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_
Mike.Pompura@f49.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Pompura) (10/04/89)
I left a good baker's dozen of messages on this Galileo-Pu-238 subject over in the space echo, and won't duplicate them here. What I mentioned in brief was that I agree with you. The plutonium risk is over-stated by the yo-yo's in DARTH VADER masks at the cyclone fences of KSC. <not to mention the females without bras and marine-style haircuts & people dressed in "religious" garb>. The RTG units are designed, and better yet, tested to simulate most launch pad and abort scenarios, and is designed to SURVIVE these incidents without releasing its fuel source. The fuel source - most importantly - in not plutonium metal, but plutoniun oxide....a CERAMIC, which can heat up red hot and survive the temp or re-entry. The container that holds this ceramic fuel is GRAPHITE...the same stuff put on the forward leading edges of the shuttle...it too can survive heat. The container has been tested for submersion in water, and impact against SOLID ROCK. I can go on and on... if you're interested, pick up the thread in the space echo. -- Fidonet: Mike Pompura via 1:363/9 Internet: Mike.Pompura@f49.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG UUCP: uunet!sceard!tarpit!libcmp!mamab!49!Mike.Pompura
Mike.Pompura@f49.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Pompura) (10/04/89)
As soon as the military is seperated from NASA the better I will feel. Remember what NASA was supposed to be? A civilian space agency. What happened back in the early 60's? Military jet pilots were "hired" as astronauts, and it went from there.... The military even had a hand in designing the shuttle basics...and the accountants screwed up what was left of a semi-sound engineering design. The same thing is happening with the FREEDOM station at this moment. The military wants XXX and XXX to keep an eye on the high ground, and the congressional bean counters are finishing the job. Think there would be any room in the station for scientists and actual science xperiments? <grin> -- Fidonet: Mike Pompura via 1:363/9 Internet: Mike.Pompura@f49.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG UUCP: uunet!sceard!tarpit!libcmp!mamab!49!Mike.Pompura
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/12/89)
In article <539.252A3A3D@mamab.FIDONET.ORG>, Mike.Pompura@f49.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Pompura) writes: > As soon as the military is seperated from NASA the better I will feel. > > Remember what NASA was supposed to be? A civilian space agency. Don't forget aeronautics! > What happened back in the early 60's? Military jet pilots were "hired" > as astronauts, and it went from there.... Hold on... The Air Force had its own manned space projects going, things like DynaSoar and MOL, running in parallel with NASA's civilian stuff. Then Washington (Eisenhower's administration) said "American's manned space presence was by damn going to be a *civilian* presence. Kill the military manned projects." Leaving us with an uncomfortable marriage. As for hiring military pilots...it's hard to get lots of high-performance jet time out of the military. And for all anyone knew at the time, only fighter pilots would be able to handle the job. > The military even had a hand in designing the shuttle basics...and the > accountants screwed up what was left of a semi-sound engineering > design. > > The same thing is happening with the FREEDOM station at this moment. > The military wants XXX and XXX to keep an eye on the high ground, and > the congressional bean counters are finishing the job. Restart a military manned program and let them play away from civilian projects. :} ------------ "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.
jad@dayton.UUCP (J. Deters) (10/13/89)
In article <539.252A3A3D@mamab.FIDONET.ORG> Mike.Pompura@f49.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mike Pompura) writes: >As soon as the military is seperated from NASA the better I will feel. > >Remember what NASA was supposed to be? A civilian space agency. Look at the 'political' side of the story. The military has always been at the top of the budget. If NASA can suck up some military $$$, in return for toting a few 'eyes in the skies', isn't the tradeoff worth something to the 'civilian' or scientific communities? Is there no valuable research flowing into the civilian sector due to the military presense? I think NASA did what they had to do: sell out to stay alive. NASA has not been 'politically' valuable since the Apollo project landed on the moon. Anything to get funding in the door has been needed for 20 years now. -j -- J. Deters jad@dayton.DHDSC.MN.ORG .\ /. "Smile -- Cthulu loathes you!" john@jaded.DHDSC.MN.ORG \_____/