craig@think.UUCP (08/31/87)
Bashing the U.S. space program seems to be very much in vogue these days. Our long-term position, it has been claimed, has badly deteriorated, this being a result of short-sighted policy making. I beg to disagree. The problems in our current space program are not the result of short-sightedness so much as long-sightedness on the part of NASA coupled with blindness on the part of Congress; our problems are not so much long-term as short-term. What do I mean? Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else presently has anything nearly as zippy. This is an important long-term asset. The problem is that it is not as good in the short-term as had been billed; NASA oversold the STS as the sole solution to our near-term orbital needs. This led to the disasterous policy of scrapping our expendible launch capability. I speculate that this happened because of NASA's judgement that, a re-usable space transport is, in the long term, essential. The problem came about when NASA's vision came into collision with Congress's blindness with respect to funding the space program; to get the shuttle at all, they had to oversell it. This also led to the Challenger accident; NASA got out onto a limb in overselling the shuttle initially; they were under intense pressure to deliver on their promises. So, when technical problems kept causing schedule slip, NASA got sloppy. So where are we left? We have some serious short-term (the next 5 years) problems; U.S. space activity has ground to a halt, and will not recover for a while. However, recovery is certain, provided sufficient money is forthcoming. Come on now, we know how to build expendable lift vehicles; there is no fundamental problem stamping out more Titans and designing a new heavy-lift vehicle. A few years and a few billion dollars, and our short-term problems will be solved. The real long-term problem is Congress: they have to realize that space is the growth industry of the 21'st century; that we have certain short term needs, but that if they don't provide enough money to solve both short-term and long-term problems, one or the other will suffer. Fortunately (or we would be in fundamentally bigger trouble than we are now), NASA succeeded (in the 1970's) in keeping the focus on the long term problems with the Shuttle program. If congress forces NASA to focus on our short-term problems, but does not provide sufficient money to attack both the short-term and long-term, we are doomed to lose, and all our 30-year old space program will have done is to have created yet another industry for the Japanese to come in and kick our butts in.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/09/87)
> Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else > presently has anything nearly as zippy... Anything nearly as zippy, no. This has nothing much to do with usefulness, though. The Soviet hardware consistently does almost everything better than the Shuttle does it, albeit less glamorously. Almost the only thing the Shuttle does better is return of payloads from orbit -- something that it does only occasionally and which is no longer seen as a major use for it. (By the way, the Soviet shuttle is apparently on the pad at Baikonur.) > ... Come on now, we know how to build expendable lift > vehicles; there is no fundamental problem stamping out more Titans > and designing a new heavy-lift vehicle. A few years and a few > billion dollars, and our short-term problems will be solved. However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost too much and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way. This is a big, nasty, serious problem in both the short term and the long term. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) (09/11/87)
In article <8561@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else > > presently has anything nearly as zippy... > > Anything nearly as zippy, no. This has nothing much to do with usefulness, > though. The Soviet hardware consistently does almost everything better than > the Shuttle does it, albeit less glamorously. Almost the only thing the > I don't know where you're getting your information, but the Soviets have NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle. There is nothing on the pad anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the shuttle. And there's no way you can get me to beleive that ANY Russian hardware performs better than the shuttle. And 'glitz' or 'zippiness' has nothing to do with it. The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space and returing with other payloads. They do not have the capability of sending teams of scientists and technicians into space all at once like we can with the shuttle. > > However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost too much > and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way. This is a big, nasty, Cost too much? Maybe, but if flown like they were in '85 and '86 the cost comes way down. The cost of flying the shuttle will remian high until we get them going regularly again (soon, I hope). Besides, high technology is expensive, and the shuttle is probably the most advanced space vehicle in the world today. IT'S WORTH IT. Get on the stick and get with the program, man. Or at least get the right information. -- Lawrence A. Dziegielewski | E.I. Dupont Co. {uunet!dgis!psuvax1}!eplrx7!lad | Engineering Physics Lab Cash-We-Serve 76127,104 | Wilmington, Delaware 19891 MABELL: (302) 695-1311 | Mail Stop: E357-318
palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (09/11/87)
>The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space >and returing with other payloads. They do not have the capability of >sending teams of scientists and technicians into space all at once like we >can with the shuttle. I hate to state the obvious but: We, on the other hand, do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space. We do not have the capability of sending scientists and technicians into space. And we don't have anyplace to keep them for a few months so that they can get some work done. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer The opinions expressed are those of an 8000 year old Atlantuan priestess named Mrla, and not necessarily those of her channel.
rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) (09/11/87)
In article <474@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes: >> > Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else >> > presently has anything nearly as zippy... >> >> Anything nearly as zippy, no. This has nothing much to do with usefulness, >> though. The Soviet hardware consistently does almost everything better than >> the Shuttle does it, albeit less glamorously. Almost the only thing the >> >I don't know where you're getting your information, but the Soviets have >NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle. There is nothing on the pad >anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the shuttle. And >there's no way you can get me to beleive that ANY Russian hardware performs >better than the shuttle. And 'glitz' or 'zippiness' has nothing to do with >it. > Your absolutely right. The Soviets DO NOT have anything anywhere near as advanced as a high-tech shuttle that won't fly. All they have is old, low-tech stuff that does fly. A lot. >The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space >and returing with other payloads. They do not have the capability of >sending teams of scientists and technicians into space all at once like we >can with the shuttle. You're almost right. The Soviets do not have the cabability of flying lots of people into space all at once. This is compared to the US, which has the highest-tech method in the world which can't fly anyone into space. The Soviets, while they do have the ability to transport payloads into space on a weekly basis, do not have the ability to return large payloads from space. We, on the other hand, having a paltry ability at best to send payloads into space, probably don't need ta have an ability to return what we can't get up there to begin with, so the shuttle, being the high-tech grounded solution that it is, is admirably suited to NOT carrying payloads into space, and NOT returning them when they're not their to begin with. > >Cost too much? Maybe, but if flown like they were in '85 and '86 the cost >comes way down. The cost of flying the shuttle will remian high until we >get them going regularly again (soon, I hope). Besides, high technology >is expensive, and the shuttle is probably the most advanced space vehicle >in the world today. IT'S WORTH IT. > Especially if they are flown the way they were in '86. After a while, we'll loose the three remaining shuttles (they way we did in '86) and the cost will eventually reach zero, it might be argued. (Let's see, we flew 2 shuttle missions in '86, right?, one blew up at a replacement cost of 1 billion plus, let's ignore the operating costs, it will simply perturb the last few digits anyway, that means than that each flight cost about 500 million plus. Such a deal, I should live so long.) >Get on the stick and get with the program, man. Or at least get the right >information. > Et tu... Dick Pierce
wats@scicom.alphacdc.com (Bruce Watson) (09/11/87)
> (By the way, the Soviet shuttle is apparently on the pad at Baikonur.) > -- > "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology Please keep us informed on what you know. Unlike our shuttle the soviet one will go overhead at my location at every launch. I'd like to see this one. Thanks, Bruce Watson (scicom, Denver, Co)
bob@its63b.UUCP (09/15/87)
In article <474@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes: >I don't know where you're getting your information, but the Soviets have >NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle. There is nothing on the pad Then what is that shuttle model they have been test launching? >anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the shuttle. And True. Their shuttle seems to be of the lifting body design tested by NASA in the sixties. >there's no way you can get me to beleive that ANY Russian hardware performs >better than the shuttle. And 'glitz' or 'zippiness' has nothing to do with >it. The russians launch people and satelites into orbit. That IS better performance. > >The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space >and returing with other payloads. They do not have the capability of >sending teams of scientists and technicians into space all at once like we >can with the shuttle. They don't need to. They go up seperately and stay in their space station. > > ..... Besides, high technology >is expensive, and the shuttle is probably the most advanced space vehicle >in the world today. IT'S WORTH IT. > This is the most expensive, most complex, most advanced space vehicle in the world.... Whats that? Well no, it doesn't actually launch things. >Get on the stick and get with the program, man. Or at least get the right >information At last. Something I can agree with. Bob.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/15/87)
> I don't know where you're getting your information... Aviation Week, Flight International, Spaceflight, JBIS, Space World, Astronomy, World Spaceflight News, Planetary Encounter, ... > but the Soviets have NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle... Quite true: they have *no* launch systems that are grounded for 2+1/2 years after a single failure. After the last Proton failure, the delay before the next Proton launch was (as I recall) a whole 11 days. The Soviet hardware indeed cannot compare to the shuttle; when it comes to launching payloads into space, their crude, primitive boosters are light-years ahead of the shuttle. > There is nothing on the pad > anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the shuttle... Oh really? According to G. Harry Stine, one of the West's better experts on the Soviet program, there is an Energia with a shuttle on its back on the pad at Baikonur as we speak. (Doesn't mean a launch will happen soon, though: the first Energia spent a full year on the pad before launch.) > And > there's no way you can get me to beleive that ANY Russian hardware performs > better than the shuttle. Net shuttle performance for the last year and a half: zero. Or negative if you count all the money going into it. There have been 15 or so Proton launches in that time, and several Soyuzes, not to mention a host of lesser launches. Remember when NASA hoped for weekly shuttle launches? The Soviets launch one of those crude, dumb boosters of theirs about every four days. Not four months, not four weeks, FOUR DAYS. This is called "performance". > The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space > and returing with other payloads. They don't have the capability -- until the Energia-shuttle goes up -- of *returning* major payloads to Earth. But even the US shuttle didn't do a whole lot of that. When it comes to getting things *into* space, there is no comparison. > They do not have the capability of > sending teams of scientists and technicians into space all at once like we > can with the shuttle. Quite true, they have to send them up a few at a time in Soyuzes, and then rendezvous at Mir to put the whole team together. Oddly enough, the US cannot do that. > > However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost too much > > and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way... > > Cost too much? Maybe, but if flown like they were in '85 and '86 the cost > comes way down. The cost of flying the shuttle will remian high until we > get them going regularly again (soon, I hope)... Surely you jest. Current prices for loads into orbit are about $5000/lb on US boosters, much the same as they were in 1985. This will *not* come down significantly with any launch schedule that is even remotely feasible any time soon. The Soviets, by the way, quote commercial rates of about 1/5 of that. (Incidentally, we do *not* want to fly them the way they were flown in 1986 -- that was a spectacular year, but also tragic and very costly.) > Besides, high technology > is expensive, and the shuttle is probably the most advanced space vehicle > in the world today. IT'S WORTH IT. Really? Please ask NASA what the price tag to be a passenger on a shuttle launch is. If you get any answer at all, you'll find that you'd probably have to invest tens of millions into a major payload to have any chance of getting on. The Soviets will sell you a commercial Soyuz launch for eight million dollars (payable in Swiss francs or other hard currency). Oddly enough, all this advanced high tech does not seem to be necessary to put people and equipment into space. Is it REALLY worth it? -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
lad@eplrx7.UUCP (09/16/87)
In article <8583@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > > I don't know where you're getting your information... > > Aviation Week, Flight International, Spaceflight, JBIS, Space World, You mean Avaition Leak. > Quite true: they have *no* launch systems that are grounded for 2+1/2 > years after a single failure. After the last Proton failure, the delay The shuttle was grounded for a good reason, and when it flies again I'd send my own grandmother up on one, with me sitting right next to her. > before the next Proton launch was (as I recall) a whole 11 days. The > Soviet hardware indeed cannot compare to the shuttle; when it comes to What does that prove? That the Soviets are more advanced than we are? Hardly. > on the Soviet program, there is an Energia with a shuttle on its back on > the pad at Baikonur as we speak. (Doesn't mean a launch will happen soon, > So? When will it fly. Others beleive the Russian Shuttle is a mockup, a non-working hoax. I think you're years away from a launch. Years. > Net shuttle performance for the last year and a half: zero. Or negative > if you count all the money going into it. There have been 15 or so Proton No kidding. And I beleive there's good reasons for it. But when it flies again, we'll see regular shuttle launches and a VERY reliable system. > > The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space > > and returing with other payloads. > They don't have the capability -- until the Energia-shuttle goes up -- of > *returning* major payloads to Earth. But even the US shuttle didn't do a > whole lot of that. You might as well hope for the Second Coming, becuase it'll happen before the Soviet Shuttle flies. > > > However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost too much > > > and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way... > > > > Cost too much? Maybe, but if flown like they were in '85 and '86 the cost > > comes way down. The cost of flying the shuttle will remian high until we > > get them going regularly again (soon, I hope)... > -- Lawrence A. Dziegielewski | E.I. Dupont Co. {uunet!dgis!psuvax1}!eplrx7!lad | Engineering Physics Lab Cash-We-Serve 76127,104 | Wilmington, Delaware 19891 MABELL: (302) 695-1311 | Mail Stop: E357-318
mahar@weitek.UUCP (Mike Mahar) (09/16/87)
There has been a lot of discussion lately on the wonderful Soviet space
program verses our nonexistant space program. When we have a failure, we put
our whole program on hold for 2 years. When they have a failure, they sweep
up the mess and get back to business. Sometimes, in a matter of days. Why
is this?
Americans don't seem willing to accept the risks of spaceflight. We want
space travel to be as safe as a bus ride downtown. The Soviets have accepted
the risk and are willing to live with it. When the Shuttle blew up, it was
only a matter of hours until the specific cause was known. NASA could have
changed the launch criteria to require warmer weather and continued launching
in a few weeks. This, they did not do and I don't think they should have
either. We can't tell what the Soviet would have done in a similar situation.
We have three shuttles now. We could use them if we had to.
I don't think the Soviet hardware is any better than ours. It is not much
worse either. The Soviets have a space station and we don't. Many people
in our space science community think we don't need one. I have a question.
How does the Mir compare with Skylab, besides the obvious fact that we no
longer have Skylab.
--
Mike Mahar
UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!mahar
Disclaimer: The above opinions are, in fact, not opinions.
They are facts.weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) (09/16/87)
<excerpts> >> I don't know where you're getting your information... >> but the Soviets have NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle... >> There is nothing on the pad >> anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the shuttle... >> And >> there's no way you can get me to beleive that ANY Russian hardware performs >> better than the shuttle. >> The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space >> and returing with other payloads......IT'S WORTH IT!!! This is an example of the kind of misinformed enthusiasm I believe exists in this country in large amounts. I am sure that most people believe the US should have the best space program in the world, but they think we already do (as this person does). I think that once educated, these people might actually turn around a help do something to convince our government that something must be done. Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc
nu021172@ndsuvm1.bitnet.UUCP (09/17/87)
now of the University of North Dakota) that Skylab was larger than the CURRENT
Mir configuration. However, I believe that Mir is scheduled to grow much
larger.
Scott Udell
UD140469@NDSUVM1.BITNET
.palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (09/17/87)
In article <477@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes: >In article <8583@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Quite true: they have *no* launch systems that are grounded for 2+1/2 >> years after a single failure. After the last Proton failure, the delay > >The shuttle was grounded for a good reason, and when it flies again I'd >send my own grandmother up on one, with me sitting right next to her. Sorry, there is no room for your grandmother or you. There is no room for new comercial satellites, not enough room to put up the space station, no room for Galileo, no room for Mars Observer. We've got only a few shuttles and it takes a long time to get them ready. I doubt that your Grandmother could afford to go up on the shuttle, Proton is much cheaper. >> on the Soviet program, there is an Energia with a shuttle on its back on >> the pad at Baikonur as we speak. (Doesn't mean a launch will happen soon, >> > >So? When will it fly. Others beleive the Russian Shuttle is a mockup, a >non-working hoax. I think you're years away from a launch. Years. Why do you think that? Are the Russians too primitive to create a zippy machine? Remember that shuttle technology is designed for high efficiency, light weight, and high financial return to the main contractors. When you have a booster that can put up a hundred tonnes or so (I don't know the exact number) and when the company financing the launch is the same as the company building the machine (and has almost unlimited free labor) these considerations fall by the wayside. David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer The opinions expressed are those of an 8000 year old Atlantuan priestess named Mrla, and not necessarily those of her channel.
djr@scdpyr.UUCP (09/17/87)
With the recent discussion about the Shuttle I thought I would throw in my two cents worth. I think everyone will agree that the shuttle has its problems. The ways in which these problems should be solved seem to vary greatly with each individual. Several netters are expounding the virtues of the Soviet system and its plentiful, cheap rockets. While ths Soviet system is effective, scraping the shuttle in prusuit of cheap, expendable rockets would be an error as grave as the ones that lead to the death of seven astronauts. The lesson we need to learn from the Soviets is not use cheap, expendable rockets but, perfect the technology we have. Many of our hard fought after gains were tossed out with the Apollo program. Unfortunatley, Congress is not willing to fund the Space program at the level necessary for this to be accomplished. NASA made a big mistake when it sold the shuttle to Congress as a cheap means of placing payloads in orbit. With a lot of hard work, time, and money a shuttle could become a relativly inexpensive method of launching payloads. However, this would be a second generation of shuttles, not the current system that at best could be called experimental. In order for a shuttle system to be cost effective it would need more vehicles, more spare parts, more people, and better management. One of the biggest problems facing the U.S. space program is lack of direction. Here I have to agree with Sally Ride. A base on the moon would be a better way to go than jumping for Mars. Anybody can figure out that it is easier to get somthing off of the moon than it is to get somthing off of Earth. The moon would be an ideal place to launch a mission to Mars. The U.S. program needs to proceed at a steady pace not in the leap frog fashion of the past. In order to reach Mars or even to establish a permanent presence in orbit the space program needs to have a steady income. President Reagan has issued a directive for the development of a Space plane. This is too big a leap. If the U.S. goes for another giant leap in technology the shuttle disaster will repeat itself. The U.S. should proceed more conservativly in its development of vehicles. Probably the best way for the U.S. to proceed is for it to: 1) Perfect its existing technology. 2) Assure the Space program with a steady income. 3) Be more conservative in its development of hardware. Well, I guess I will get down off of my soap box now. I hope to see some more views on these issues posted. -- "Hey laser lips, your momma was a snow blower!" -- Number 5 Dave Rowland at NCAR Boulder, Colorado djr@scdpyr.UUCP
alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) (09/17/87)
In article <474@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes: >In article <8561@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> > Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else >> > presently has anything nearly as zippy... >> >> Anything nearly as zippy, no. This has nothing much to do with usefulness, >> though. The Soviet hardware consistently does almost everything better than >> the Shuttle does it, albeit less glamorously. Almost the only thing the >> >I don't know where you're getting your information, but the Soviets have >NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle. There is nothing on the pad >anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the shuttle. And On the contrary, the next launch of Energia will probably be carrying "Shuttleski". Satellite photos of Tyuratam have shown shuttle vehicles for years. Looks like they're ready to launch. >there's no way you can get me to beleive that ANY Russian hardware performs >better than the shuttle. And 'glitz' or 'zippiness' has nothing to do with ^ Define "better". Even ignoring the fact that right now, the shuttle doesn't perform at all, hasn't for a year and a half, and probably won't for another year yet. *Potential* performance doesn't orbit any satellites. At least the Sov's are actually *flying* their hardware. Anyway, Energia is a Saturn V-class launcher (ignoring the minor detail that the only Saturn Vs left are being used as lawn ornaments) and can put a hell of a lot more payload up than can Shuttle. Or, it can put the Russian Shuttle and payload up. Are you talking about Shuttle's man rating? Okay, it can stay on-orbit for a bit over a week. Mir has been continuosly manned for nearly a year now. >it. > >The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space >and returing with other payloads. They do not have the capability of ^ Certainly they do. The Progress vehicles (essentially unmanned Soyuzs) used to resupply Salyut and Mir have been bringing back down film packages, expermental data, zero-G processed materials (not just experimental results, the Sovs are using zero-G processed crystals for sensors in military hardware) etc for years. >sending teams of scientists and technicians into space all at once like we >can with the shuttle. Hmm, there are probably half a dozen people up there now even as we speak, er, type. If you can launch a Soyuz a week with a couple or three people each, and have a couple of space stations up there (Salyut is still up) for them to work in, is that really worse than sending up seven at once in a vehicle that can, with maximum effort, only be launched every 5 or 6 weeks? >> >> However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost too much >> and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way. This is a big, nasty, > >Cost too much? Maybe, but if flown like they were in '85 and '86 the cost >comes way down. The cost of flying the shuttle will remian high until we ^ Sorry, but it doesn't. *Operation* costs for shuttle are far higher than originally promised, or that NASA would have you believe. There's just too much expensive hand labor (actually, most of that is management) involved. It still costs $4-$5000/lb to launch on shuttle, plus $50,000 an *hour* to get an astronaut to do anything. >get them going regularly again (soon, I hope). Besides, high technology >is expensive, and the shuttle is probably the most advanced space vehicle >in the world today. IT'S WORTH IT. ^ As a research vehicle, perhaps. *NOT* as a way to get us routine access to space. Shuttle is also the most expensive space vehicle in the world today. Certainly, do the research for the next generation of launchers. But we *NEED* cheap, reliable launch technology today. NASA has seen that as threatening their precious (it pays there salaries) Shuttle, to the deterioration of US launch capability. NASA also does research on aeronautics, and has some pretty fancy, advanced (expensive!) research aircraft. You don't see them trying to compete with Fed-Ex or American Airlines or any of the other dozens of air cargo and air passenger companies do you? You don't see NASA telling the airframe manufactures that they can't sell airplanes to anyone they want to. You don't see NASA trying to run the airports the way they do half the spaceports do you? NASA's role in space should be research. The Shuttle is OK as a research vehicle. As a commercial "space truck" it sucks dead bunnies. >Get on the stick and get with the program, man. Or at least get the right >information. Not a bad idea. Have you taken your own suggestion? > Lawrence A. Dziegielewski | E.I. Dupont Co. > {uunet!dgis!psuvax1}!eplrx7!lad | Engineering Physics Lab -- Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair Let's build a base on the Moon on our way to the asteroids - forget Mars.
awr@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (09/18/87)
In article <477@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes: >In article <8583@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Quite true: they have *no* launch systems that are grounded for 2+1/2 >> years after a single failure. After the last Proton failure, the delay > >The shuttle was grounded for a good reason, and when it flies again I'd >send my own grandmother up on one, with me sitting right next to her. > The chance that you will ever get a chance to fly in the shuttle, even if you *could* afford the cost, is very, very slight. The costs now are prohibitive, and show *no* sign at all of going down. And the flights are backed up with missions to keep the Shuttle full for years, even with a launch every month!! The Space telescope, the Mars Observer, the Galileo mission.....all waiting on the ground (at immense cost, I might add) beause the US space program is locked up. >> before the next Proton launch was (as I recall) a whole 11 days. The >> Soviet hardware indeed cannot compare to the shuttle; when it comes to > > >What does that prove? That the Soviets are more advanced than we are? >Hardly. > Right. Everybody know that communists can't have any technology. Please ignore the propaganda from both Soviet and US sources that the Soviets are launching satellites that work into orbits that are stable while the US is sitting on the ground doing none of that. It's all lies. >> on the Soviet program, there is an Energia with a shuttle on its back on >> the pad at Baikonur as we speak. (Doesn't mean a launch will happen soon, >> > >So? When will it fly. Others beleive the Russian Shuttle is a mockup, a >non-working hoax. I think you're years away from a launch. Years. > Years, huh? I think I've heard that word before...let me look. Oh yes, here it is: US Space Shuttle has been grounded for over 2 *years*. I don't see what good our Shuttle does, if it doesn't fly..... But this must all be propaganda, too. Damn Communists. >> Net shuttle performance for the last year and a half: zero. Or negative >> if you count all the money going into it. There have been 15 or so Proton > >No kidding. And I beleive there's good reasons for it. But when it flies >again, we'll see regular shuttle launches and a VERY reliable system. > Oh goody. Does "regular shuttle launches" mean that we will: 1) Get all the backedup payloads launched 2) Have enough space to provide launch capability to European countries and our own country as well? and how long until this schedule starts? And will the European community ever trust our space program again? >> > The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into space >> > and returing with other payloads. >> They don't have the capability -- until the Energia-shuttle goes up -- of >> *returning* major payloads to Earth. But even the US shuttle didn't do a >> whole lot of that. > >You might as well hope for the Second Coming, becuase it'll happen before >the Soviet Shuttle flies. > Thank you, Jerry Falwell. I think I saw the article you got this fact from -- oh yes, page 3 of last weeks National Inquirer. "Christ to return before Soviet Shuttle Launch" > Lawrence A. Dziegielewski | E.I. Dupont Co. -Bruce ---------- ARPAnet awr@tybalt.caltech.edu BITNET awr@caltech.BITNET UUCP {amdahl,rutgers}!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!awr
gordan@maccs.UUCP (Gordan Palameta) (09/18/87)
In article <477@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes: > [...] As briefly as possible... The shuttle, when it flies again, will be safe. It will *not* be cost-effective, and will *not* be able to fly often enough. Dear Lord, the flames we'll be wading through for the next week. And me stuck with a 1200 baud terminal.
jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) (09/18/87)
(Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes: >> ...stuff about our dormant shuttle... > No kidding. And I beleive there's good reasons for it. But when it flies > again, we'll see regular shuttle launches and a VERY reliable system. > Am I the only one in the world that thinks that this is BUNK! We had a VERY RELIABLE shuttle. It blew up - AND WE KNOW WHY! If we avoid that condition (freezing the poor O-rings before launch) it would remain reliable. By re-designing it we now have an unknown system -LESS RELIABLE NOT MORE! -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, Data Management Group, San Diego ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmang biblich
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/20/87)
> So? When will it fly. Others beleive the Russian Shuttle is a mockup, a > non-working hoax. I think you're years away from a launch. Years. Well, I recall a very interesting paper in JBIS (I think) that firmly claimed that the Soviet "G" booster had never existed, and that their new big booster didn't either. The hilarious part was that publication delays meant I read it just *after* the Energia launch! -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/20/87)
> How does the Mir compare with Skylab, besides the obvious fact that we no > longer have Skylab. Roughly speaking: 1. Mir is quite a bit smaller than Skylab. Necessarily so, it was launched by a rather smaller booster. 2. Mir has four docking ports earmarked for future expansion plus two used for routine operations, where Skylab had one plus an emergency spare. (It did have expansion ports originally, but lost them later in its development when it became clear that they would never be used.) 3. Mir has a propulsion system used to reboost it periodically, Skylab didn't. 4. Mir is designed to be resupplied in space, Skylab was not (for lack of a suitable cargo vehicle and because, again, it was clear that the capability would never be used). 5. In short, Skylab was a one-shot while Mir is the nucleus of an ongoing space-station project. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/20/87)
> ... The Progress vehicles (essentially unmanned > Soyuzs) used to resupply Salyut and Mir have been bringing back down > film packages... etc for years. Mmm, you might want to re-check this. The normal Progress is a Soyuz derivative, not just an unmanned Soyuz, and lacks a heatshield. It burns up on re-entry. Cargo return has been via Soyuz. -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (09/20/87)
In article <4004@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, awr@tybalt.caltech.edu (Bruce Rossiter) writes: > > Oh goody. Does "regular shuttle launches" mean that we will: > 1) Get all the backedup payloads launched > 2) Have enough space to provide launch capability to > European countries and our own country as well? > and how long until this schedule starts? And will the European community > ever trust our space program again? > Consider that today the US has among commercial and government programs the following on order: 1 Space Shuttle Orbiter 23 Titan 4 Boosters 26 Titan 2 Boosters (converted ICBMs) 18 Atlas Centaurs (being built on speculation by General Dynamics) 17 Delta II Boosters My prediction for 1989 US launches is: 12 Shuttle 6 Titan 4's 4 Titan 2's 4 Atlas Centaurs 8 Deltas 3 Connestoga Total: 37 launches. Not too shabby. Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (09/21/87)
In article <4347@teddy.UUCP> rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) writes: >Especially if they are flown the way they were in '86. After a while, we'll >loose the three remaining shuttles (they way we did in '86) and the cost >will eventually reach zero, it might be argued. (Let's see, we flew 2 "...flown the way they were in 1986."? Come on Dick. We won't be flying as we did in '86 any more, obviously, because of the re-designed SRB's and re-vamping of procedures. Many other items also have and will have been taken care of. I have great confidence the Shuttle program will continue smoothly and we will benefit greatly from it over the long run. Peter Jarvis......Test Engineer, Physio-Control Corp. >Dick Pierce
arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) (09/22/87)
> > > I was recently told by one of my Space Studies professor (Dr. James Vedda, > > now of the University of North Dakota) that Skylab was larger than the CURRENT > Mir configuration. However, I believe that Mir is scheduled to grow much > larger. > > Scott Udell > UD140469@NDSUVM1.BITNET On the other hand, Skylab has been in central Australia since 1979, while the Mir ("Land", NOT "Peace") is a few hundred miles above it. It ain't what you done, it's what you done LATELY that counts! (You all should have heard Stine and Pournelle at NASFIC in Phoenix, couple of weeks back, backtracking their original support of the Shuttle (our shuttle, that is) and saying now what they shoulda said then: a stupid government project, a spaceship built by committee...)
jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) (09/23/87)
> Mir ("Land", NOT "Peace")
My dictionary also gives the alternative translation of Mir as Village.
--
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.
John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, Data Management Group, San Diego
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COMlmg@sfmin.UUCP (09/23/87)
> On the contrary, the next launch of Energia will probably be carrying > "Shuttleski". Satellite photos of Tyuratam have shown shuttle vehicles > for years. Looks like they're ready to launch. > . . . > Anyway, Energia is a Saturn V-class launcher (ignoring the minor detail > that the only Saturn Vs left are being used as lawn ornaments) and can > put a hell of a lot more payload up than can Shuttle. Or, it can put > the Russian Shuttle and payload up. Just how much is known about the Soviet shuttle? Is it an all purpose human/cargo vehicle like the US shuttle, or a smaller human carrier with little cargo capacity like the European projects? The Energia launch configuration - payload hanging on the side - leads me to an interesting speculation: Perhaps Energia will carry a small, reusable shuttle on one side and an expendable cargo module on the other side in one launch. This would give them the same capabilities as a large, US style shuttle, but without the engineering compromises required to cram crew and cargo into one reusable vehicle. Larry Geary ihnp4!attunix!lmg
ganzer@trout.UUCP (Mark T. Ganzer) (09/23/87)
In article <2396@calmasd.GE.COM>, jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: > We had a VERY RELIABLE shuttle. It blew up - AND WE KNOW WHY! If we avoid > that condition (freezing the poor O-rings before launch) it would remain > reliable. By re-designing it we now have an unknown system -LESS RELIABLE > NOT MORE! Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that their was evidence of impending seal failure in previous launches, indicating a highly marginal original design. Freezing only aggravated the condition. There is no guarentee that it could not happen in a warm weather flight. Also, as I recall, the original joint design did not allow for testing the integrity of the joint in the direction that it would normally seal prior to launch. Having dealt with o-ring seals in the ocean environment, this testing is essential, because o-rings are quite easily damage during assembly. So given these two factors, a re-design of the o-ring joint is essential. Failure to do so would inevitably result in another failure down the line. -- MarK T. Ganzer Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego Internet: ganzer@nosc.mil UUCP: {ucbvax,hplabs}!sdcsvax!nosc!ganzer
larson@sri-unix.ARPA (Alan Larson) (09/24/87)
In article <772@maccs.UUCP> gordan@maccs.UUCP (Gordan Palameta) writes: >The shuttle, when it flies again, will be safe. >It will *not* be cost-effective, and will *not* be able to fly often enough. Am I the only one who is having trouble with this first claim? There were a large number of items (I think they called them criticality-1 items) which, if any one of the failed, would lead to catastrophe. I don't have a list of these items, but I did have the impression that there was very little being done them. Alan
andy@rocky.UUCP (09/24/87)
In article <2404@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >> Mir ("Land", NOT "Peace") >My dictionary also gives the alternative translation of Mir as Village. Mir means many things. The Russian-English dictionaries I looked in mentioned peace, land, treaty, and others. Funny, peace has a lot of meanings too. -andy -- Andy Freeman UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!sushi.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@sushi.stanford.edu (415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle
miq@psuvm.bitnet.UUCP (09/24/87)
In article <7405@sri-unix.ARPA>, larson@sri-unix.ARPA (Alan Larson) says: >>The shuttle, when it flies again, will be safe. >>It will *not* be cost-effective, and will *not* be able to fly often enough. >Am I the only one who is having trouble with this first claim? There >were a large number of items (I think they called them criticality-1 >items) which, if any one of the failed, would lead to catastrophe. > >I don't have a list of these items, but I did have the impression that >there was very little being done them. The question is not the number of these items, but the likelihood of them going bad. Even if there are thousands of such items, if the odds of any one going bad were less than a million to one, the risk would still be acceptable. Further, there's little being done about them because there's little that *can* be done. There will always be some systems for which failure means disaster. This is true of any vehicle or device, not just the Shuttle. The human body has *loads* of criticality-1 items (ask a nursing or a med student), but it averages over 70 years before catastrophic failure (assuming proper maintenance). :-) ------- James D. Maloy The Pennsylvania State University Bitnet: MIQ@PSUECL, MIQ@PSUVM Aerospace Engineering, '87 UUCP : {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!psuvax1!psuvma.bitnet!miq
stu@splut.UUCP (Stewart Cobb) (09/25/87)
In article <402@nysernic>, weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes: > <excerpts> > >> I don't know where you're getting your information... > >> but the Soviets have NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle... > >> There is nothing on the pad > >> anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the shuttle... James Oberg [Red Star in Orbit, etc.] thinks that the Russians have no real plans for a shuttle. What we're seeing (in Soviet Military Power and such) is a product of 1) American arrogance (of _course_ they're trying to copy us!) 2) Soviet disinformation 3) intell people misinterpreting very limited data. I don't necessarily agree, but I thought I'd pass it along. He goes through it all in an article in Aerospace America (the AIAA member magazine) June 1987, pages 24-28. The Energia booster is clearly useful with or without a shuttle attached. -- | Stewart Cobb (Hacking GNC for STS) ... sun!housun!nuchat!splut!stu | N5JXE @ KA5KTH or WB5BBW ... seismo!soma!uhnix1 / | << Insert the usual disclaimer >> ... hoptoad!academ / | Sattinger's Law: It works better if you plug it in.
lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) (09/28/87)
In article <163@splut.UUCP>, stu@splut.UUCP (Stewart Cobb) writes: > In article <402@nysernic>, weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes: > > <excerpts> > > >> I don't know where you're getting your information... > > >> but the Soviets have NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle... > > >> There is nothing on the pad > > >> anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the shuttle... > Stu, baby. You musta cut the wrong line. I take full credit for those statements. > | Stewart Cobb (Hacking GNC for STS) ... sun!housun!nuchat!splut!stu -- Lawrence A. Dziegielewski | E.I. Dupont Co. {uunet!dgis!psuvax1}!eplrx7!lad | Engineering Physics Lab Cash-We-Serve 76127,104 | Wilmington, Delaware 19891 MABELL: (302) 695-1311 | Mail Stop: E357-318
de@moscom.UUCP (Dave Esan) (10/06/87)
In article <2404@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes: >> Mir ("Land", NOT "Peace") > >My dictionary also gives the alternative translation of Mir as Village. >-- Sorry this posting is relatively late to the article, it has taken me a while to catch up on news. Perhaps this will help lay the question of the translation of Mir to rest? Before the October Revolution (which took place in November 1917) the Russian language had two vowels that had the sound "ee". One looked like an i, the other like a u. In some far off time these two sounds were pronounced differently, but over time they both became "ee". The Soviet government decided that it was a good time to update the Russian orthography (they were right, the population was basically illiterate, there were not too many books printed in Russian at the time) and eliminated the duplicate vowels, replacing them with the single vowel that looks like the letter u. (They also eliminated several other characters at the time.) Mir before the revolution was written "mir" or "mur". One meant the world the other meant peace. Furthermore, just to confuse the issue, "mir" (the world) had taken on an additional meaning. Russian peasantry were in serfdom until the mid-1860's, and even their emancipation, did not really free them from the land. They were confined to their particular farms and villages, which to them became their world, or their "mir". While this meaning is not rooted in the Slavonic root languages like world and peace, it had a profound effect on the Russian language, and added a third meaning. Any other meanings found in a dictionary are attempts to add shades of meaning, a difficult undertaking to say the least. The space station Mir could actually mean any of the three variations. It could be a propaganda ploy meaning Peace, a propaganda ploy meaning world, or used in the third sense, it could be the area that the cosmonauts are confined. Whew! I knew that degree in Russian studies would come in handy someday. -- rochester \ David Esan | moscom ! de ritcv/
alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) (10/07/87)
In article <163@splut.UUCP> stu@splut.UUCP (Stewart Cobb) writes: >James Oberg [Red Star in Orbit, etc.] thinks that the Russians have no real >plans for a shuttle. What we're seeing (in Soviet Military Power and such) James Oberg, for all his good work, has been known to be wrong before. In cases like this I trust the opinions of people like Charlie Vick and Art Bozlee. The big one is definitely a shuttle. The small one photo'd when it splashed down in the Indian Ocean may have been a scale test model. It may also have been a full size test of a highly manoeverable reentry vehicle for weapons. But Shuttleski almost certainly exists. -- Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair "What we really need is a good 5-cent/gram launch vehicle."
cray@ssvs.gsfc.nasa.gov (Robert Cray) (10/12/87)
In article <163@splut.UUCP> stu@splut.UUCP (Stewart Cobb) writes: >James Oberg [Red Star in Orbit, etc.] thinks that the Russians have no real >plans for a shuttle. What we're seeing (in Soviet Military Power and such) I was looking through Soviet Life (I realize its all propoganda, but I am taking Russian, and was looking in the library for *anything* in Russian), anyway, there was an article in the October issue about a Soviet "shuttle", I didn't pay very much attention, but I think there was a picture...should be in any university library. --robert