barnes@Xylogics.COM (Jim Barnes) (01/17/90)
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)
beckerd@grover.cs.unc.edu (David Becker) (01/17/90)
In article <9001121009.AA01853@zit.cigy.> bpistr@cgch.UUCP writes:
"The following was extracted from the Byte Information Exchange in the
"space/long.messages #750, from hvanderbilt, 13708 chars, Fri Jan 12 02:24:37 1990
" Space Ship Experimental
"
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? Otherwise this sounds like a sound idea for some
goverment agency to throw big bucks at.
David Becker beckerd@cs.unc.edumvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (01/17/90)
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
games@maven.u.washington.edu (01/17/90)
In article <9001121009.AA01853@zit.cigy.>, bpistr@cgch.UUCP writes: >>Organization: Ciba Geigy ZIT (Central Engineering) Basel, Switzerland > > The following was extracted from the Byte Information Exchange in the > 'space' topic. The author is one of the reigning space technology > gurus in that conference. I thought it might be of interest to readers > of this list, so I'm passing it along... > > Apparently this vehicle (SSX) has been approved for concept validation > studies by SDIO (the "Star Wars" people), as a cheaper possiblity for > access to space. (God knows we need one!). > US Vice President Dan Quayle, who seems to be the administration's point > man for space, has made some supportive comments about the need for lower > cost access to space, etc., so far without referring to this project by > name, anyway. > > ------------------ start of included material -------------- > ========== > space/long.messages #750, from hvanderbilt, 13708 chars, Fri Jan 12 02:24:37 1990 > ---------- > Space Ship Experimental > > The Case For SSX ........ Vast quantities deleted here. > > ------------ end of included material ----------- > Is this for real? I don't mean the concept, I mean the statement about Star Wars Concept Validation. This article is almost a direct steal from the Gary Hudson/Project Phoenix literature. the points, concept,presentation layout, and a lot of the phraseology(sp?) are identical. The government wants 1 billion to do this? Gary Hudson says that he needs only 25 million to get a prototype in flight. (Or is that 25 million more than he has now?) In any case if the government gets going on this, what will he do, consult with them on the project? 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? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trendy footer by: John Stevens-Schlick Internet?: JOHN@tranya.cpac.washington.edu 7720 35'th Ave S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98126 (206) 935 - 4384 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My boss dosn't know what I do.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/17/90)
In article <8266@xenna.Xylogics.COM> barnes@Xylogics.COM (Jim Barnes) writes: >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 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). Boeing does not even start serious development of something like the 767 until major customers sign on the dotted line. The problem with SSX and similar concepts is technical uncertainties and unknown market, i.e. no customers willing to promise to buy a bunch. -- 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
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/17/90)
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
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/18/90)
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
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/18/90)
In article <1146@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >This sounds a whole lot like the "Phoenix" proposal that Gary Hudson >was involved with a number of years ago. Is it the same? ... Similar. SSX is an X-plane equivalent, strictly an experimental vehicle with no operational role, which makes it smaller and a bit less ambitious than Phoenix. -- 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