[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

SSRT: Space Access Update no. 67

>Return-Path: chrisj@mail.utexas.edu
>From: chrisj@mail.utexas.edu (Chris W. Johnson)
>To: "Single Stage Rocket Technology News" <ssrt-news@zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu>
>Subject: SSRT: Space Access Update no. 67
>Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 16:57:21 -0600
>Sender: listserv@zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu
>X-listname: <ssrt-news@zimbazi.cc.utexas.edu>
>From: hvanderbilt@BIX.com (hvanderbilt on BIX)
>Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
>Subject: Space Access Update #67  7/11/96
>Date: 12 Jul 96 06:45:54 GMT
>Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
>Lines: 553
>                     Space Access Update #67  7/11/96
>                 Copyright 1996 by Space Access Society
>It's been an interesting week since the X-33 winner announcement.  All
>sorts of alarums and excursions from people who'd forgotten this was a
>competition and expected their favorite to win; more seriously, huge
>amounts of new data to absorb and make sense of while we and our
>colleagues thrashed out answers to the twin questions: What does this
>mean, and What next?  Read on...
>Stories this issue:
> - Lockheed-Martin "Venture Star" Wins X-33 Downselect
> - NASA OSAT Due For Radical Change In HQ Restructuring
> - DC-XA Flight 4 Due Friday July 12th
> - A Low-Cost X-33 Backup? (!)
> - DOD SSTO Funding Alert - Maximum effort needed!
>-----------------------(SAS Policy Boilerplate)------------------------
>Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news
>publication. Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access
>to space for all, period.  We believe in concentrating our resources at
>whatever point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.
>Right now, we think this means working our tails off trying to get the
>government to build and fly a high-speed reusable rocket demonstrator, one
>or more "X-rockets", in the next three years, in order to quickly build up
>both experience with and confidence in reusable Single-Stage To Orbit
>(SSTO) technology.  The idea is to reduce SSTO technical uncertainty (and
>thus development risk and cost) while at the same time increasing investor
>confidence, to the point where SSTO will make sense as a private commercial
>investment.  We have reason to believe we're not far from that point now.
>Our major current focus is on supporting the government's fully reusable
>single-stage rocket technology programs, the low-speed DC-XA, and its
>high-speed followon, the X-33 NASA/DOD/industry cooperative project.
>With luck and hard work, we should see fully-reusable rocket testbeds flying
>into space well before the end of this decade, with practical orbital
>transport projects getting underway.  Join us, and help us make it happen.
>            Henry Vanderbilt, Executive Director, Space Access Society
>To join Space Access Society or buy the SSTO/DC-X V 3.0 video we have for
>sale (Two hours, includes all eight DC-X flights, X-33 animations, X-33,
>DC-X and SSTO backgrounders, aerospike engine test-stand footage, plus
>White Sands Missile Range DC-X ops site post flight footage) mail a check
>to:  SAS, 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044.  SAS membership with
>direct email of Space Access Updates is $30 US per year; the SSTO V 3.0
>video is $25, $5 off for SAS members, $8 extra for shipping outside the US
>and Canada, VHS NTSC only.
>           Lockheed-Martin "Venture Star" Wins X-33 Downselect
>On July 2nd, 1996, at Caltech's Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena
>California, Vice President Al Gore and NASA Administrator Dan Goldin
>together lifted the concealing cover from a scale model of the winner of
>the X-33 experimental reusable rocket demonstrator competition,
>revealing Lockheed-Martin's "Venture Star" triangular lifting body as
>NASA's choice for the billion-dollar three-year cooperative project.
> - What Are The Specs?
>Lockheed-Martin's X-33 design will lift off vertically, at a fully-
>fuelled weight of 273,000 lbs, powered by two sets of Rocketdyne J-2S
>turbomachinery (the J-2S was an upgraded version of the Saturn 5's J-2
>upper-stage engine) feeding liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen to two
>banks of small thrust chambers in a "linear aerospike" arrangement on
>either side of the ship's blunt wedge-shaped trailing edge, producing
>a total of just over 400,000 lbs of thrust at takeoff.  Steering while
>under rocket power will be totally by differential throttling of the four
>banks of thrust chambers, side-to-side, and top-row-to-bottom-row.
>Steering during gliding flight before runway landing will be by a variety
>of aerodynamic control surfaces.
>The triangular experimental flight vehicle will be 67 feet from nose
>to tail, 68 feet wide including the upward-slanted fins on the aft
>corners, and will weigh 63,000 lbs with empty propellant tanks.  Thermal
>protection will be by new advanced metallic TPS plates backed by
>insulation over the composite plastic vehicle outer shell.  The
>vehicle's broad curved underside (it reenters pretty much belly-first)
>spreads reentry heat loads out over a wide area, reducing maximum
>temperatures and allowing the use of metallic rather than tile TPS.  The
>tradeoff for this is low hypersonic Lift-to-Drag ratio (L:D) which means
>low reentry maneuverability, low "crossrange".  A reasonable tradeoff
>for a precursor to a routine cargo-hauler... Maximum X-33 speed is
>described as mach 15+, roughly 60% of orbital velocity.  The vehicle
>will be returned to base after flights on the back of a NASA Shuttle
>Carrier 747.
> - What's The Plan?
>Gene Austin, NASA's X-33 project manager, is currently in Palmdale
>California setting up an on-site office for himself and his staff.  NASA
>has most of its $43m in FY'96 X-33 funds for use in getting the project
>off to a flying start this summer.  At some point after October 1st,
>NASA should have something over $250m in FY'97 X-33 funding available,
>out of a total $324.7m for FY'97 RLV/Advanced Space Technology in the
>likely FY'97 NASA budget.  NASA is reported to be asking Lockheed-Martin
>to commit their contribution to the cooperative project early, to avoid
>a repeat of the X-34 Mk I "cooperative" fiasco, where the contractors
>apparently spent $10m of NASA's money but little of their own before
>bailing out.
>X-33 is scheduled for first flight less than three years from now, in
>March 1999.  Lockheed-Martin is starting to recruit the hundreds of
>additional people who'll be needed to build the new ship.  They will
>build the ship in Palmdale, California and fly it out of nearby Edwards
>Air Force Base.  Current plans call for approximately a dozen flights,
>with high-and-fast tests from flight #3 on going out of the Edwards test
>range over the sparsely populated regions to the northeast, on a flight
>corridor to Malmstrom AFB, Montana.  Flight #1 is planned to go thirty
>miles to a strip at Bicycle Lake CA, #2 to Michaels AAF in Utah.
>The ship is to be unmanned, operated by constant telecomm link via
>ground stations along the flight path.  There is no current provision
>for either a second copy of the ship or for long-lead spares to build a
>second ship in the event of loss of the first.  These will presumably
>depend on additional funding being scrounged.
> - How'd They Win?
>NASA has announced that Lockheed-Martin's winning X-33 bid included a
>$220 million bidder contribution.  We understand that this $220m is a
>mix of cash, in-kind use of existing company resources, and IR&D funds
>("Internal R&D" money, essentially general-purpose Federal corporate
>technology-base subsidies) from both Lockheed-Martin and various of
>their subcontractors.
>We're still collecting data on the other aspects of the competition,
>technical merit, "RLV" operational followon business plans, and so
>forth.  But at first glance, it appears Lockheed-Martin won at least in
>part because they were willing to commit significantly more of their own
>resources than either McDonnell-Douglas or Rockwell.
>NASA has been saying that one reason Lockheed-Martin won is that their
>X-33 pushes more new technologies farther than the other bids.  We find
>this mildly puzzling, as it seems to us to increase program risk over
>the simpler solutions, but then NASA does have a certain institutional
>tendency to favor maximum new tech in a project.  Since we have our own
>risk-reduction plan in mind (more on this later in the Update) we can
>live with this.  In fact, many of the new technologies in Lockheed-
>Martin's X-33 (metallic TPS, multilobed composite cryo tanks, aerospike
>engines) do look generically useful if they work out.
>NASA has also been saying that this X-33 is more representative of its
>hypothetical "RLV" operational followon than the other two bids.  We'll
>confine ourselves to observing that three years is a long time and
>things are likely to change, a lot, as experience is gained and the
>market defines itself better.
>This brings us to Lockheed-Martin's "RLV business plan" submitted as
>part of the X-33 bid.  As best we can tell, the gist of this plan is to
>spend about $2 billion of company money (Lockheed-Martin is projected to
>be seriously cash-rich by the end of the decade) plus a bit more than
>that in short-term loans to develop a fleet of three shuttle-class-cargo
>ships (15-30 tons payload depending on the target orbit).  The loans
>will then be paid off by selling NASA eight Shuttle-replacement flights
>a year at a price of $250m-$300m a flight (around two-thirds of current
>Shuttle operating costs) for two to three years.  Lockheed-Martin then
>plans to fly 20-30 flights a year at a price of $10m-$15m a flight; their
>fully amortized cost per flight (projected from their target of $100/lb)
>looks to be $4m-$6m.
>Our main comment on this plan is that it is likely to change a lot over the
>next four years.
>We note, for instance, that the National Reconaissance Office (NRO), a
>major current customer for 20-ton class satellite launches on L-M's
>Titan 4 (and occasionally on Shuttle, soon to be 50% L-M's under the USA
>Shuttle operating partnership with Rockwell) is suddenly talking very
>seriously of switching over to larger numbers of cheaper 5-ton
>satellites.  Optimal RLV sizing could change radically between now and
>the year 2000.
>We note too that Lockheed-Martin's "RLV Business Plan" calls for capture
>of over 90% of the existing space launch market, an effective monopoly.
>We believe our cause, affordable reliable access to space for all, will
>be far better served by ongoing technical, corporate, and institutional
>competition in low-cost launch, and we intend to actively support such
>competition.  Even if we didn't feel this way, chances are that between
>the other two X-33 bidders (neither McDonnell-Douglas nor Rockwell have
>any plans to immediately disband their design teams), the host of other
>established and wannabe aerospace outfits, and the host of other space
>access customers outside NASA, there will be competition in this market.
>We'll close with this:  We expect any of the X-33 bidders could have
>produced a ship adequate to our goal of developing and demonstrating
>reusable SSTO technology to the point of commercial viability.  We
>intend to vigorously support the NASA/Lockheed-Martin X-33 while it
>looks like serving this goal.  We congratulate the Lockheed-Martin team
>on their win, and we look forward to their producing an X-33 that flies
>soon, (semi)savably, high, fast, and often.
>It's going to be an interesting fin de siecle - a rocket powered one!
>          NASA OSAT Due For Radical Change In HQ Restructuring
>According to documents we've seen posted on the "NASA RIF watch" web
>site (http://www.reston.com/rif/watch.html) NASA's Office of Space
>Access & Technology (OSAT), "Code X", is slated for perhaps the most
>radical change seen in the current NASA HQ restructuring and cutbacks.
>OSAT's advanced technology functions are to be split off and divided up
>among various NASA centers, while the space access function, essentially
>the current Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program under Gary Payton, is
>to be upgraded to a full HQ Office with its own Associate Administrator
>- presumably Payton - reporting directly to Administrator Goldin.
>Tough times for the majority of the current OSAT staff, who have our
>sympathy for their quest to find new niches within NASA or without.  But
>we think this change is a good thing for our main objective; it shortens
>the lines of communications and gives more weight to access within NASA.
>                        DC-XA Flight 4 Due Friday
>The rebuilt DC-XA reusable rocket ops testbed has had its fourth flight
>rescheduled for early afternoon of this Friday, July 12th.  The flight
>had been delayed by turbine problems with a new Auxiliary Power Unit
>(APU) being integrated into the DC-XA.  The APU won't be used this
>flight; it is now scheduled for first test on flight 5 in late July.
>We strongly support extension of the DC-XA test program beyond the
>currently scheduled five flights; we've talked with the engineers
>involved from both NASA and McDonnell-Douglas and they agree that there
>is much to be learned from additional flights.  The cost of continuing
>this summer's flight test program beyond flight 5 is relatively small, a
>few million dollars - pocket change in the rocket test business.
>                         A Low-Cost X-33 Backup?
>Here we get to the nub of our question - What next?  Lockheed-Martin X-33
>addresses a number of potential high-payoff RLV technologies, but
>bypasses a number of others equally promising.  And no such project is a
>sure thing; there is alway risk - institutional, organizational, and
>technological.  This month's X-33 go-ahead is no guarantee we'll have a
>useful ship flying three years from now.  We intend no insult to anyone
>involved when we say that if we can afford to pursue one or more
>alternative approaches to cheap space transportation in parallel with
>NASA/Lockheed-Martin X-33, we should do so, in order to greatly improve
>the overall chances of the nation benefitting from its investment in
>reusable rocket technologies.
>We're not exactly being radical here - the benefits of competing
>multiple technical approaches are well-established historically.  This
>improves the odds of success both by not putting the whole bet on one
>approach, and by the added incentive to do well the competition gives
>all the participants.  You tend to run faster when you hear footsteps
>close behind... NASA is in fact on record as wanting more than one ship
>if the money can be found.
>(Some of our more cynical colleagues have pointed out that even though
>pride/professional integrity would likely cause the new X-33 engineering
>team to do their best regardless, Lockheed-Martin's overall corporate
>interests might be just as well-served by delays (or even never-fly
>bogdown) of X-33 as by success, absent active competition, given L-M's
>extensive interests in current launch systems.  Appallingly cynical,
>some of our colleagues...  Admittedly this would require a short-sighted
>approach on the part of L-M top management, given that what's at stake
>is a chance to be the Boeing of the 21st century spaceliner business.)
>If the money can be found, there's the rub.  NASA has had to strain hard
>to make room for X-33 within its steadily shrinking budget.  There is no
>realistic chance of digging up another $900 million plus within NASA
>that we can see.  Or anywhere else for that matter.  An additional
>technical approach is going to have to be a lot cheaper than $900
>million over the next three years - $50m-$75m a year over FY'97-99 is,
>maybe, doable.  But even that would have to be for a ship with
>considerable standalone technical merit.  And even that would be hard
>within NASA's narrowing budget wedge.
>We haven't been loafing this past week; we think we see a second RLV X-
>project that can be usefully done within those funding limits, that is
>highly technologically complementary to the X-33, and that can be done
>without significant additional pressure on NASA's budget.
>We're talking about a proposal we've seen to build on the current DC-XA
>program with a series of stretches, upgrades, and rebuilds, via a USAF/NASA
>partnership, with USAF taking the managerial and funding lead.  The broad
>outline of the proposed program, with estimated funding levels:
> - DC-XA extended ops tests, 1996, $3m USAF, $3m NASA.
> - DC-XB - new tanks, stretched aeroshell, thermal protection, fifth
>center engine, mach 3+, flies summer '98, $70m USAF, $10m NASA.
> - DC-XC - new conformal LH2 tank, improved TPS, lighter structures,
>upgraded engines, Mach 10+, flies fall '99, USAF $130m, NASA TBD
>depending on desired NASA advanced technology tests.
>                                ***
>We think something like this program would be a good thing for USAF, for
>NASA, and for the country - good enough that we intend to shift as much of
>our focus as can be spared from keeping X-33 on track over to trying to
>make DC-XB/C happen.  Here's why.
>DC-XB/C complements X-33 very well, technologically and in terms of
>institutional approach, exploring many known promising RLV technical
>alternatives that are outside the scope of X-33.  DC-XB/C is also a good
>affordable hedge to the high-stakes X-33 bet.
> - X-33 does horizontal runway landing, DC-XB/C would pursue vertical
>wingless small-pad powered landing.
> - X-33 uses medium-temperature metallic thermal protection, DC-XB/C
>would use new high-durability high-temperature tile TPS.
> - X-33 tests new 'aerospike' rocket engines; DC-XB/C would demonstrate
>use of multiple traditional bell-nozzle engines for engine-out redundancy.
> - X-33 will pioneer use of complex multilobe composite propellant tanks,
>DC-XB/C will provide insurance against manufacturing/durability problems
>with much simpler geometry tankage.
> - X-33 will test out low L:D low heat-load reentry profiles, DC-XB/C will
>explore high-maneuverability high hypersonic L:D flight.
> - X-33 will be oriented toward fixed operating bases with specialized
>ground-handling equipment for ship and payload processing, DC-XB/C will be
>aimed at more mobile operations out of small austere sites.
> - X-33 is in our view a relatively high-risk high-payoff approach, bundling
>a number of new technologies into a relatively complex and sophisticated
>package.  If it all works, it's a great ship - but there's a lot of
>potential for delay; a lot of new things all have to come together at once
>at the end of a very tight schedule.  DC-XB/C takes a much more incremental
>approach - "build a little, test a little."
>It looks like a USAF Phillips Labs/MDA/NASA DC-XB/C (we do not know for
>a fact that's where this proposal came from, but it seems a safe bet)
>would be both affordable and a very useful complement to NASA/L-M X-33.
>We also think this approach is politically doable, or we wouldn't be
>pursuing it like this.  First, NASA's top leadership endorses competing
>X-vehicles but has a bad budget pinch to deal with.  Spending USAF money
>for a second bird that NASA still gets data from and flight-test use of
>is we think a good deal for NASA.
>As for USAF, there's growing interest there in the eventual next-century
>defense applications of affordable space sortie vehicles.  DC-XB/C lays
>a lot of the groundwork for such at a bargain-basement price - the
>DC-XB/C configuration's austere ops site potential and high hypersonic
>maneuverability both fit well with eventual USAF needs, as well as
>providing useful operational flexibility for future commercial missions.
>The Congress can never be taken for granted, but there's likely a
>coalition to be built for a ship this long-term useful and this cheap.
>As for this Administration, well, that's always an interesting question.
>There's a strong tendency to oppose any new military space operational
>capabilities, but DC-XB/C, technologically useful though it may be, is
>not in anyone's wildest imagination stretchable to an operational ship.
>At maximum stretch it will have a couple hundred miles range at less
>than half of orbital velocity.  And it's relatively cheap, and it's very
>much dual-use technology, with huge potential civilian aerospace
>payoffs.  Given Congressional, USAF, and NASA support, this White House
>may well be persuadable to go along.
>                        DOD SSTO Funding Alert
>  (Maximum effort needed!  Get EVERYBODY you can talk into it to help
>  on this one.  We have a brand new program here and we need to sell
>  the living bejabers out of it - we need to get funds for this into
>  the FY'97 budget NOW.)
>Congressional support for USAF reusable rocket work, meanwhile, very
>much cannot be taken for granted.  Left alone, we would likely see
>between $25 million and nothing at all for Fiscal Year '97 (FY'97 starts
>October 1st) out of the Congressional Defense funding bills.  We need at
>least $50 million, which in addition to the still-unreleased $25 million
>in FY'96 funds would be enough to get DC-XB (the summer '98 Mach 3+
>upgrade) well underway, along with advance work on the Mach 10 DC-XC.
>There are two House-Senate DOD funding conferences we need to work,
>Authorization, already underway, and Appropriations, starting sometime
>next week.  Of the two, Authorizations is important, but Appropriations
>The FY'97 DOD Authorizations bill (think of it as the authorized
>shopping list) is already in House-Senate conference.  This conference
>is likely to go on at least through next week; there's still time to
>affect the process.  The House version has $50 million, the Senate $25
>million - we mainly need to work for support in the Senate Armed
>Services Committee (SASC) for acceding to the House number.
>The FY'97 DOD Appropriations conference (think of it as actually writing
>the checks) will get underway as soon as the Senate passes their version
>of the DOD FY'97 Appropriations bill, likely early next week.  The House
>version calls for $25 million for USAF reusable rocket work.  The Senate
>version almost certainly will call for nothing at all.
>We need to work both sides of this conference HARD to raise the amount
>appropriated to $50 million.  These guys know they're writing real
>checks from a limited account; this one will be tough - but we have to
>talk them into supporting this.
>If a Senator from your state is on the SASC or Senate Appropriations
>Defense Subcommittee lists attached, or if a Representative whose
>district you live in or near is on the attached House Appropriations
>Defense Subcommittee list, call write or fax them by early this coming
>week of July 15th, and ask them to support: $50 million in FY'97
>reusable rocket funding for USAF Phillips Labs, and also $50 million for
>the Clementine II asteroid flyby probe in FY'97 (we made a mutual
>support deal, and Clementine II seems a fairly good thing anyway.)
>Both the Phillips Labs reusable rocket work and Clementine 2 strike us as
>prime examples of "dual-use" technologies - both have potential long-term
>military applications (Clementine 1 and the proposed Clementine 2 both
>use(d) SDIO-developed miniaturized sensors and components to do their
>science missions small, fast, and cheap) and both have considerable
>economic/scientific civilian benefit.  See the previous article for
>details on why DC-XB/C is a good thing for USAF to be doing - the Senate
>in particular will want convincing that spending this DOD money is
>actually relevant to national defense.
>How you approach your Senator or Representative on these recommendations
>is up to you, of course.  Always tell the truth!  But sometimes emphasize
>the aspects they're more likely to respond to...
>As usual, if you call or fax, be brief and be polite; the overworked
>staffers will appreciate it.
>If you call, tell them who you are ("Hi, I'm Joe Smith from <town in their
>district/state>") and what you want ("I'm calling about a couple things
>I'd like to see supported in the Defense Appropriations/Authorizations
>markup").  They may switch you to another staffer (more likely to that
>staffer's voicemail) or they may ask you what those things you want are.
>If they ask, tell them you support $50 million in funding for reusable
>rocket work at USAF Phillips Labs, and also for the Clementine 2 asteroid
>probe.  If they have any questions, answer them as best you can; if not,
>thank them for their time and ring off.  If you end up with another
>staffer's voicemail, repeat the whole message of who you are, where you
>want something done, and what it is you want, then thank 'em for their
>time and ring off.
>If you fax or write, keep it to one page, lead off with what you want (as
>above), and then follow up with a paragraph or two of why you think these
>things are worth funding if you're so inclined.
>                  Senate Armed Services Committee List
>("Senator XYZ, US Senate, Washington DC 20510" will get mail to them.)
>                                    voice           fax
>Sen. Thurmond, Strom (R  SC)       1-202-224-5972 1-202-224-1300
>Sen. Nunn, Sam (D GA)              1-202-224-3521 1-202-224-0072
>Sen. Lott, Trent (R MS)            1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262
>Sen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R TX)  1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776
>Sen. Bryan, Richard H. (D NV)      1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867
>Sen. McCain, John (R AZ)           1-202-224-2235 1-202-228-2862
>Sen. Byrd, Robert C. (D WV)        1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
>Sen. Cohen, William S. (R ME)      1-202-224-2523 1-202-224-2693
>Sen. Coats, Daniel R. (R IN)       1-202-224-5623 1-202-224-8964
>Sen. Smith, Robert (R NH)          1-202-224-2841 1-202-224-1353
>Sen. Kempthorne, Dirk (R ID)       1-202-224-6142 1-202-224-5893
>Sen. Warner, John W. (R VA)        1-202-224-2023 1-202-224-6295
>Sen. Inhofe, James (R OK)          1-202-224-4721 1-202-224-????
>Sen. Santorum, Rick (R PA)         1-202-224-6324 1-202-224-4161
>Sen. Bingaman, Jeff (D NM)         1-202-224-5521 1-202-224-2852
>Sen. Levin, Carl (D MI)            1-202-224-6221 1-202-224-1388
>Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. (D MA)     1-202-224-4543 1-202-224-2417
>Sen. Lieberman, Joseph I. (D CT)   1-202-224-4041 1-202-224-9750
>Sen. Robb, Charles S. (D VA)       1-202-224-4024 1-202-224-8689
>Sen. Glenn, John (D OH)            1-202-224-3353 1-202-224-7983
> Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, National Security Subcommittee
>                                          voice       fax
> Sen. Hatfield, Mark (R OR)         1-202-224-3753 1-202-224-0276
> (chair, full SAC)
> Sen. Byrd, Robert (D WV)           1-202-224-3954 1-202-224-4025
> (Ranking Minority Member, full SAC)
> Sen. Stevens, Ted (R AK)           1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-1044
> (chair, SAC NatSec Sub)
> Sen. Inouye, Daniel (D HI)         1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747
> (Ranking Minority Member, SAC NatSec Sub)
> Sen. Cochran, Thad (R MS)          1-202-224-5054 1-202-224-3576
> Sen. Gramm, Phil (R TX)            1-202-224-2934 1-202-228-2856
> Sen. Domenici, Pete V. (R NM)      1-202-224-6621 1-202-224-7371
> Sen. McConnell, Mitch (R KY)       1-202-224-2541 1-202-224-2499
> Sen. Specter, Arlen (R PA)         1-202-224-4254 1-202-224-1893
> Sen. Bond, Christopher (R MO)      1-202-224-5721 1-202-224-8149
> Sen. Mack, Connie (R FL)           1-202-224-5274 1-202-224-8022
> Sen. Shelby, Richard C. (R AL)     1-202-224-5744 1-202-224-3416
> Sen. Hollings, Ernest (D SC)       1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293
> Sen. Johnston, J. Bennett (D LA)   1-202-224-5824 1-202-224-2952
> Sen. Leahy, Patrick (D VT)         1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595
> Sen. Harkin, Thomas (D IA)         1-202-224-3254 1-202-224-7431
> Sen. Lautenberg, Frank (D NJ)      1-202-224-4744 1-202-224-9707
> House Appropriations Committee, National Security Subcommittee List
>("Representative XYZ, US House, Washington DC 20515" will get mail to them.)
>(Appropriations Chair)                    voice       fax
>  Livingston, Robert (R-01 LA)       1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739
>(Appropriations Ranking Minority Member)
>  Obey, David R. (D-07)              1-202-225-3365 1-202-225-0561
>(NatSec Subcommittee Chair)
>  Young, C. W. Bill (R-10 FL)        1-202-225-5961 1-202-225-9764
>(NatSecSubcommittee RMM)
>  Murtha, John P. (D-12 PA)          1-202-225-2065 1-202-225-5709
>  Lewis, Jerry (R-40 CA)             1-202-225-5861 1-202-225-6498
>  Livingston, Robert (R-01 LA)       1-202-225-3015 1-202-225-0739
>  Sabo, Martin Olav (D-05 MN)        1-202-225-4755 1-202-225-4886
>  Hefner, Bill (D-08 NC)             1-202-225-3715 1-202-225-4036
>  Skeen, Joseph (R-02 NM)            1-202-225-2365 1-202-225-9599
>  Hobson, David L. (R-07 OH)         1-202-225-4324 1-202-225-1984
>  McDade, Joseph M. (R-10 PA)        1-202-225-3731 1-202-225-9594
>  Bonilla, Henry (R-23 TX)           1-202-225-4511 1-202-225-2237
>  Wilson, Charles (D-02 TX)          1-202-225-2401 1-202-225-1764
>  Nethercutt, George (R-05 WA)       1-202-225-2006 1-202-225-7181
>  Dicks, Norman D. (D-06 WA)         1-202-225-5916 1-202-226-1176
>  Neumann, Mark (R-01 WI)            1-202-225-3031 1-202-225-3393
> Space Access Society      "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
> 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150               in the Solar System."
> Phoenix AZ 85044                               - Robert A. Heinlein
> 602 431-9283 voice/fax
> www.space-access.org                     "You can't get there from here."
> space.access@space-access.org                          - Anonymous
> - Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this -
> - piece, including the copyright and this notice.  All other rights      -
> - reserved.  In other words, crossposting, emailing, or printing this    -
> - whole and passing it on to interested parties is strongly encouraged.  -
+                                                                             +
+  Weave a circle 'round him thrice, and close your eyes with holy dread...   +
+                                                                             +