larry@omews10.intel.com (Larry Smith) (09/28/89)
Quoting SPACE NEWS Sept. 18, 1989 (the preview issue of the new publication of DEFENSE WEEK to appear in Jan. 90), "The 1990 budget account for NASA's space station was increased substantially by a key Senate committee last week, but all funding for the national aerospace plane was deleted from the agency's spending plan". This is absurd. Just like the Ford Model-T enabled people for the first time to AFFORDABLY travel hundreds of miles from their homes, and the DC-3 to AFFORDABLY travel thousands of miles, the national aerospace plane derived vehicle (NASPDV) holds the promise of AFFORDABLE transportation to low earth orbit. If you really want the federal and commercial space development business to bloom, provide an AFFORDABLE way to get people and light cargoes to LEO (NASPDV), and reduce by 10X the cost of heavy payloads (ALS or Jarvis). Don't provide a great facility (space station) with a very expensive, and therefore ultimately unaffordable, way to get there (Shuttle). Put another way, if you had to travel from LA to NY to help a client with a technical problem, or to investigate new techniques/markets, would you want to go through the overhead and delay of getting yourself on a system like the space shuttle, or would you like to buy a ticket with a credit card, and go to your local large airport and catch a ride ? True, NASP/X-30 has technical hurdles, but these hurdles are not impossible ones. The past several years of technology development have proven that. Also, for the people on the net that say that U.S. aerospace companies never contribute their own funds to development any more, the NASP/X-30 technology development effort to date, has been funded at the 50% level by the 5 U.S. aerospace firms that are taking part, and a vehicle is not even being built! . Surely, they wouldn't do this if they didn't see the potential, as mentioned above. Quoting them, in 1 year they will be at the point where they will be ready to develop hardware! They have said that any further delay is excessive! X-30 is NOT a 21st century concept. It IS a mid 1990's concept !! Look at it yet another way ... X-30 would cost the same as about 4 B-2s. Which gives a better return ? The orbital X-15 program was killed by Apollo. Is NASP/X-30 about to be killed by the space station? Larry Smith
rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) (09/29/89)
In article <4983@omepd.UUCP> larry@omews10.intel.com (Larry Smith) writes: >This is absurd. Just like the Ford Model-T enabled people for the >first time to AFFORDABLY travel hundreds of miles from their homes, >and the DC-3 to AFFORDABLY travel thousands of miles, the national >aerospace plane derived vehicle (NASPDV) holds the promise of AFFORDABLE >transportation to low earth orbit. If you really want the federal and >commercial space development business to bloom, provide an AFFORDABLE >way to get people and light cargoes to LEO (NASPDV), and reduce by 10X >the cost of heavy payloads (ALS or Jarvis). Don't provide a great facility >(space station) with a very expensive, and therefore ultimately unaffordable, >way to get there (Shuttle). Put another way, if you had to travel from LA >to NY to help a client with a technical problem, or to investigate new >techniques/markets, would you want to go through the overhead and delay >of getting yourself on a system like the space shuttle, or would you like >to buy a ticket with a credit card, and go to your local large airport and >catch a ride ? What are we talking about here, a Chevy for getting to space or a whizzier Concorde for trans-oceanic flights? My understanding is that the Concorde is middling profitable on its small number of routes. Why do you expect a "space-plane", used in the same manner as the Concorde, to be a better / more_lucrative venture? If there isn't a Concorde route to <your_choice_ of_destination> today, why not? Wouldn't the answers apply to the same questions asked re: the NASP? >True, NASP/X-30 has technical hurdles, but these hurdles are not impossible >ones. The past several years of technology development have proven that. >Also, for the people on the net that say that U.S. aerospace companies >never contribute their own funds to development any more, the NASP/X-30 >technology development effort to date, has been funded at the 50% level >by the 5 U.S. aerospace firms that are taking part, and a vehicle is not >even being built! . Research is great; spend the money to solve these hurdles. Who knows what spin-offs we'll reap. Perhaps 5-10 years downwind the research will make NASP a snap. But (IMHO) we'll wind up with another shuttle-like, delicate, flakey beast if the goal is to push this "leading edge" technology into a commercial endeavor by the next decade, and that's asking for trouble. > Surely, they wouldn't do this if they didn't see the >potential, as mentioned above. Quoting them, in 1 year they will be at the >point where they will be ready to develop hardware! They have said that any >further delay is excessive! X-30 is NOT a 21st century concept. It IS a mid >1990's concept !! Look at it yet another way ... X-30 would cost the same >as about 4 B-2s. Which gives a better return ? If they "see the potential" and it's so sure-fire golden, why then they'll either a) build it, or b) keep their near-sighted eyes on next month's bottom line and let the [ Japanese | French | Russians | other ambitious nation ] build it. I'm not convinced the role of Washington should be to chivvy said aerospace companies into taking a long-term view by lavishing taxpayer money on them. At least, not for this program. >The orbital X-15 program was killed by Apollo. Is NASP/X-30 about to be killed >by the space station? Why don't we kill the station as well, while we're in a fiscally homocidal mood? The station is a justification for the shuttle, which is a justification for the station. We can probably afford one or the other; we've got one; ergo, we can't afford the other. Let's spend half of the proposed station budget on more Galileos and Voyagers and Vikings and Magellans, and the other half on pushing ("paying for") excellent ("better" isn't good enough with things in their current state) science & mathematics programs in our schools. In an age when a measurable fraction, not to mention a large minority, of our citizens believe the sun orbits the earth, I can only dimly comprehend what motivates people who kick up a fuss over the slim possibility of Pu release from a Galileo accident, or contamination of Jupiter by earth-life carried by Galileo. Risks, yes. Things to prevent if possible, yes. But gee whiz! The house is afire, folks; never mind that the pot on the stove is bubbling. "Qualified they ain't, but these opinions they be mine anyway" -- me -- >>> "Aaiiyeeeee! Death from above!" <<< | Steve Rehrauer Fone: (508)256-6600 x6168 | Apollo Computer, a ARPA: rehrauer@apollo.hp.com | division of Hewlett-Packard "Look, Max: 'Pressurized cheese in a can'. Even _WE_ wouldn't eat that!"
royf@pwcs.UUCP (Roy Forsstrom) (09/29/89)
In article <4983@omepd.UUCP> larry@omews10.intel.com (Larry Smith) writes: > >Quoting SPACE NEWS Sept. 18, 1989 (the preview issue of the new ... >aerospace plane was deleted from the agency's spending plan". > >This is absurd. Just like the Ford Model-T enabled people for the >first time to AFFORDABLY travel hundreds of miles from their homes, >and the DC-3 to AFFORDABLY travel thousands of miles, the national .... >1990's concept !! Look at it yet another way ... X-30 would cost the same >as about 4 B-2s. Which gives a better return ? Ah, Larry, you hit the nail on the head here! The X-30 is primarily a military plane, as is the shuttle. Perhaps the some hold the belief that the SR-71 doesn't need a replacement aircraft. -----------------------------------+------------------------------------------- Roy Forsstrom 612-298-5569 | Traveling makes one modest. You see Public Works Computer Services | what tiny place you occupy in the world. pwcs!royf royf@pwcs.StPaul.GOV | -Flaubert -----------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/29/89)
Do remember, when making optimistic claims about the superiority of NASP over the shuttle, that: 1. NASP in general and the X-30 in particular are moderately-high-risk experimental programs, not something that one can depend on. The X-30's payload to orbit, if it gets there, will be two pilots and a toothbrush apiece. Operational systems based on this technology *are* a 21st-century notion. 2. Most of the costs for current launch systems are on the ground; the cost of the fuel and expended hardware itself is relatively minor. NASP technology does not inherently give major cost reductions. 3. All the claims about routine airline-like operations being made for NASP technology were also made for shuttle technology. This having been said, I strongly support the X-30; the proposed slips in schedule are dumb ideas. The biggest problem with this program is that there's only one such project. There are several other ideas for cutting launch costs by radical departures from existing systems that deserve serious exploratory-level funding, and aren't getting it. At this level of untried-but-promising technology, putting all your eggs in one basket is stupid. -- "Where is D.D. Harriman now, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology when we really *need* him?" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
leech@alanine.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (09/30/89)
In article <4983@omepd.UUCP> larry@omews10.intel.com (Larry Smith) writes: >Also... the NASP/X-30 >technology development effort to date, has been funded at the 50% level >by the 5 U.S. aerospace firms that are taking part, and a vehicle is not >even being built! Gee, maybe they should just take over development completely if they think it's such a great idea. I doubt the DC-3 got 50% subsidies from the Feds. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ "Why do you suppose we only feel compelled to chase the ones who run away?" "Immaturity." _Dangerous Liasons_