 18 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 329 Today's Topics: 20Khz Power supplies. cancel wars accountability (2 msgs) DC-X Dennis and new tech (was Re: Without a Plan) JPL and goals and plans Lunar ice transport (2 msgs) NASA worships the God of paperwork Pat & Fred on 20khz Plans and political goals Single Stage Rocket Technology Space Digest V16 #324 Space markets SpaceStation and SSTO (2 msgs) Water Simulations (Was Re: Response to various attacks on SSF) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gary Coffman Subject: 20Khz Power supplies. Newsgroups: sci.space Message-Id: <1993Mar17.145230.19632@ke4zv.uucp> Keywords: Freedom Cut Reply-To: Gary Coffman Organization: Destructive Testing Systems References: <1993Feb24.215924.16372@iti.org> <1993Mar15.160438.21946@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <1o4uh3INNobf@access.digex.com> <1993Mar16.190731.14597@ke4zv.uucp> <1o5v5fINN81l@access.digex.com> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 14:52:30 GMT Lines: 55 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article <1o5v5fINN81l@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >In article <1993Mar16.190731.14597@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >>systems. It's cheaper, smaller, and lighter than the old brute force >>methods of Tommy Edison and Georgie Westinghouse. Even Nicky Tesla >>thought higher frequencies were a good idea for power distribution. > >You talk about them like they were close personal friends of yours. >Did you go to school with them ;-) Almost. :-) Forge and Foundry was still a required course at Tech when I was there. >>DC was a technology of the 90s, the 1890s. Try to move into *this* >>century Pat. >> >I wasn't particularly advocating DC. I thought 400 HZ was the way to >go. Sure you have to buy out of aircraft catalogs, but then the >parts are halfway to space qualified. You must be getting >hardening of the arteries:-) > >The only reason I thought DC was an idea, was most of our manned >space background is in DC. 400 Hz has the advantage of having off the shelf aircraft parts available. That's not to be sneezed at in times of tight funding, but aircraft electrical parts always seem overpriced to me. For real cost savings just use 60 Hz and buy at Sears. But 20 kHz does have technical merits that would warrant it being considered by an _R&D_ chartered organization as opposed to a strictly commercial enterprise. DC has been used on our missions because it's simplest when power demands are modest, voltage requirements are the same for everything, busses are short, and everything is battery powered. When power demands become more complex, it's better to convert to AC where voltage step ups and step downs are easier, cheaper, and more efficient, where buss conductors can be of a lighter gauge (a not trivial concern in a large structure), and where regulation can be improved, simplified, and made lighter. Those are all desirable attributes in a weight and power constrained space system. There's nothing magic about 20 kHz, but it is a good compromise frequency between skin effect problems at higher frequencies, and weight and size problems at lower frequencies. Personally I'd choose some frequency like 15.749 kHz because our base ten natures tend to make lots of things run at multiples of 10 and I'd like to avoid harmonic interference. Not to mention that there are hundreds of millions of pieces of equipment that already use that frequency and all the technical issues have been solved years ago. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 1993 17:02:51 GMT From: David Weingart Subject: cancel wars accountability Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,news.admin.policy In article <1993Mar17.145100.23864@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: |> [Bogus Distribution: inet changed to world.] |> |> In article <1o6gthINNq4j@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes: |> >Depew's superiors and Julf are, in each case, the person most immediately |> >empowered to take care of the perceived problem. You won't find an exact |> >parallel between the two situations, but this is a reasonable one. |> |> Not even close. Julf can't get the coward fired from his job. On the other hand, posting flames and personal attacks doesn't normally _deserve_ firing (nor did ARMM, BTW, since it was deactivated, although removal of net.access, either permanently, or some specified period for abuse of power might be in order) -- 73 de David Weingart KB2CWF In the event I am captured or killed, the phydeaux@cumc.cornell.edu Cornell University Medical College and the phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu Department of Academic Computing will disavow phydeaux@src4src.linet.org any knowledge of my opinions. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 18:24:17 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: cancel wars accountability Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,sci.space,sci.astro,news.admin.policy In <1o6gthINNq4j@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes: >jmaynard@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >> The coward asked folks to flood Dick Depew's superiors with mail and >> phone calls. Not only is admin@anon.penet.fi NOT the coward's superior, >> he's not even at the same institution (most likely). >Depew's superiors and Julf are, in each case, the person most immediately >empowered to take care of the perceived problem. You won't find an exact >parallel between the two situations, but this is a reasonable one. Except, of course, that we can't have Julf get Mr Anon E. Mouse fired or call for having his supervisor or department head mail bombed. Hey, maybe there's something to this anonymity thing after all, but only as a defense against the sort of people who seem to be using it (and one other who comes to mind). -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 17:45:21 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: DC-X Newsgroups: sci.space In Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen) writes: >I had the incredible honor to get a detailed tour of the Delta Clipper-X... > and I'd like to try sharing some of it with you all.... Thanks. It's appreciated. >The landing gear are not strong enough to hold a fully loaded >DC-X...instead a launch frame holds the infrastructure and during flight at >some point the foor "legs" extract then help absorb shock at >landing...along with the engines...... Can they vent enough fuel quickly enough to prevent loss of vehicle if something goes wrong early and they need to land it *fast*? >They were MOST interested in hearing about YOUR support. Can there really be any doubt? Hey, maybe they can get a net connection for all that copius spare time in those 40 hour days? ;-) >I agreed to carry hard copies of posts from here to their facility as a >morale booster.....they say they work 40 hour days there....... and are >looking forward to months in the desert.......They do not know about how >this communitee feels about their efforts...so SPEAK UP!! Well, I hope they know that there are a lot of people who consider what they're doing to be the best hope for a real future in space for this country and that we feel that this vehicle (and its follow-ons) should be funded right up through the first payload delivered to orbit. Maybe they could collect hardcopy of all of these and have their management forward them to Congress? -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 1993 10:08 PDT From: "Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth" Subject: Dennis and new tech (was Re: Without a Plan) Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1993Mar16.180915.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes... >Which, it is worth pointing out, is trying out risky new technologies >in its computer, solar cells, and imaging device. This is something >that Nick, Henry, and many others advocate strongly. If SEDSAT-1 is >successful, these gadgets will have a track record and people will be >willing to incorporate them into future satellites. (Though I think >Dennis's payload goes up on the *second* SEDS launch, not the current >one.) > Indeed...SEDSAT-1 is scheduled for launch in about one year. The mission that is being launched this month is the first mission in NASA's SEDS program (Small Expendable Deployer System...not to be confused with the other SEDS, Students for the Exploration and Development of Space), but is not the satellite that Dennis and his team have been laboring on for the past few years. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Irwin Horowitz | Astronomy Department |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?" California Institute of Technology |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs" irwin@iago.caltech.edu | ih@deimos.caltech.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 93 17:29:58 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: JPL and goals and plans Pat sez; >[Nick's suggestions for JPL] >I think Nick is a *little* off base in suggesting changes for JPL. >JPL A) Has their plate pretty full doing existing missions. Including having them cancelled, fighting for funding, etc. The point is, the talent isn't being used on JPL's 'prime directive'. The same effort could do more missions than are being done now. Look how much effort is thrown down the tubes when even small missions get canned. > B) is oriented to certain mission types, and prospecting > is a little out of their balliwick.. I disagree here. Sure, major prospecting and planet-side exploration is heavy-duty stuff. But, we don't even know where the best place to look for minerals and volatiles is. Finding that out would require a fleet of small, relatively cheap probes. That is right up JPL's alley. Galileo is a great example of such. Once we find resources up there, let whoever wants them to worry about how. But until we find them, no one will try to use them. That's pretty self-evident, but NASA's actions suggest that the major decision makers haven't a clue. >The basic science needs to be done, what we need to do is >get basic operating costs in space down by 2 orders of magnitude. >Then the market will do the rest. Until we stop operating in >this psuedo-market, no-one will have any interest in cutting costs. This is a little confusing. I thought the market would bring the costs down, rather than just 'the rest'. NASA sure hasn't done anyhting in terms of dropping costs lately, so if the market can't bring them down, either, is it possible for them to drop? >Space has comsats, but that is being serviced by existing vehicles >and systems, plus bandwidth seems like a limited resource. >plus the FCC and NASA have far too much influence on this market. They have an effective monopoly, in the US. NASA chooses vehicles, FCC chooses bands and protocols. Is there much else in comsats? The satellite, but it must fit NASA/DoD vehicles. I don't trust a managed market to be an accurate reflection of demand. >What we need to do is develop things that are best done in space and >that will drive the market up there. Before that, we need to know what kinds of useful things are out there. Heading out to set up operations with no idea will be an incredible waste of time and effort, as potential investors know. Naturally, this kind of thing needs just what JPL does best, but it gets ignored, because it isn't flashy, national-prestige-oriented, or an exuse to hire more people. Business-as-usual applies to political infighting, not services :-) If we knew the resources, there would be a lot more 'vision' when it came to drawing up Plans, Goals, or market analyses. So far, the Plans and Goals I've seen take this as a minor consideration, at best. -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\ Inhale to the Chief! 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu | 336-9591 (hm)\\ Zonker Harris in 1996! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 15:01:39 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Lunar ice transport Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar17.081302.8268@sol.UVic.CA> rborden@uglx.UVic.CA (Ross Borden) writes: > The ideas suggested for cable cars, railroads and pipelines are >interesting (I especially like the pipeline), but they all involve a >*substantial* amount of civil engineering. The main advantage of the mule >train approach is that there is minimal route preparation. You simply >survey the route (with as many detours as necessary) and use 'dozers & >dynamite where it's unavoidable. > Of course, it could easily be the case that the terrain is much >too rough for any overland route to be feasable. > Having said that, I do like the pipeline. While the start-up >costs are greater, the high potential throughput and low operating costs >are attractive. > To overcome the problem of freezing at night, the pipeline could >be buried in the regolith (an excellent insulator). Does anyone know >what the mean temperature of regolith is at, say, 2 meters ? The >cost of ditch digging would have to be balanced against the increased >capacity. Well as the pipeline originator, I'd point out that burying the pipe would negate the solar heating that makes the steam to power it. That may be worthwhile to address full time usage, and as a hedge against micrometeorite damage, however. > Another potential problem solved by burying the pipeline is micro >meteorite punctures. What is the flux of micro meteoites at the lunar >surface ? Would it be a long term problem for an unburied pipeline ? I doubt it would be a serious concern, but I don't have hard data. > Also, a pipeline would require some measure of refinement at >the poles, as you do *not* want to be pumping muddy, gritty water. To >take it a step further, you could perform the electrolosis at the pole >and pump the H2 and O2 to the equator seperately, though that would be >outside the scope of the design project. The idea is to be delivering *steam*. Some entrained grit wouldn't be a serious issue, but large chunks could be a concern as it might clog the pipe during the nighttime freezeout and not be able to be cleared by morning heating. Running a cleanout plug through the pipe around solar noon would handle smaller grit. This is a typical trick used in oil pipelines. > A separate consideration is the useful lifetime of the project >(be it mule train, pipeline, or ice-flinger.) If the ice deposits will be >exhausted in 30 years, a scheme with high start-up costs would be >undesirable. Were the students given an expected life span or are they >just assuming an indefinite period ? That's a good question. Pipelines are routinely installed to oil fields that are expected to have a 30 year life, but single wells, or fields with short expected lifetimes are handled by tanker truck. The relevant issues are expected volume and expected duration of the transport need. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 16:44:08 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Lunar ice transport Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar17.081302.8268@sol.UVic.CA> rborden@uglx.UVic.CA (Ross Borden) writes: >be buried in the regolith (an excellent insulator). Does anyone know >what the mean temperature of regolith is at, say, 2 meters ? We only have a few data points, but they're all within a degree or two of 255K. The variation is from site to site -- the temperature at any particular site is absolutely constant at that depth. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 17:09:13 GMT From: "Don M. Gibson" Subject: NASA worships the God of paperwork Newsgroups: sci.space in defense of paperwork, i relate my NASA experience. In article 21448@bnr.ca, agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes: >....I do not deny that >it is necessary for any project more ambitious than an afternoon >spent in one's shed to store (often boring) information in a more >reliable and accessable form than the human brain. The trouble is >that it is easy for management to become focused on paperwork rather >than the real goals of the project. that is a management problem, not a paperwork problem. >....Paperwork exists only to serve the original engineering goals, not the >other way around. In order for the paperwork to remain honest, it must >be subject to continuous engineering scrutiny. We do not know how to >systematise this scrutiny, and have to fall back on the diligence of >experienced engineers when we apply it at all. When management >(especially non-technical management) is motivated to track and operate >through paperwork because the paperwork *is* easy to systemise, and the >paperwork universe can be freed of much of the mess of the real world, >it is difficult to find anyone to give the engineers a mandate to provide >scrutiny with a brief that amounts to little more than "keep your eyes >open and your sense of trouble keen," and back them up. > >I'll offer two further aspects of this view of the engineering vs. >paperwork dichotomy. Firstly, the paperwork model stresses the >depersonalisation of the engineering process. You are supposed to be >able to mow down engineers as in the final scenes of "Zulu", and more >will pop up and take over their paperwork. The paperwork also means >that the structure and activities of the team can grow to the point >where no one individual can comprehend even all the parts that they >directly interface to. The engineering model identifies individuals >motivated and able to have creative insights and organises their >work such that they can see what is going on, so that their judgement >and knowledge is applicable. I worked for a couple of years on a NASA project. That project may not have been typical, but what is "typical" for a one-of-a-kind project? The project was Galileo, which designed and redesigned several times over an 11 year period. This was a large project involving as many as 500 people at a time. Over time, folks came and went. there were probably 4 generations of designers. I can honestly say, that if weren't for the "paperwork" and documentation system, the project would be unfeasable. folks came and went and always took their brains with them. if not for the "paperwork system", replacements would be useless for many years. good procedures, requirements, checklists, dictionaries and other documents prevent wasted effort. could anything be worse than having to re-invent the wheel ever year? > >Secondly, while it does nothing whatsoever to assist with the positive >side of a project, the creative judgement I referred to above, the >paperwork model does wonders when it comes to identifying individuals >who can be deemed to be "at fault" after a mishap. The engineering model >is to do with getting it right, the paperwork model is to do with >getting it wrong. I have heard it argued that if everyone is busy covering >their backsides then no mistakes will be made, but this is quite fallacious. >Nothing would ever get done at all if people didn't take risks every day. we had a procedure for taking risks.:) actually, a good paperwork system allows a rookie to take the same "risks" (with the same safety) as a person with many years of experience. It was not my exprience that paperwork was used for fingerpointing. It was a team effort and the paperwork helped us look out for each other. --DonG ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 93 15:18:23 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Pat & Fred on 20khz Gee, you two sure say 'gee' a lot. May I suggest you branch out with 'well', 'you see', or perhaps even 'the thing is..' :-) -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\ Inhale to the Chief! 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu | 336-9591 (hm)\\ Zonker Harris in 1996! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 93 14:58:06 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Plans and political goals N Szabo sez; >>Until we _lose_ the delusional, cultish cant of Wingo's, that our >>vision must be one (his) and must never change, regardless of >>changes in technology, politics, etc., NASA and space fans will >>continue beating our heads against a brick wall. Some nameless guy (I only see his/her address) replies; >However, Dennis's One True Way is based upon bending metal and hands-on work. >You've just got your hand out for money for a lot of politically unrealistic >projects. I am curious. Do you mean 'politically unrealistic' as in "Democracies never support good ideas", or do you mean it more like "I, in my infinite wisdom, can accurately predict what 200 million people would support"? Or are you a true cynic, where political reality means congress-whim, (which you understand best, apparently) and citizens' concerns don't mean cow doots? BTW, Nick never asked _me_ for any money. > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\ Inhale to the Chief! 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu | 336-9591 (hm)\\ Zonker Harris in 1996! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 1993 17:10:37 GMT From: Andy Cohen Subject: Single Stage Rocket Technology Newsgroups: sci.space The following comes from the Delta Clipper public relations flier....enjoy.... Single Stage to Orbit Single Stage Rocket Technology ProgramBreaking the SSTO Barrier What Is Single Stage to Orbit? Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) is the capability to take off from earth, achieve earth orbit, and return to land with the same vehicle. SSTO capability, which includes safe abort and return to base any time during launch, is a breakthrough in launch vehicle technology and operations. In the highly competitive international launch service business, SSTO provides this nation the low-cost advantage. MDSSC's SSTO craft, named the Delta Clipper, is designed for vertical take-off and landing. It is capable of placing 20,000 Ib. of payload in low earth orbit or 10,000 Ib. in polar orbit. The reusable craft is propelled by liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rocket engines. The Delta Clipper design achieves airplane-like operations for rapid vehicle turnaround and low cost per flight. Delta Clipper meets the broad set of civil, commercial, and military space requirements. It will enable safe, low-cost transfer of people and cargo to and from space, dramatically increasing the potential uses of space travel. Why SSTO Now? The idea of building a single-stage-to-orbit rocket is not new. Thirty years ago, SSTO concepts were assessed and found to be infeasible. Since then, advances made in materials, structural designs, aerodynamics, propulsion, high-speed processing, and autonomous control have made possible a lightweight, rugged vehiclethe Delta Clipperwhich is capable of carrying out responsive and sustained operations. What is the Singie Stage Rocket Technology Program? The Single Stage Rocket Technology program is an SD10 initiative to demonstrate technology readiness. Under a 2-year, $58-million Phase 11 contract, MDSSC and its teammates are using a rapid prototype approach to design and build a one-third-size experimental vehicle the DC-X, and ground support and operations systems which, through a series of suborbital flights, will: Verify vertical takeoff and landing Demonstrate subsonic maneuverability Validate "airplane-like" supportability/maintainability concepts Demonstrate rapid prototyping development approach Demonstration flights start in the spring of 1993 at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Results from flight and ground turnaround tests will be used in a follow-on program. Follow-on options include: (l) An SD10 program to develop a suborbital reusable rocket for SD10 systems testing; (2) A national program to develop a full-scale orbital prototype called the DC-Y. The Delta Clipper Team MCDONNELL DOUGLAS SPACE SYSTEMS COMPANY Douglas Aircraft Co. McDonnell Aircraft Co. McDonnell Douglas Electronic Systems Co. McDonnell Douglas Missile Systems Co. McDonnell Douglas Research Laboratories Pratt & Whitney Scaled Composites Aerojet Eagle Engineering Harris Honeywell Martin Marietta Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm Fluor Daniel SpaceGuild MDSSC is now MDA or McDonnell Douglas Astronautics. SSTO is now SSRT or Single Stage Rocket Technology. I got detailed vugraphs which I'll be scanning in and translating to GIF files.... WHERE DO YOU GUYS WANT EM FTP'd TO??????? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 93 15:27:30 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Space Digest V16 #324 D wingo sez; >>The problem with 20Khz per se is that some women would not be able to stand >>being around it, as a few women can hear frequencies that high. I kinda >doubt this is a problem since many computer monitors also run in this frequenc >>domain. >Actually, a few men (myself included) can hear that high. I can hear Quite true. Whether you can hear your TV or monitor is a good indication of your hearing ability, as the fringe frequencies are usually lost first. Also, response to the constant sound is usually the cause of VDS, or Video-Display-Syndrome, or whatever they call it: Headaches, Nausea, short tempers, high stress. The bad news is that these frequencies can affect you this way, regardless of whether you can actually hear it, since it's near the frequency of your nervous system. -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\ Inhale to the Chief! 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu | 336-9591 (hm)\\ Zonker Harris in 1996! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 93 18:03:45 EST From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Space markets From: Pat >But [Szabo] has one critical valuable point to make. >That is a sustainable economy must be the basis of space activities. I'd have to say his other view, which I share, that NASA operations have blocked, not fostered, the creation of sustainable markets in space, is valuable as well. >To date, manned space has not served market niches. I like the idea of selling advertising and movie-making rights on our current space operations. If I remember right, NASA has turned it down, for National Prestige reasons, I imagine. Tell you what; I'd have a lot more pride in my Nation if it's agents got with it. Tourism might have a decent market, if DC fulfills it's design goals. -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\ Inhale to the Chief! 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu | 336-9591 (hm)\\ Zonker Harris in 1996! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 18:03:46 GMT From: Scott A Koester Subject: SpaceStation and SSTO Newsgroups: sci.space Here's a question that just popped into my mind and I decided to post it here to see what you netters think about it. With SSTO coming around, and quite possibly having this transfrom into the DC-Y program, has any consideration been done, on maybe having these craft dock with the SSFII? Is this being incorporated into the redesign or thought about at all, or are they working strictly on the premis that the shuttle is what we have now, this works and will still work, so why plan for something like the DC-Y which may never actually fully come around? If the DC-Y does come into full bloom, are the DC-Y designers thinking about having the craft (actually I should say the SSTO designers) dock with a station at all? If so, the SSTO program could also help in keeping the station supplied and wouldn't force the shuttle to an increase in pace when it comes to turnaround times and launch schedules. What do you people think? Is my thinking off on this? Scott Koester ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 1993 18:26:46 GMT From: Andy Cohen Subject: SpaceStation and SSTO Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar17.180346.12056@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, skoester@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Scott A Koester) wrote: > > > Here's a question that just popped into my mind and I decided to post it > here to see what you netters think about it. With SSTO coming around, and > quite possibly having this transfrom into the DC-Y program, has any > consideration been done, on maybe having these craft dock with the SSFII? > Is this being incorporated into the redesign or thought about at all, or are > they working strictly on the premis that the shuttle is what we have now, this > works and will still work, so why plan for something like the DC-Y which may > never actually fully come around? > If the DC-Y does come into full bloom, are the DC-Y designers thinking about > having the craft (actually I should say the SSTO designers) dock with a > station at all? If so, the SSTO program could also help in keeping the > station supplied and wouldn't force the shuttle to an increase in pace > when it comes to turnaround times and launch schedules. > What do you people think? Is my thinking off on this? > The DC-Y payload will not be nearly as large or useful as the shuttle payload bay.... First fight for Delta Clipper before you ask these not-really-off-base questions. Right now DC-Y is not a real program....i.e., not funded. The govt is waiting to see DC-X fly and land and fly and land, etc...... Next lets see DC-Y be successful..... In the meantime......lets see if SSF can be the least bit successful as well..... The way things are going DC-1 will beat SSF to orbit!!! (I know, I'm being facecious....sorry....can't help it....)...... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 17:54:50 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Water Simulations (Was Re: Response to various attacks on SSF) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <17MAR199311062974@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >>More importantly, NASA put a huge amount of faith in those tanks with >>almost no real life experience to see just where the shortcomings are. >Hey Allen I don't know how old you are but do you remember the old days at >NAsa? ALL of the EVA's for Skylab were practiced here at MSFC before >implementation.... You miss my point Dennis. I think water tanks and practicing on them is a great idea. However, to assume that we can corelate actions in the tank to the actions needed to assemble a large space structure (like Freedom) in free fall is foolish. The bottom line remains that we have nowhere near the EVA experience base to practice any but the most simple EVA activities with any degree of confidence. >What about all of the Gemeni EVA's (well a couple of them) They were done >in the tank first. And I don't think any went as expected in flight. That was to be expected in those early days. The idea is to get experience doing EVA so that you can corelate EVA actions to water tank actions. NASA should have been doing this but prefered to defer the problems and hope they went away. >Do your remember the EVA's done before Challanger where trusses were built >and Large solar arrays were deployed and many many other station type tasks? I remember a small portion of truss being built and the automatic deployment of some solar arrays. They where a good start but please don't confuse them with the sort of effort needed to understand the problem. >The primary problem that was faced on the Intelsat mission is that the >tank simply cannot accurately mimic the moments of inertia of large >structures in orbit. You mean like space stations? Congrats Dennis, you have found a problem with Freedom construction: the tanks cannot provide a suitable simulation for the construction of Fred. >Maybe they need to look at regimens to compensate >better for this difference between water and vaccuum. Except that the designs and procedures for assembly are already pretty much done (at least for the current design). It's too late to do the work since any problems found would result in billions more in added costs while the problems are found. Now if the early EVA experiments had continued and been added to we would have found the problems (if any) years ago and fixes would already be incorporated in the design. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------91 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 329 ------------------------------