berger@edpl21.enet.dec.com (Michael Berger) (12/12/89)
I was wondering what was going on with the new fourth shuttle Endeavour (sp?). I haven't read anything about it in quite a while. Is it currently under construction? When is it expected to be completed? Or is it another victim of the budgeting process? ************************************************************************** Michael P. Berger berger@edpl21.enet.dec.com
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/12/89)
In article <6795@shlump.nac.dec.com> berger@edpl21.enet.dec.com (Michael Berger) writes: >I was wondering what was going on with the new fourth >shuttle Endeavour (sp?). I haven't read anything about >it in quite a while. Is it currently under construction? >When is it expected to be completed? Or is it another >victim of the budgeting process? It's still being built. The rollout date is something like 1992. Bear in mind that the orbiters are essentially hand-built and the production line (insofar as there ever was a production "line") was almost shut down, so it's taking a long time. -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (12/13/89)
In article <1989Dec12.022557.6690@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human >exploration of space terminates After all, why send humans when Soviets will do? -- "Nature loves a vacuum. Digital \O@/ Tom Neff doesn't." -- DEC sales letter /@O\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/13/89)
In article <14990@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >>1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human >>exploration of space terminates > >After all, why send humans when Soviets will do? Send them where? On death-defying missions into the depths of space, 300km up? The human *exploration* of space ended with Apollo 17. Low Earth orbit was quite well explored rather earlier. -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (12/14/89)
In article <6795@shlump.nac.dec.com> berger@edpl21.enet.dec.com (Michael Berger) writes: >I was wondering what was going on with the new fourth >shuttle Endeavour (sp?). I haven't read anything about >it in quite a while. Is it currently under construction? >When is it expected to be completed? Or is it another >victim of the budgeting process? Endeavour is still under construction in Palmdale, CA. It is scheduled to be completed in 1991. Peter Jarvis, Physio-Control
razeh@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Robert A. Zeh) (12/15/89)
In article <1989Dec12.022557.6690@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: [Question about the fourth orbiter.] >It's still being built. The rollout date is something like 1992. Bear >in mind that the orbiters are essentially hand-built and the production >line (insofar as there ever was a production "line") was almost shut >down, so it's taking a long time. Does anyone know what they are planning to do with the production line when they have finished the fourth orbiter? Keep it open for spare parts? A replacement for the next orbiter loss? Or is NASA still in the "we'll never lose another orbiter" mode? -- Robert A. Zeh razeh@rodan.acs.syr.edu | "Conditioning is an explanation, not an razeh@sunrise.bitnet | excuse." - Spider Robinson
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/16/89)
In article <1549@rodan.acs.syr.edu> razeh@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Robert A. Zeh) writes: >Does anyone know what they are planning to do with the production line >when they have finished the fourth orbiter? Keep it open for spare >parts? A replacement for the next orbiter loss? Or is NASA still in >the "we'll never lose another orbiter" mode? There is *talk* about building another one, likewise *talk* about keeping the line going at a low rate to provide a supply of replacements. The NRC report on such matters a couple of years ago was most explicit about this being an absolute necessity if the shuttle fleet was to be relied on for future programs. Trouble is, it's expensive. Nobody has yet committed to anything. -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
rogers@wlf.isi.edu (Craig Milo Rogers) (12/16/89)
In article <1549@rodan.acs.syr.edu> razeh@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Robert A. Zeh) writes: >Does anyone know what they are planning to do with the production line >when they have finished the fourth orbiter? Keep it open for spare >parts? A replacement for the next orbiter loss? Or is NASA still in >the "we'll never lose another orbiter" mode? According to an item on page D2 of the Friday 15 Dec 89 issue of the Los Angeles Times, Rockwell Int'l and NASA have completed negotiations on a $375 million agreement to build a new set of structural spare components. The work is to be completed by June, 1994. Craig Milo Rogers
Greg_d._Moore@mts.rpi.edu (Commander Krugannal) (12/16/89)
One reason the Endavour will be finished sooner than normal
is for some reason NASA had the foresight to order some key
important spare parts, such as WINGS! As for keeping it open, it
would make sense to me. A) I think chances are high enough that
we will lose another orbiter. (As unfortunate as that will be.)
B) I would not be suprised if we could actually use it! Finally,
it would make sense that if Shuttle-C is built, keeping a
production line open would keep costs down.
Gee, we sell a shuttle to Japan and swap their Mir and a few
sundry.... nah... they would only copy the shuttle and put us
out of business.
Greg d. Moore at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Greg_d._Moore@mts.rpi.edu
Disclaimer: Why do I need one?henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/17/89)
In article <10556.886.forumexp@mts.rpi.edu> Greg_d._Moore@mts.rpi.edu (Commander Krugannal) writes: > One reason the Endavour will be finished sooner than normal > is for some reason NASA had the foresight to order some key > important spare parts, such as WINGS! ... Actually, what happened was a bit more complex. The Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting persistently refused to fund another orbiter. However, it was pointed out that relatively minor accidents like hard landings could significantly damage an orbiter. Auxiliary systems -- electronics, plumbing, tiles, etc. -- are being replaced in small ways all the time, so it would not be difficult to replace them. Major structural parts, on the other hand, would be impossibly difficult to obtain after the production line closed. This could mean writing off an orbiter which was only lightly damaged. And since the auxiliary systems are a large part of the cost of an orbiter, it is *relatively* cheap to make a set of "structural spares". OMB bought that one, and authorized one set of structural spares. This was lucky in more than one way, because it's the only reason the production line was still running when we lost Challenger. Endeavour is being built from the current set of structural spares. I believe the funding package for Endeavour included approval to build a new spares set. -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) (12/19/89)
In article <10556.886.forumexp@mts.rpi.edu>, Greg_d._Moore@mts.rpi.edu (Commander Krugannal) writes: > Gee, we sell a shuttle to Japan and swap their Mir and a few > sundry.... nah... they would only copy the shuttle and put us > out of business. > > Greg d. Moore at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute > Greg_d._Moore@mts.rpi.edu > If we DON'T sell a shuttle to Japan, the Soviets will. Given the record the Japanise have for improving upon products they copy from others - I would prefer to get the money money up front rather than try to second guess what they could do with the Soviet shuttle. Sad to say: It might cost us less to have the Japanise build the shuttles for us - unlike US companies, cost and time overruns are the exception rather than the rule for Japanise companies.
johnsonr@boulder.Colorado.EDU (JOHNSON RICHARD J) (12/19/89)
rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: )Sad to say: It might cost us less to have the Japanise build the shuttles )for us - unlike US companies, cost and time overruns are the exception )rather than the rule for Japanise companies. Which Japanese companies have bid for contracts under the US government's military industrial complex system? The system where if companies don't follow the lead of their federal agency customers and low-ball the cost estimates their project doesn't make it at all. What amazes me is that some companies still manage to give the agencies a decent product that works as advertised and was actually developed on shedule and under cost. That almost never happens on the big technical welfare projects, but has happened often enough on smaller deals. I suspect that if Japanese companies tried to compete in the US federal procurement and tech development system that they'd either come out much the same as the best US companies, or not win contracts. Are cost and time overruns the exception rather than the rule for US *commercial* development projects? Are they really the exception for Japanese companies? If there is a difference, can it be explained by something as simple as Japanese schedules having more slack than the corresponding US schedules? I honestly don't know the answers here. Perhaps if a Japanese company had built the shuttle, they would have begun with a more realistic funding peak and not increased the overall development and operations costs of the system by trimming much smaller amounts of moolah up front. They wouldn't have won the contract. Perhaps if the shuttle could have been funded as a commercial venture ;-) ;-) a US company would have been able to do the same. It's foolish to compare Japanese commercial performance to US military industrial complex performance. The two games are played by different rules. A "winning" strategy in one isn't necessarily a winning plan in the other. | Richard Johnson johnsonr@spot.colorado.edu | | CSC doesn't necessarily share my opinions, but is welcome to. | | Power Tower...Dual Keel...Phase One...Allison/bertha/Colleen...?... | | Space Station Freedom is Dead. Long Live Space Station Freedom! |
johnsonr@boulder.Colorado.EDU (JOHNSON RICHARD J) (12/19/89)
rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes: )Sad to say: It might cost us less to have the Japanise build the shuttles )for us - unlike US companies, cost and time overruns are the exception )rather than the rule for Japanise companies. Which Japanese companies have bid for contracts under the US government's military industrial complex system? The system where if companies don't follow the lead of their federal agency customers and low-ball the cost estimates their project doesn't make it at all. What amazes me is that some companies still manage to give the agencies a decent product that works as advertised and was actually developed on shedule and under cost. That almost never happens on the big technical welfare projects, but has happened often enough to notice on smaller deals. I suspect that if Japanese companies tried to compete in the US federal procurement and tech development system that they'd either come out much the same as the best US companies, or not win contracts. Are cost and time overruns the exception rather than the rule for US *commercial* development projects? Are they really the exception for Japanese companies? If there is a difference, can it be explained by something as simple as Japanese schedules having more slack than the corresponding US schedules? I honestly don't know the answers here. Perhaps if a Japanese company had built the shuttle, they would have begun with a more realistic funding peak and not increased the overall development and operations costs of the system by trimming much smaller amounts of moolah up front. They wouldn't have won the contract. Perhaps if the shuttle could have been funded as a commercial venture ;-) ;-) a US company would have been able to do the same. It's foolish to compare Japanese commercial performance to US military industrial complex performance. The two games are played by different rules. A "winning" strategy in one isn't necessarily a winning plan in the other. | Richard Johnson johnsonr@spot.colorado.edu | | CSC doesn't necessarily share my opinions, but is welcome to. | | Power Tower...Dual Keel...Phase One...Allison/bertha/Colleen...?... | | Space Station Freedom is Dead. Long Live Space Station Freedom! |
pflueger@thewav.enet.dec.com (Free speech is a sound investment) (12/21/89)
In article <2393@ttardis.UUCP>, rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) writes... [*] > >Given the record the Japanise have for improving upon products they copy >from others - I would prefer to get the money money up front rather than >try to second guess what they could do with the Soviet shuttle. > >Sad to say: It might cost us less to have the Japanise build the shuttles >for us - unlike US companies, cost and time overruns are the exception >rather than the rule for Japanise companies. Hmm, I kinda like that ideal. Why don't we let the Japanese build a heavy lift boost - ala Saturn-V, then we can get down to business! +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Jim Pflueger(=Jp=)| "Idealism is fine, but as it | pflueger@thewav.dec.com Digital Equipment | approaches reality, the costs | pflueger@swam2.dec.com Costa Mesa, Ca. | become prohibitive" W.F. Buckley | (714) 850-7745 +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+