From VM Tue Oct 15 11:51:33 2002 Content-Length: 11092 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11092" "Saturday" "12" "October" "2002" "09:27:31" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "204" "starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9CERr3b005757 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 07:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g9CERr27005756 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 07:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9CERq3b005751 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 07:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user121.net241.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([64.45.208.121] helo=broadsword) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 180NF9-00038u-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 07:27:51 -0700 Message-ID: <001801c271fb$8084c4f0$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design List \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 09:27:31 -0500 OPINION SPACE Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats The Spacefaring Web 2.17 by John Carter McKnight Scottsdale - Sep 11, 2002 Technocratic infatuation with the state-directed master plan helped smother the first Space Age. Today, the nascent second Space Age faces challenges not just from NASA's continued addiction to central planning and control, but from groups of well-meaning reformers within the space community. Like their governmental counterparts, they want space development, but without uncertainty, disorder and upheaval. Without bold gambling and creative chaos there is no frontier, and the greatest value of expanding into space is lost. Technocracy was the primary ideology of the Industrial Age. In East and West alike, it was widely believed that economic and social activity was so complex as to require a master plan for coordination. Everything, from steel production to medical care, required a governmental system of rules and regulations in order to be licensed to occur. Space, as an outgrowth of the military and of heavy industry, the two most managed activities, was deeply imbued with the technocratic ethos. In its day, the Plan was effective enough, transforming a Soviet Union of peasants briefly into a superpower and enabling the United States - briefly - to put men on the Moon. What it achieved in single-pointed efforts it lost in failures of coordination and sustainability. It proved increasingly ineffective as advances in communications technology rendered the "manager" a redundant intermediary. NASA failed to evolve when its political and cultural environment changed after Apollo 11. Its ongoing adherence to grandiose mega-engineering plans, cost-plus contracting and reckless accounting has smacked of the voodoo ritual, an attempt to reanimate the corpse of technocracy's glory days. Using the very methods that industries and governments worldwide were beginning to abandon, NASA failed to produce a viable product with the Space Shuttle, which has never come anywhere near delivering the outcomes touted for it. Fresh from that failure, the agency re-enacted the same rituals and got the same results - with much greater delay and expense - for the International Space Station. Next week at the World Space Congress, NASA will release its "NexT" master plan for government-only space construction efforts. Any bets on the outcome of that? Along with the all-encompassing, over-promising central plan, NASA has repeatedly tried to limit access to space. It attempted to force a satellite launch monopoly with the Shuttle, but the Challenger disaster allowed Arianespace to stage a market coup and drove the US Air Force to fund a new generation of expendable launch vehicles to ensure its own access. NASA later strongarmed the Russians into abandoning Mir as the price for access to the ISS (which has proved illusory), and was hostile to the point of hysteria over the first paying space travelers. This urge to control is, unfortunately, the technocratic reflex. For the planner, the greatest fear is chaos, the greatest need, control. The critical economic role, the planner feels, is performed not by the producer, nor by the consumer, but by their intermediary and master, the planner. It is simply unimaginable that beneficial outcomes could occur otherwise: the hand of undirected market forces is not just invisible, it is inconceivable. Where the entrepreneur sees a vibrant marketplace, the planner sees a terrifying chaos. The land beyond the plan is a place clearly marked "here there be dragons." Others call that place the frontier. It may be the metaphorical frontier of a new market yet un-dominated by sclerotic companies whose days of real innovation are generations past. Or it could be the geographic frontier, the land beyond the reach of the lawman, the taxman and the bureaucrat. People of many political persuasions speak glowingly of the value of a frontier. When they do, often they are envisioning an idealized American West, one of taciturn cowboys and sturdy pioneer farmers. The more real West, of vigilante justice, self-governing mining camps, legalized prostitution and brutal strike-breaking - that West is a different matter. Conservatives, with a romantic attachment to the past, denounce those images as the focus of cynics and dissidents. The technocrat, however, believes that we can have our frontier cake and eat it too - that we can get "reasonable" - watch out for that word - economic expansion without boomtowns, without robber barons, without bloodshed over working conditions and property rights - if we just start with the right plan. Yet both economic growth and those sturdy pioneers are the fruits of chaos - or, to use a synonym, freedom. The frontier is attractive because it offers the chance to make a metaphorical (and sometimes literal) killing. Those who value safety and certainty live in their parents' hometown and keep their money in banks. Real growth is the product of risk, of gambling life and capital on the prospect of "unreasonable," "unfair," "piratical" gain, versus complete loss. If the full safety net - or noose - of lawmen, taxmen and bureaucrats is present, there is no risk, and no concomitant return. The frontier offers more than spectacular economic growth. Only there is any real social or political innovation, rather than incremental tinkering, possible. Democracy did not evolve gradually out of Europe's absolute monarchies, nor was it provided for in the colonizing nations' master plans. It was tried and tested on the frontier. What worked and endured was imported back to the Old World. What failed was discarded, sometimes violently. Similarly, technological frontiers - birth control and cheap telecommunications, for example - forced changes to law and custom that were driven by experiment and experience rather than design. A spacefaring civilization will not be the fruit of NASA Five-Year Plans, nor of incremental progress by Big Aerospace. It will be the product of an open frontier or it will come not at all. The American frontier was not settled by the government, with cowboys and farmers trotting behind an army of county clerks and safety inspectors. Restless explorers, military scouts, resource speculators, malcontents who couldn't abide the strictures of ossifying Eastern cities - they were first to the West. Hobbyists, hackers and pornographers pioneered the Internet long before AOL made it family-friendly. That means that our future in space will not be built by people that the planner, the guaranteed-return investor and the moral traditionalist will easily approve of. It will be built by dropouts, crooks, pirates, gamblers and misfits, same as any other frontier. And it will be built only in the absence of laws, regulations and government plans made here on Earth. Their presence, so reassuring to the cost-plus contractor and prissy schoolmarm, is anathema to innovators in business, politics and culture. It is widely argued, and correctly so, that uncertainty in property rights and an absence of means of settling disputes undermine economic development. This argument is put forward by many of the space advocates who back one plan or another for shipping lawmen, taxmen and bureaucrats out into the black. The argument is true, but misinterpreted. In settled societies, property rights and a fair, speedy and final means of adjudicating disputes are critical to continued growth. In settled societies. Establishing such systems prior to the natural end of the frontier period short-circuits the whole process. Technocratic approaches - permits, licenses, land grants and the like - pick winners and losers by fiat. Contracts and privileges are awarded rather than earned. They go not to the invisible, incomprehensible entrepreneur, but to the established risk-averse government contractor, the one reassuringly incapable of upsetting the status quo. Competition is for favor in the ministry or legislature, rather than for mindshare or market share. Technocracy is simply modern colonialism, the exploitation of the new for the benefit of the old established elites. Frontiers build infrastructure for the benefit of the locals who take the risks. The Spanish gold rush impoverished Central America to enable lavish expenditures by courtiers; the California gold rush built San Francisco into a world-class city and turned the inspiration of one merchant drawn to the frontier, Levi Straus, into the most popular consumer item in the world. It also gave rise to seediness, decadence and violence, the price of freedom. No free lunch, as Heinlein said. Which is why the well-meaning codes written by some space advocates are as much of a threat to the opening of a space frontier as are NASA's efforts at bureaucratic strangulation. The space advocacy community has its share of technocrats, of course. Many are veterans of NASA or of government contractors, deeply imprinted with the ideology of managerial control. Some just fear the chaos of social and economic dynamism, feeling the same trepidation at the prospect of a space frontier that protestors feel for globalization or genetically modified foodstuffs. Some just wish things could be a little neater, a little more genteel. Some are genuinely looking to establish favorable conditions for investment and political viability but overreach in their concessions. With respect to all these space planning initiatives, we should ask: does this plan encourage real economic growth and cultural change, or is it an attempt to extend the status quo a few miles farther past the atmosphere? We have plenty of status quo here on Earth - it hardly seems necessary to go to great expense to vacuum-pack it. Space governance? Cops and regulators first, then "reasonable" prospectors. No frontier. Land grants? The already-wealthy will force up prices in a speculative market, driving out the entrepreneur and ensuring the continued dominance of current financial or political powers. Codes of ethics? New industries are built by ruthless, megalomaniac robber barons. The meek will inherit the Earth, once the pirates get us into space. Grand plans? Single-point efforts lacking a broad-based infrastructure - pyramids rather than cities. NASA is building enough of those, thank you. Technological frontiers come once a generation at best, and are limited in their scope. Social frontiers, places beyond the reach of lawmen, taxmen and bureaucrats, unmapped territories filled with dragons for the timid, can be found these days only in story. Rather than asteroidal ore or Lunar ice, those spaces, and the hope they offer for vibrant growth and beneficial, if messy, change, are the most precious space resource. Their development is the standard by which space planning should be judged. The Spacefaring Web is a biweekly column © 2002 by John Carter McKnight, an Advocate of the Space Frontier Foundation. Views expressed herein are strictly the author's and do not necessarily represent Foundation policy. Archives are available. From VM Tue Oct 15 11:51:34 2002 Content-Length: 7627 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7627" "Saturday" "12" "October" "2002" "12:59:05" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "259" "Re: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9CGxF3b014964 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 09:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g9CGxFO6014963 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 09:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9CGxE3b014951 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 09:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.32.2e855052 (4552); Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:59:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <32.2e855052.2ad9aed9@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:59:05 EDT In a message dated 10/12/02 10:30:39 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >OPINION SPACE > > > >Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats > >The Spacefaring Web 2.17 > > > > > >by John Carter McKnight > >Scottsdale - Sep 11, 2002 > > > >Technocratic infatuation with the state-directed master plan helped smother > >the first Space Age. Today, the nascent second Space Age faces challenges > >not just from NASA's continued addiction to central planning and control, > >but from groups of well-meaning reformers within the space community. Like > >their governmental counterparts, they want space development, but without > >uncertainty, disorder and upheaval. Without bold gambling and creative >chaos > >there is no frontier, and the greatest value of expanding into space is > >lost. > > > >Technocracy was the primary ideology of the Industrial Age. In East and >West > >alike, it was widely believed that economic and social activity was so > >complex as to require a master plan for coordination. Everything, from >steel > >production to medical care, required a governmental system of rules and > >regulations in order to be licensed to occur. Space, as an outgrowth of >the > >military and of heavy industry, the two most managed activities, was deeply > >imbued with the technocratic ethos. > > > >In its day, the Plan was effective enough, transforming a Soviet Union >of > >peasants briefly into a superpower and enabling the United States - > >briefly - to put men on the Moon. What it achieved in single-pointed efforts > >it lost in failures of coordination and sustainability. It proved > >increasingly ineffective as advances in communications technology rendered > >the "manager" a redundant intermediary. > > > >NASA failed to evolve when its political and cultural environment changed > >after Apollo 11. Its ongoing adherence to grandiose mega-engineering plans, > >cost-plus contracting and reckless accounting has smacked of the voodoo > >ritual, an attempt to reanimate the corpse of technocracy's glory days. Agree with a lot of thios but he missed a big point. NASA and the other programs didn't fail to evolve. They were designed as one shot "money is no object" race programs. Expecting them to evolve into a program fostering commercial development, or opening th final frounteer, is like rexpecting a Indy racer to evolve into family sedan. NASA responds to congress, and comerce isn't their busness. Further, it would so overshadow them, as to doom them back to a technolygy reseach agency. So they don't really want to support it. >Using the very methods that industries and governments worldwide were > >beginning to abandon, NASA failed to produce a viable product with the >Space > >Shuttle, which has never come anywhere near delivering the outcomes touted > >for it. On the contrary, it did what was demanded of it. Its manufacture costs were shuffled out to all the right districts. It looks pretty impressive. Good political PR. Keeps a huge NASA staff employed in the right congressional districts. etc. I was in the shutle and statin programs, and they ae not driven by what you think. Stations design was optimized to utilize shuttle a lot to make it look good, and designed to involve a lot of internatinals. The cost was stageringly increased costs for us, greatly extended developoment times, and greatly reduced capacity and size. But those were not big issues. NASA is about providing political specticals, not commerce - science - or economic growth. ======== > > >Along with the all-encompassing, over-promising central plan, NASA has > >repeatedly tried to limit access to space. It attempted to force a satellite > >launch monopoly with the Shuttle, but the Challenger disaster allowed > >Arianespace to stage a market coup and drove the US Air Force to fund a >new > >generation of expendable launch vehicles to ensure its own access. True. A major commercial, or competeing government, launch program would cost them turf. NASA is about providing political specticals, they can't do that if they ae just one of many in space doing the same kinds of things; and they don't want to take the chance of doing something new and risky on the frouteers of space or technology. ==== >This urge to control is, unfortunately, the technocratic reflex. For the > >planner, the greatest fear is chaos, the greatest need, control. The > >critical economic role, the planner feels, is performed not by the producer, > >nor by the consumer, but by their intermediary and master, the planner. Or the politicians. ;) Gov agencies respond to voter interests, and responce. Specticals wor -- as long as they can keep control. More then that, they ae far more woried about bad press from someone doing the wrong thing, or worse saying the wrong thing, then they are at limiting themself. >It is simply unimaginable that beneficial outcomes could occur otherwise: > >the hand of undirected market forces is not just invisible, it is > >inconceivable. Where the entrepreneur sees a vibrant marketplace, the > >planner sees a terrifying chaos. The land beyond the plan is a place clearly > >marked "here there be dragons." This however is often the view of politicians - who love such planing, or the public - who fears the chaos as well. Prefers safty. ============ > >A spacefaring civilization will not be the fruit of NASA Five-Year Plans, > >nor of incremental progress by Big Aerospace. It will be the product of >an > >open frontier or it will come not at all. > > > >The American frontier was not settled by the government, with cowboys and > >farmers trotting behind an army of county clerks and safety inspectors. > >Restless explorers, military scouts, resource speculators, malcontents >who > >couldn't abide the strictures of ossifying Eastern cities - they were first > >to the West. Hobbyists, hackers and pornographers pioneered the Internet > >long before AOL made it family-friendly. > > > >That means that our future in space will not be built by people that the > >planner, the guaranteed-return investor and the moral traditionalist will > >easily approve of. It will be built by dropouts, crooks, pirates, gamblers > >and misfits, same as any other frontier. And it will be built only in the > >absence of laws, regulations and government plans made here on Earth. Their > >presence, so reassuring to the cost-plus contractor and prissy schoolmarm, > >is anathema to innovators in business, politics and culture. Of course it was the military that developed and built the internet. Banks and industry that made the conputers and telecomunication gear. No hackers using equipment they built themselves opened the digital frounteer. They were just like the "pioneers" who settled the west after the towns weer built, regular railroad service established, and tons of dime novels and woild west shows popularized the "wind west". The real follks opening space won't be mountain men in furs, or pioneers in conastoga wagons. No lone prospectors with a mule and a pan. It'll have to be mega corps that can put up the money for the fleets and the platforms in space. And they will demand and enforce you major laws. ========== > >Rather than asteroidal ore or Lunar ice, those spaces, and the hope they > >offer for vibrant growth and beneficial, if messy, change, are the most > >precious space resource. Their development is the standard by which space > >planning should be judged. Problem is there is no place in space unless you build it. And they must be big and therfore expensive. From VM Tue Oct 15 11:51:34 2002 Content-Length: 558 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["558" "Saturday" "12" "October" "2002" "12:06:30" "-0600" "Ben Franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "15" "Re: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9CI7h3b005451 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 11:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g9CI7hsS005449 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 11:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bach.ccinet.ab.ca (bach.ccinet.ab.ca [198.161.96.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9CI7f3b005443 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 11:07:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (gc-jet-221.jetnet.ab.ca [207.34.60.221]) by bach.ccinet.ab.ca (8.12.3/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g9CI8QoP045594 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:08:28 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca) Message-ID: <3DA864A6.6080309@jetnet.ab.ca> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <32.2e855052.2ad9aed9@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ben Franchuk From: Ben Franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:06:30 -0600 > > Problem is there is no place in space unless you build it. And they must be > big and therfore expensive. > No space just shows how much that real living costs, provinding GREED is not involved. Space was never marketed for people living there, other wise we would have TRANSPORTATION to SPACE NOW! A good sci-anime is "The wings of Honneamise" that is about the first man in to space on a planet other than EARTH. This shows how complex it is to get into space. Until we FORCE people to thing of transportation first we will never go anywhere. From VM Tue Oct 15 11:51:35 2002 Content-Length: 8892 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8892" "Saturday" "12" "October" "2002" "14:20:07" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "199" "RE: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9CJKU3b026539 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g9CJKUgH026538 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9CJKT3b026533 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user121.net241.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([64.45.208.121] helo=broadsword) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 180RoK-0004nN-00; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:20:28 -0700 Message-ID: <001f01c27224$60f62b50$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <32.2e855052.2ad9aed9@aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 14:20:07 -0500 Hey Kelly, Glad to see some of us are still around. > -----Original Message----- > From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 11:59 AM > To: lparker@cacaphony.net; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats > > In a message dated 10/12/02 10:30:39 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > >OPINION SPACE > > > > > > > >Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats > > > >The Spacefaring Web 2.17 > > Agree with a lot of thios but he missed a big point. NASA > and the other > programs didn't fail to evolve. They were designed as one > shot "money is no > object" race programs. Expecting them to evolve into a > program fostering > commercial development, or opening th final frounteer, is > like rexpecting a > Indy racer to evolve into family sedan. I don't think he "missed" the point, but you are on track about its original genesis and goal. Which is the point, it was a bureaucracy established to accomplish one thing only, which it did very well. However, the nature of bureaucracies is not to evolve, but to grow and protect themselves. The analogy of the Indy racer and the family sedan was very apt. Each represents a separate entity, not an evolution of one into the other. Granted, much of what is learned from Indy racing eventually get incorporated into the family sedan. The engine in my truck began life as a race car engine design. Which is what should have happened (and still should) to NASA. It should be the one testing the technologies that no company feels comfortable putting in to the family sedan. > NASA responds to congress, and comerce isn't their busness. > Further, it > would so overshadow them, as to doom them back to a > technolygy reseach > agency. So they don't really want to support it. No, commerce per se, is not the business of Congress. Protecting commerce and furthering commerce on the other hand, IS the business of Congress. As such, perhaps what is needed is to put space transportation (as opposed to research) into the hands of a different government agency, like maybe the DOT or FAA or some such. Note, that I am not saying that they will physically run the shuttle fleet, merely administer its operations. The actual ownership and day to day running should lie in the hands of private industry. Of course, this assumes that ANY agency will be interested in promoting access to space, see my point further below about the government's vested interest in denying ANYBODY access. > NASA is about providing political specticals, not commerce - > science - or economic growth. All to true, which is what I was saying above. Of course, they are under directions from Congress to provide these spectacles. NASA's mission is ultimately designed by Congress. So if NASA's mission in snot what it should be, we have only ourselves to blame. > True. A major commercial, or competeing government, launch > program would > cost them turf. > NASA is about providing political specticals, they can't do > that if they ae > just one of many in space doing the same kinds of things; and > they don't want > to take the chance of doing something new and risky on the > frouteers of space > or technology. Again, this is Congress. Keeping other countries, and by extension, private industry, out of space access effectively allows are government to control the high ground. Unrestricted access would make it almost impossible to guarantee the security of our country, our "turf", but not in the sense that you meant it... > >It is simply unimaginable that beneficial outcomes could > occur otherwise: > > > >the hand of undirected market forces is not just invisible, it is > > > >inconceivable. Where the entrepreneur sees a vibrant marketplace, the > > > >planner sees a terrifying chaos. The land beyond the plan is > a place clearly > > > >marked "here there be dragons." > > This however is often the view of politicians - who love such > planing, or the > public - who fears the chaos as well. Prefers safty. Well, the entrepreneur thrives in chaos, because with chaos comes opportunity, as well as danger. The public (as an entity) on the other hand fears chaos for danger it brings, it wants only safety, which is ultimately dichotic because the entrepreneurs that embrace at the individual level are part of the larger entity that fears it. Naturally, the government, whose responsibility it is to see to the public safety also fears the chaos. This is ultimately self defeating because the better a job they do of protecting us from this chaos, the less healthy the system as a whole becomes. The chaos is necessary for a healthy and thriving society and a society where it doesn't exist in sufficient measure eventually collapses. > >A spacefaring civilization will not be the fruit of NASA > >Five-Year Plans,nor of incremental progress by Big Aerospace. > >It will be the product of an open frontier or it will come not > >at all. > > > >The American frontier was not settled by the government, > with cowboys and farmers trotting behind an army of county > >clerks and safety inspectors. > > > >Restless explorers, military scouts, resource speculators, > >malcontents who couldn't abide the strictures of ossifying > >Eastern cities - they were first to the West. Hobbyists, > >hackers and pornographers pioneered the Internet long before > >AOL made it family-friendly. > > > >That means that our future in space will not be built by > people that the planner, the guaranteed-return investor and the > >moral traditionalist will easily approve of. It will be built > >by dropouts, crooks, pirates, gamblers and misfits, same as any > >other frontier. And it will be built only in the absence of laws, > >regulations and government plans made here on Earth. Their > >presence, so reassuring to the cost-plus contractor and prissy > >schoolmarm, is anathema to innovators in business, politics and > >culture. > > Of course it was the military that developed and built the > internet. Banks > and industry that made the conputers and telecomunication > gear. No hackers > using equipment they built themselves opened the digital > frounteer. They > were just like the "pioneers" who settled the west after the > towns weer > built, regular railroad service established, and tons of dime > novels and > woild west shows popularized the "wind west". > > The real follks opening space won't be mountain men in furs, > or pioneers in > conastoga wagons. No lone prospectors with a mule and a pan. > It'll have to > be mega corps that can put up the money for the fleets and > the platforms in > space. And they will demand and enforce you major laws. I think you missed the point here entirely, chiefly because you got caught up in what you perceived as an error in what was after all, only an analogy. His point in this analogy was not that the Internet was built by hackers, but rather pioneered by them. They caused the change and growth in DARPANET into what is now the Internet. But that isn't really relevant to what he was trying to say. The thrust of what he was saying agrees with and reinforces what you said above about NASA. When NASA was first established, it was populated by just the sort of "dropouts, crooks, pirates, gamblers and misfits" that he is talking about. No they weren't actually those sorts of people, but that represents the character traits essential to risk takers. True, these risk takers also possessed brains, guts, determination and discipline in varying degrees, but they weren't bureaucrats (yet). Risk taking, and the inevitable accidents that went with it were expected - not encouraged mind you - but expected. Today's NASA is a whole different animal. Risk taking is anathema at NASA. Even looking like you once had a reckless brain cell is bad news there. NASA will not and indeed cannot ever be the vehicle for moving us into space. The very lack of risk taking in their corporate culture and in their mandate from Congress guarantees that it will never happen. What they can do and should be doing, is research. Building and testing the technology necessary for others to do what NASA cannot. On the other hand, the entity, be it an individual, a corporation or whatever, that does move us into space must resemble his list of "dropouts, crooks, pirates, gamblers and misfits", whatever they may actually be. Without the traits that make those people what they are, even a mega corporation is not going to be able to do the job. Although the point you make about the amounts of money required are correct and almost require the backing of large multinationals, the corporate ethic that drives such corporations is even more of a risk suppressor than what NASA is experiencing. Which explains why few mega corporations are willing to get into the space game except in a peripheral way. Lee From VM Tue Oct 15 11:51:36 2002 Content-Length: 12212 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["12212" "Saturday" "12" "October" "2002" "19:06:25" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "308" "Re: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9CN6a3b003418 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 16:06:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g9CN6ZB1003417 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 16:06:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m04.mx.aol.com (imo-m04.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9CN6Y3b003410 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 16:06:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.147.4a5b8f (2168); Sat, 12 Oct 2002 19:06:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <147.4a5b8f.2ada04f1@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 19:06:25 EDT In a message dated 10/12/02 3:21:31 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Hey Kelly, > >Glad to see some of us are still around. Still hanging in ther -- and answering mail from the web site. ;) >> -----Original Message----- >> From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] >> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 11:59 AM >> To: lparker@cacaphony.net; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu >> Subject: Re: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats >> >> In a message dated 10/12/02 10:30:39 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> >> >OPINION SPACE >> > >> > >> > >> >Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats >> > >> >The Spacefaring Web 2.17 >> >> Agree with a lot of thios but he missed a big point. NASA >> and the other >> programs didn't fail to evolve. They were designed as one >> shot "money is no >> object" race programs. Expecting them to evolve into a >> program fostering >> commercial development, or opening th final frounteer, is >> like rexpecting a >> Indy racer to evolve into family sedan. > >I don't think he "missed" the point, but you are on track about its original >genesis and goal. Which is the point, it was a bureaucracy established >to accomplish one thing only, which it did very well. However, the nature >of bureaucracies is not to evolve, but to grow and protect themselves. Turf wars as the true faith!! ;) >The analogy of the Indy racer and the family sedan was very apt. ;) >Each represents a separate entity, not an evolution of one into the other. >Granted, much of what is learned from Indy racing eventually get >incorporated into the family sedan. The engine in my truck began life as >a race car engine design. Which is what should have happened (and still >should) to NASA. It should be the one testing the technologies that no >company feels comfortable putting in to the family sedan. NASA, or rather NACA, was a increadable aeronautical research agency that made huge advances in aeronautics. But that was a long time ago, and NASA as spectical producer with little if any time for such research, has been the rule since it formed. Personally I badly want NASA forced out of the space launch busness. Turn Kennedy over to the FAA or Florida or something. Contract launch services to commerce launch companies etc. Get back just into reseach, aeronautical or space related. Not that NASA wouldn't fight tooth and nail to stop that. >> NASA responds to congress, and comerce isn't their busness. >> Further, it >> would so overshadow them, as to doom them back to a >> technolygy reseach >> agency. So they don't really want to support it. > >No, commerce per se, is not the business of Congress. Protecting commerce >and furthering commerce on the other hand, IS the business of Congress. Na, there job is getting reelected. ;) >As such, perhaps what is needed is to put space transportation (as opposed >to research) into the hands of a different government agency, like maybe the >DOT or FAA or some such. Note, that I am not saying that they will >physically run the shuttle fleet, merely administer its operations. The >actual ownership and day to day running should lie in the hands of private >industry. Agree, basicaly your looking at FAA teratory. >Of course, this assumes that ANY agency will be interested in promoting >access to space, see my point further below about the government's vested >interest in denying ANYBODY access. > > >> NASA is about providing political specticals, not commerce - >> science - or economic growth. > >All to true, which is what I was saying above. Of course, they are under >directions from Congress to provide these spectacles. NASA's mission is >ultimately designed by Congress. So if NASA's mission in snot what it should >be, we have only ourselves to blame. Agreed. >> True. A major commercial, or competeing government, launch >> program would >> cost them turf. >> NASA is about providing political specticals, they can't do >> that if they ae >> just one of many in space doing the same kinds of things; and >> they don't want >> to take the chance of doing something new and risky on the >> frouteers of space >> or technology. > >Again, this is Congress. Keeping other countries, and by extension, private >industry, out of space access effectively allows are government to control >the high ground. Unrestricted access would make it almost impossible to >guarantee the security of our country, our "turf", but not in the sense >that you meant it... Except its not the military that trying to restrict access, but NASA. NASA even tried to force the military out of space. Thou the Clinton Whitehouse did squelch space launcher research specifically to limit access for security reasons. >> >It is simply unimaginable that beneficial outcomes could >> occur otherwise: >> > >> >the hand of undirected market forces is not just invisible, it is >> > >> >inconceivable. Where the entrepreneur sees a vibrant marketplace, the >> > >> >planner sees a terrifying chaos. The land beyond the plan is >> a place clearly >> > >> >marked "here there be dragons." >> >> This however is often the view of politicians - who love such >> planing, or the >> public - who fears the chaos as well. Prefers safty. > >Well, the entrepreneur thrives in chaos, because with chaos comes >opportunity, as well as danger. The public (as an entity) on the other >hand >fears chaos for danger it brings, it wants only safety, which is ultimately >dichotic because the entrepreneurs that embrace at the individual level >are part of the larger entity that fears it. Naturally, the government, whose >responsibility it is to see to the public safety also fears the chaos. > >This is ultimately self defeating because the better a job they do of >protecting us from this chaos, the less healthy the system as a whole >becomes. The chaos is necessary for a healthy and thriving society and >a society where it doesn't exist in sufficient measure eventually collapses. Reminds me of a old quote that society reveers living conformists and dead successful revolutionarys. ;) Folks want peace quiet, and prosperity. Course to get that someone had turn things upside down for a while. >> >A spacefaring civilization will not be the fruit of NASA >> >Five-Year Plans,nor of incremental progress by Big Aerospace. >> >It will be the product of an open frontier or it will come not >> >at all. >> > >> >The American frontier was not settled by the government, >> with cowboys and farmers trotting behind an army of county >> >clerks and safety inspectors. >> > >> >Restless explorers, military scouts, resource speculators, >> >malcontents who couldn't abide the strictures of ossifying >> >Eastern cities - they were first to the West. Hobbyists, >> >hackers and pornographers pioneered the Internet long before >> >AOL made it family-friendly. >> > >> >That means that our future in space will not be built by >> people that the planner, the guaranteed-return investor and the >> >moral traditionalist will easily approve of. It will be built >> >by dropouts, crooks, pirates, gamblers and misfits, same as any >> >other frontier. And it will be built only in the absence of laws, >> >regulations and government plans made here on Earth. Their >> >presence, so reassuring to the cost-plus contractor and prissy >> >schoolmarm, is anathema to innovators in business, politics and >> >culture. >> >> Of course it was the military that developed and built the >> internet. Banks >> and industry that made the conputers and telecomunication >> gear. No hackers >> using equipment they built themselves opened the digital >> frounteer. They >> were just like the "pioneers" who settled the west after the >> towns weer >> built, regular railroad service established, and tons of dime >> novels and >> woild west shows popularized the "wind west". >> >> The real follks opening space won't be mountain men in furs, >> or pioneers in >> conastoga wagons. No lone prospectors with a mule and a pan. >> It'll have to >> be mega corps that can put up the money for the fleets and >> the platforms in >> space. And they will demand and enforce you major laws. > >I think you missed the point here entirely, chiefly because you got caught >up in what you perceived as an error in what was after all, only an analogy. >His point in this analogy was not that the Internet was built by hackers, >but rather pioneered by them. They caused the change and growth in DARPANET >into what is now the Internet. > >But that isn't really relevant to what he was trying to say. The thrust of >what he was saying agrees with and reinforces what you said above about >NASA. When NASA was first established, it was populated by just the sort >of "dropouts, crooks, pirates, gamblers and misfits" that he is talking about. ;/ No, it was populated by a bunch of senior engineers in shirts ties and crew cuts. Very conformist experts in their fields with years of good performance in industries. I.E. mega governments contracting to mega corps. Hell even the Astrounauts found they wanted squeeky clean more then great pilots. They guys they first hired wern't as squeeky cleen as they would heve liked, but they weer the most confirmist they could get out of the test pilot corps of the air force, and they put a lot of effort to push and test them to make sure they . Later more "correct" astrounauts were selected. >No they weren't actually those sorts of people, but that represents the >character traits essential to risk takers. True, these risk takers also >possessed brains, guts, determination and discipline in varying degrees, >but >they weren't bureaucrats (yet). Risk taking, and the inevitable accidents >that went with it were expected - not encouraged mind you - but expected. They we're risk takers by order not inclination. They hated being pushed out to the frounteer. They were however very skilled, and often >Today's NASA is a whole different animal. Risk taking is anathema at NASA. >Even looking like you once had a reckless brain cell is bad news there. NASA >will not and indeed cannot ever be the vehicle for moving us into space. The >very lack of risk taking in their corporate culture and in their mandate >from Congress guarantees that it will never happen. What they can do and >should be doing, is research. Building and testing the technology necessary >for others to do what NASA cannot. > >On the other hand, the entity, be it an individual, a corporation or >whatever, that does move us into space must resemble his list of "dropouts, >crooks, pirates, gamblers and misfits", whatever they may actually be. >Without the traits that make those people what they are, even a mega >corporation is not going to be able to do the job. > >Although the point you make about the amounts of money required are correct >and almost require the backing of large multinationals, the corporate ethic >that drives such corporations is even more of a risk suppressor than what >NASA is experiencing. Which explains why few mega corporations are willing >to get into the space game except in a peripheral way. > > >Lee I've seen mega-corps drill for oil in the deep ocean, in the arctic, etc. Do mines in the tops of mountains, deeps of jjungles, etc. Corps are quite willing and able to take risk and handel frounteers. Even hire some real characters to work out there. BUT -- they need to see money at the end of it. So far there is nothing out there thats a real draw. The focus of the origional editorial seemed to be that it would not / could not be the big powerfull corps or organizations, but would be radical nonconformists. Folks like the individuals who went out on their own and pioneered the west on the lawless frounteer. But it is the big corps and organizations, with their demands for reasonable order, that pioneer on the kind of nasty frounteers we do now on earth, or will do in space. They won't be crooks and pirates, because such folk get each other killed and are to much trouble to put up with. They will be agressive, arogent, probably often not real polite, or not conformists. But not exactly crooks or pirates. Kelly From VM Tue Oct 15 11:51:36 2002 Content-Length: 2697 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2697" "Saturday" "12" "October" "2002" "19:28:35" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "67" "RE: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9D0Sv3b027740 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 17:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g9D0Svdu027738 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 17:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9D0Su3b027720 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 17:28:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user121.net241.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([64.45.208.121] helo=broadsword) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 180Wcp-00048z-00; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 17:28:55 -0700 Message-ID: <002a01c2724f$784f7010$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <147.4a5b8f.2ada04f1@aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 19:28:35 -0500 > -----Original Message----- > From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 6:06 PM > To: lparker@cacaphony.net; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats > > > In a message dated 10/12/02 3:21:31 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > >Hey Kelly, > > > >Glad to see some of us are still around. > > Still hanging in ther -- and answering mail from the web site. ;) Yeah I've noticed that dead or not, it still gets the occasional hit. Wish one of us had time to burn... > > I've seen mega-corps drill for oil in the deep ocean, in the > arctic, etc. Do > mines in the tops of mountains, deeps of jjungles, etc. > > Corps are quite willing and able to take risk and handel > frounteers. Even > hire some real characters to work out there. BUT -- they > need to see money > at the end of it. So far there is nothing out there thats a > real draw. Gee, Kelly, you agreed and disagreed in the same sentence! Well almost the same sentence...yes the mega corps do take risks, very calculated, quantified, limited, demarcated .... but still, risks. That is not quite the same as sending a mission after an asteroid that might, MIGHT, have unimaginable riches inside it, and maybe, MAYBE being able to extract them. Losing a man to a construction site accident on a drilling platform barely makes headlines, just an obit. Losing a man on an asteroid extraction operation would just about put the company out of business. Not the same risk at all. > > The focus of the origional editorial seemed to be that it > would not / could > not be the big powerfull corps or organizations, but would be radical > nonconformists. Folks like the individuals who went out on > their own and > pioneered the west on the lawless frounteer. But it is the > big corps and > organizations, with their demands for reasonable order, that > pioneer on the > kind of nasty frounteers we do now on earth, or will do in > space. They won't > be crooks and pirates, because such folk get each other > killed and are to > much trouble to put up with. They will be agressive, > arogent, probably often > not real polite, or not conformists. But not exactly crooks > or pirates. You mean people like Rutan, Benson, Kelly and Kistler don't qualify? Gee, you just broke my romantic heart . Seriously, I think you were taking his reference to rogues, pirates and misfits a little too literally. It may well end up being some mega corp that leads the drive into space, but there will a person or people in charge of that corp who have that spirit he was talking about. I just wish them luck with the board of directors... Lee From VM Tue Oct 15 11:51:41 2002 Content-Length: 3245 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3245" "Sunday" "13" "October" "2002" "11:50:10" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "105" "Re: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9DFoK3b018026 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 08:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g9DFoKTu018025 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 08:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9DFoJ3b018010 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 08:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.14d.15bd2b15 (2168); Sun, 13 Oct 2002 11:50:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <14d.15bd2b15.2adaf032@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Lawmen, Taxmen and Bureaucrats Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 11:50:10 EDT In a message dated 10/12/02 8:29:26 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> >Hey Kelly, >> > >> >Glad to see some of us are still around. >> >> Still hanging in ther -- and answering mail from the web site. ;) > >Yeah I've noticed that dead or not, it still gets the occasional hit. Wish >one of us had time to burn... Yeah. Should do something with it. :( >> I've seen mega-corps drill for oil in the deep ocean, in the >> arctic, etc. Do >> mines in the tops of mountains, deeps of jjungles, etc. >> >> Corps are quite willing and able to take risk and handel >> frounteers. Even >> hire some real characters to work out there. BUT -- they >> need to see money >> at the end of it. So far there is nothing out there thats a >> real draw. > >Gee, Kelly, you agreed and disagreed in the same sentence! Well almost >the >same sentence...yes the mega corps do take risks, very calculated, >quantified, limited, demarcated .... but still, risks. That is not quite >the >same as sending a mission after an asteroid that might, MIGHT, have >unimaginable riches inside it, and maybe, MAYBE being able to extract them. >Losing a man to a construction site accident on a drilling platform barely >makes headlines, just an obit. Losing a man on an asteroid extraction >operation would just about put the company out of business. Not the same >risk at all. If it would cost that much, the thing could be made of gold and still be worthless. Companies risking their existence on the next big deal is more common then you think. Its almost the rule in aerospace. Its why aerospace is considered such a risky game to play. >> The focus of the origional editorial seemed to be that it >> would not / could >> not be the big powerfull corps or organizations, but would be radical >> nonconformists. Folks like the individuals who went out on >> their own and >> pioneered the west on the lawless frounteer. But it is the >> big corps and >> organizations, with their demands for reasonable order, that >> pioneer on the >> kind of nasty frounteers we do now on earth, or will do in >> space. They won't >> be crooks and pirates, because such folk get each other >> killed and are to >> much trouble to put up with. They will be agressive, >> arogent, probably often >> not real polite, or not conformists. But not exactly crooks >> or pirates. > >You mean people like Rutan, Benson, Kelly and Kistler don't qualify? Gee, >you just broke my romantic heart . Na not even close. ;) >Seriously, I think you were taking >his >reference to rogues, pirates and misfits a little too literally. Given he went on to a long rambling salute to the glories of lawlessness and chaos, to the point of almost suggesting ruthless criminals are cool, I think I should? >It may >well >end up being some mega corp that leads the drive into space, but there >will >a person or people in charge of that corp who have that spirit he was >talking about. I just wish them luck with the board of directors... > >Lee I think we agree more then he would have. ;) Yes, its going to be won by folks backed by executivs with a lot of guts, and enough charisma to get folks to sign over a few billion bucks to be a part of that dream. ;) Kelly From VM Thu Oct 17 11:18:30 2002 Content-Length: 2011 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2011" "Thursday" "17" "October" "2002" "11:46:44" "+0100" "Peter \\(Sci\\)" "scifox@asylum30.freeserve.co.uk" nil "39" "starship-design: Refueling" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Refueling" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9HAkaVf016225 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 03:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g9HAka56016222 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 03:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.172]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9HAkUVf016198 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 03:46:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-967.bonobo.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.134.51.199] helo=kat) by cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1828Aa-0000bI-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:46:25 +0100 Message-ID: <001f01c275ca$7cd0d6a0$c73386d9@kat> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Peter \(Sci\)" From: "Peter \(Sci\)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: starship-design: Refueling Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:46:44 +0100 After shooting through the deep black for a number of years, accelerating, breaking, plus any little accidents the ship may have, there probably wouldn't be much fuel left, so I came to wonder about refueling and came up with a couple of ideas. These ideas assume a fusion-based power plant using hydrogen or other light elements. First off, gas clouds. Assuming no legistation has been passed banning the use/destruction of these immense features, my first thought was to extract fuel from these. Much like a bussard ram-scoop, suck in gas and store/use it (btw, is there any reason a bussard scoop couldn't use an electrostatic feild rather than magnetic?). However, there's not much gas in this area of space, unless you count gas-giants. Now, gas-giants are something that are already being picked up orbiting other stars, so perhaps some form of fuel-harvesting craft would be a usefull adition to the ships complement? Of course the atsmosphere of a giant is unlikely to be pure H, so a form of distilery would be needed, which is also needed for my second thought. Planetary rings. Now, although the rings are unlikely to be pure ice (as in Asimov's "The Martian Way"), they would likely contain some, as well as other solidified chemicals. I perceived the idea of some sort of harpoon, armoured and equipped with heating elements in the center, vapouring ice and slush and forcing it up a hose to the ship for processing and distiling. If I recall correctly, tests have shown there are also a lot of simple alchohols in space-born clouds, so perhaps there may be in other forms too. Anyway, having equipment that can extract the H from any molecule containing it would be useful. Leaving a permenant fuelign station in place on a large iceberg seemed also like a good idea at first, but changing the mass of one like that would also change it's behavior and send it out of a previously stable configuration (again, as happened in "The Martian Way"). A few thoughts for people to read, Peter From VM Thu Oct 17 11:18:30 2002 Content-Length: 300 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["300" "Thursday" "17" "October" "2002" "13:52:46" "+0100" "Peter \\(Sci\\)" "scifox@asylum30.freeserve.co.uk" nil "10" "starship-design: Industrial Platform mechanism" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil "starship-design: Industrial Platform mechanism" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9HCqZVf015383 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 05:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g9HCqZp9015382 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 05:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.210]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9HCqVVf015373 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 05:52:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-352.bear.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.134.33.96] helo=kat) by cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 182A8Z-0003u7-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:52:28 +0100 Message-ID: <00bb01c275dc$18d40c00$602186d9@kat> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Peter \(Sci\)" From: "Peter \(Sci\)" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship Design" Subject: starship-design: Industrial Platform mechanism Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:52:46 +0100 Just wandering a few new newsgroups, and found a link to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/10/021010070145.htm on sci.space.tech. Sounds very good, lacking use of chemicals, moving parts, etc. Would be good to remember for design of the Industrial Platform sugested on the website? Peter From VM Fri Oct 18 10:25:12 2002 Content-Length: 2555 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2555" "Thursday" "17" "October" "2002" "23:45:31" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "97" "Re: starship-design: Refueling" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9I3jfVf015342 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:45:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g9I3jfJ1015341 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:45:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g9I3jdVf015322 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:45:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id d.10f.18b42ee7 (4552); Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:45:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <10f.18b42ee7.2ae0dddb@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: scifox@asylum30.freeserve.co.uk, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Refueling Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:45:31 EDT In flight you can refuel, because space between the stars is prettty much empty, and no fule would be worth slowing down to get. Once in another starsystem (i.e. where your going) you csan refuel from materials in the solar system. Comet cores, gas giants and their moons, etc. Or solid asteroids (not all fusion fuels are gasses). In a message dated 10/17/02 6:47:47 AM, scifox@asylum30.freeserve.co.uk writes: >After shooting through the deep black for a number of years, accelerating, > >breaking, plus any little accidents the ship may have, there probably > >wouldn't be much fuel left, so I came to wonder about refueling and came >up > >with a couple of ideas. > >These ideas assume a fusion-based power plant using hydrogen or other light > >elements. > > > >First off, gas clouds. Assuming no legistation has been passed banning >the > >use/destruction of these immense features, my first thought was to extract > >fuel from these. Much like a bussard ram-scoop, suck in gas and store/use > >it (btw, is there any reason a bussard scoop couldn't use an electrostatic > >feild rather than magnetic?). However, there's not much gas in this area >of > >space, unless you count gas-giants. > >Now, gas-giants are something that are already being picked up orbiting > >other stars, so perhaps some form of fuel-harvesting craft would be a > >usefull adition to the ships complement? > >Of course the atsmosphere of a giant is unlikely to be pure H, so a form >of > >distilery would be needed, which is also needed for my second thought. > > > >Planetary rings. Now, although the rings are unlikely to be pure ice (as >in > >Asimov's "The Martian Way"), they would likely contain some, as well as > >other solidified chemicals. I perceived the idea of some sort of harpoon, > >armoured and equipped with heating elements in the center, vapouring ice >and > >slush and forcing it up a hose to the ship for processing and distiling. > If > >I recall correctly, tests have shown there are also a lot of simple > >alchohols in space-born clouds, so perhaps there may be in other forms >too. > >Anyway, having equipment that can extract the H from any molecule containing > >it would be useful. > > > >Leaving a permenant fuelign station in place on a large iceberg seemed >also > >like a good idea at first, but changing the mass of one like that would >also > >change it's behavior and send it out of a previously stable configuration > >(again, as happened in "The Martian Way"). > > > > > >A few thoughts for people to read, > > > >Peter From VM Mon Nov 11 10:58:05 2002 Content-Length: 36733 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["36733" "Saturday" "9" "November" "2002" "14:53:51" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "713" "starship-design: Scrap The Shuttle Program" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gA9KsU3D009816 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 12:54:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gA9KsU3a009815 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 12:54:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gA9KsT3D009809 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 12:54:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18Accb-00029T-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sat, 09 Nov 2002 12:54:25 -0800 Message-ID: <00c401c28832$1c43e870$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C287FF.D1A97870" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design List \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Scrap The Shuttle Program Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:53:51 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C287FF.D1A97870 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00C6_01C287FF.D1A97870" ------=_NextPart_001_00C6_01C287FF.D1A97870 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Legal Pad StationeryScrap The Shuttle Program by Carlton Meyer Editor G2mil.com Richmond - Nov 01, 2002 The US military considers control of outer space vital to future warfare. Spaceprojects.com noted that page 18 of this Commerce Department report (pdf) documents how the USA slipped to just 29% of the world's launch market share in the year 2000, even though we had 48% of it in 1996, and apparently all of it the decade before. How did this happen if NASA has a larger space budget than all other civilian space agencies combined, as well as its Congressional mandate to: "seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space"? How did some countries evolve from non-players in space two decades ago into dominant commercial players today? Much of the blame falls upon the Space Shuttle program. As we "celebrate" the 25th anniversary of the shuttle disaster, no not the Challenger explosion but the whole program, let us review reality. The shuttle is far more expensive than expendable rockets used for the Apollo program the 1960s. The orbiter and solid rocket boosters are recovered for reuse, but an army of engineers must inspect and rebuild them for the next mission. As a result, plans for 100 shuttle missions a year have fallen to around four, costing $550 million each and employing 30,000 people. The shuttle was a good effort in the 1970s which developed some new technology, but that phase ended. Unfortunately, NASA invented the "Space Station" as an excuse to keep the shuttle program funded forever. While the shuttle eats up $4 billion a year in NASA funding, only $1 billion was devoted to the shuttle replacement, the X-33, before senior NASA officials admitted the concept was unworkable. Experts told NASA that the X-33 just needed a rocket sled or pneumatic ground assisted launch, but NASA ignored them. Congress then gave NASA $4.8 billion over several years to develop a replacement for the shuttle. However, this Strategic Launch Initiative (SLI) became a game to keep the shuttle jobs program going, and only produced some complex artistic drawings devoid of any details like mass or engine type. At a World Space Congress panel on space operations last month, veteran shuttle flight director Wayne Hale discounted SLI concepts as ungrounded in reality. On October 22nd, NASA postponed the next phase of SLI indefinitely. SLI is in limbo because the focus became minute improvements in rocketry to produce the RS-83 to replace the shuttle's main engines, and the RS-84 as expensive fly-back boosters to replace the shuttle's solid rocket boosters. Now NASA is breaking the bad news to America with a message like: We tried really hard, but couldn't find a better method. Luckily, we did discover ways to improve the current Space Shuttle, so we can upgrade that system and extend it for another twenty years. The United Space Alliance (USA) is pleased. This patriotic sounding group is a cover for the two aerospace giants (Boeing and Lockheed-Martin) who share one billion dollars a year in funding to "manage" the shuttle program. They now want billions more for Space Shuttle II to upgrade everything and replace the two solid rocket boosters with RS-84 liquid fly-backs. However, the shuttle has a payload of only ~50,000 lbs. So if you use two flyback boosters, you add two sets of landing gear, two sets of stub wings, and two jet engines per booster, plus more fuel to launch this extra deadweight, and the shuttle payload goes to zero. This proposal does not bring back the expensive fuel tank either, leaving one unsure if USA is incompetent or mismanaged. The highly successful Apollo program ended after several trips to the moon, yet the unsuccessful shuttle program continues pointless "missions" which normally involve a public relations gimmick. A school teacher was sent, old former senator John Glenn, and the last mission was notable for a "shuttlecam" providing a lift off view, as well the third soybean experiment. Even the Simpson's cartoon series made fun of NASA by selecting Homer for a "regular guy" mission, along with an ant experiment which goes awry. The Russians are not paying for their share for the Space Station, and have resorted to selling trips to billionaires, celebrities, and are now negotiating to host TV game shows in space. NASA has given up on pretending that shuttle missions involve science and now proclaim they are important for international relations. As the shuttle orbiters age, maintenance becomes even more expensive, and many experts believe its just a matter of time before another shuttle blows up due to its complex vertical launch method. Americans in their 30s watched shuttle launches as young children. Now NASA wants to keep the program going so they can one day watch shuttle launches from their retirement home. Then they wonder why there is no enthusiasm for space programs in the nation or Congress. If the shuttle hangs on for another 80 missions, does anyone expect anything to come from them? Perhaps NASA should build a "Sea Station" 1000 feet below the sea and use submarines to take foreigners and other salaried government tourists on "missions" to conduct "experiments" and set "endurance records" while "improving international relations". This idea may seem crazy, but it would be much cheaper than the shuttle program and accomplish just as much. The Apollo program ended when America realized that expensive adventures to collect moon rocks was pointless. Can anyone name a spectacular scientific discovery from shuttle missions? Its become a jobs program and a public relations campaign to hide a lack of progress. In contrast, just $1 billion in seed money helped Boeing build the Delta IV and Lockheed-Martin the Atlas 5, the first new expendable rocket systems in over 20 years. Imagine what could happen if the $4 billion a year and 30,000 shuttle experts were diverted to R&D? Imagine the panic at NASA after cancellation of the shuttle program shatters their comfortable academic climate and everyone realizes that a superior method must be developed fast, lest Congress deems them inept and cuts funding. Innovative ideas like maglev launch, nuclear engines, and the space elevator require major funding. Some top level physicists now agree that anti-gravity devices like the 512kV rotator can reduce the effects of gravity by spinning electrons, but they can't secure funding for research. Plans for pneumatic assisted launch have been around for years, but never funded. A large rail launch demonstrator requires a billion dollars, or funds for just two shuttle missions. NASA may soon cancel the promising VARISM plasma engine research project citing a lack of funds. Unfortunately, little technological progress is expected unless NASA management and shuttle funding is diverted from the continual burden of getting yet another shuttle safely off the ground. The US Air Force has become so frustrated by NASA's focus on the shuttle that it wants to build its own manned spacecraft. Until a major technological breakthrough allows a new form of space launch, all we have today is chemical rocket power that can provide just a few percent payload by weight compared to their overall size. A massive rocket-powered horizontal launched spaceplane may work, but it would cost billions to build, must be several times larger than a 747, and may cost so much to launch and maintain that it erases the savings of being reusable, just like the shuttle. If you add wings, landing gear and engines to bring any spacecraft or fly-back booster back to Earth for reuse, that extra weight eliminates the payload. You can't just make a bigger spacecraft because that requires bigger wings, landing gear and engines. So the only way a reusable rocket powered spacecraft can work is with a ground assist launch to Mach 1-2 up a mountainside. This is possible today, as the Sky Ramp Technology website explains. However, funding for Sky Ramps and new technologies will remain tight so long as the shuttle program consumes the attention and funding at NASA. Lee Once I knew where I was going, but now I have forgotten. Sometimes my mind wanders. Sometimes it goes alone, and other times it takes me along...this isn't one of those times... ------=_NextPart_001_00C6_01C287FF.D1A97870 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Legal Pad Stationery
Scrap The Shuttle = Program
by Carlton Meyer
Editor G2mil.com
Richmond - Nov 01, 2002

The US military considers control of outer space vital to = future=20 warfare. Spaceprojects.com noted that page 18 of this Commerce = Department report=20 (pdf) documents how the USA slipped to just 29% of the world's launch = market=20 share in the year 2000, even though we had 48% of it in 1996, and = apparently all=20 of it the decade before.
 

How did this happen if NASA has a larger space = budget=20 than all other civilian space agencies combined, as well as its = Congressional=20 mandate to: "seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the = fullest=20 commercial use of space"? How did some countries evolve from non-players = in=20 space two decades ago into dominant commercial players today?

 

Much of the blame falls upon the Space Shuttle = program.=20 As we "celebrate" the 25th anniversary of the shuttle disaster, no not = the=20 Challenger explosion but the whole program, let us review reality. The = shuttle=20 is far more expensive than expendable rockets used for the Apollo = program the=20 1960s. The orbiter and solid rocket boosters are recovered for reuse, = but an=20 army of engineers must inspect and rebuild them for the next mission. =

 

As a result, plans for 100 shuttle missions a = year have=20 fallen to around four, costing $550 million each and employing 30,000 = people.=20 The shuttle was a good effort in the 1970s which developed some new = technology,=20 but that phase ended. Unfortunately, NASA invented the "Space Station" = as an=20 excuse to keep the shuttle program funded forever.

 

While the shuttle eats up $4 billion a year in = NASA=20 funding, only $1 billion was devoted to the shuttle replacement, the = X-33,=20 before senior NASA officials admitted the concept was unworkable. = Experts told=20 NASA that the X-33 just needed a rocket sled or pneumatic ground = assisted=20 launch, but NASA ignored them. Congress then gave NASA $4.8 billion over = several=20 years to develop a replacement for the shuttle.

 

However, this Strategic Launch Initiative = (SLI) became a=20 game to keep the shuttle jobs program going, and only produced some = complex=20 artistic drawings devoid of any details like mass or engine type. At a = World=20 Space Congress panel on space operations last month, veteran shuttle = flight=20 director Wayne Hale discounted SLI concepts as ungrounded in reality. On = October=20 22nd, NASA postponed the next phase of SLI indefinitely.

 

SLI is in limbo because the focus became = minute=20 improvements in rocketry to produce the RS-83 to replace the shuttle's = main=20 engines, and the RS-84 as expensive fly-back boosters to replace the = shuttle's=20 solid rocket boosters. Now NASA is breaking the bad news to America with = a=20 message like: We tried really hard, but couldn't find a better method. = Luckily,=20 we did discover ways to improve the current Space Shuttle, so we can = upgrade=20 that system and extend it for another twenty years.

 

The United Space Alliance (USA) is pleased. = This=20 patriotic sounding group is a cover for the two aerospace giants (Boeing = and=20 Lockheed-Martin) who share one billion dollars a year in funding to = "manage" the=20 shuttle program. They now want billions more for Space Shuttle II to = upgrade=20 everything and replace the two solid rocket boosters with RS-84 liquid=20 fly-backs. However, the shuttle has a payload of only ~50,000 lbs. =

 

So if you use two flyback boosters, you add = two sets of=20 landing gear, two sets of stub wings, and two jet engines per booster, = plus more=20 fuel to launch this extra deadweight, and the shuttle payload goes to = zero. This=20 proposal does not bring back the expensive fuel tank either, leaving one = unsure=20 if USA is incompetent or mismanaged.

 

The highly successful Apollo program ended = after several=20 trips to the moon, yet the unsuccessful shuttle program continues = pointless=20 "missions" which normally involve a public relations gimmick. A school = teacher=20 was sent, old former senator John Glenn, and the last mission was = notable for a=20 "shuttlecam" providing a lift off view, as well the third soybean = experiment.=20

 

Even the Simpson's cartoon series made fun of = NASA by=20 selecting Homer for a "regular guy" mission, along with an ant = experiment which=20 goes awry. The Russians are not paying for their share for the Space = Station,=20 and have resorted to selling trips to billionaires, celebrities, and are = now=20 negotiating to host TV game shows in space. NASA has given up on = pretending that=20 shuttle missions involve science and now proclaim they are important for = international relations.

 

As the shuttle orbiters age, maintenance = becomes even=20 more expensive, and many experts believe its just a matter of time = before=20 another shuttle blows up due to its complex vertical launch method. =

 

Americans in their 30s watched shuttle = launches as young=20 children. Now NASA wants to keep the program going so they can one day = watch=20 shuttle launches from their retirement home. Then they wonder why there = is no=20 enthusiasm for space programs in the nation or Congress. If the shuttle = hangs on=20 for another 80 missions, does anyone expect anything to come from them? =

 

Perhaps NASA should build a "Sea Station" 1000 = feet=20 below the sea and use submarines to take foreigners and other salaried=20 government tourists on "missions" to conduct "experiments" and set = "endurance=20 records" while "improving international relations". This idea may seem = crazy,=20 but it would be much cheaper than the shuttle program and accomplish = just as=20 much.

 

The Apollo program ended when America realized = that=20 expensive adventures to collect moon rocks was pointless. Can anyone = name a=20 spectacular scientific discovery from shuttle missions? Its become a = jobs=20 program and a public relations campaign to hide a lack of progress. =

 

In contrast, just $1 billion in seed money = helped Boeing=20 build the Delta IV and Lockheed-Martin the Atlas 5, the first new = expendable=20 rocket systems in over 20 years.

 

Imagine what could happen if the $4 billion a = year and=20 30,000 shuttle experts were diverted to R&D? Imagine the panic at = NASA after=20 cancellation of the shuttle program shatters their comfortable academic = climate=20 and everyone realizes that a superior method must be developed fast, = lest=20 Congress deems them inept and cuts funding.

 

Innovative ideas like maglev launch, nuclear = engines,=20 and the space elevator require major funding. Some top level physicists = now=20 agree that anti-gravity devices like the 512kV rotator can reduce the = effects of=20 gravity by spinning electrons, but they can't secure funding for = research.=20

 

Plans for pneumatic assisted launch have been = around for=20 years, but never funded. A large rail launch demonstrator requires a = billion=20 dollars, or funds for just two shuttle missions. NASA may soon cancel = the=20 promising VARISM plasma engine research project citing a lack of funds. =

 

Unfortunately, little technological progress = is expected=20 unless NASA management and shuttle funding is diverted from the = continual burden=20 of getting yet another shuttle safely off the ground.

 

The US Air Force has become so frustrated by = NASA's=20 focus on the shuttle that it wants to build its own manned spacecraft. = Until a=20 major technological breakthrough allows a new form of space launch, all = we have=20 today is chemical rocket power that can provide just a few percent = payload by=20 weight compared to their overall size.

 

A massive rocket-powered horizontal launched = spaceplane=20 may work, but it would cost billions to build, must be several times = larger than=20 a 747, and may cost so much to launch and maintain that it erases the = savings of=20 being reusable, just like the shuttle. If you add wings, landing gear = and=20 engines to bring any spacecraft or fly-back booster back to Earth for = reuse,=20 that extra weight eliminates the payload.

 

You can't just make a bigger spacecraft = because that=20 requires bigger wings, landing gear and engines. So the only way a = reusable=20 rocket powered spacecraft can work is with a ground assist launch to = Mach 1-2 up=20 a mountainside. This is possible today, as the Sky Ramp Technology = website=20 explains. However, funding for Sky Ramps and new technologies will = remain tight=20 so long as the shuttle program consumes the attention and funding at=20 NASA.

 

Lee
 
 
Once I knew where I was going, = but now I=20 have  forgotten.  Sometimes my mind wanders.  = Sometimes it=20 goes alone, and other times it takes me along...this isn't one of those=20 times...
 
------=_NextPart_001_00C6_01C287FF.D1A97870-- ------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C287FF.D1A97870 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="legalpad.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <921495120@09112002-1715> /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEBCgEKAAD/2wBDAAUDBAQEAwUEBAQFBQUGBwwIBwcHBw8LCwkMEQ8SEhEP ERETFhwXExQaFRERGCEYGh0dHx8fExciJCIeJBweHx7/2wBDAQUFBQcGBw4ICA4eFBEUHh4eHh4e Hh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh7/wAARCADyAP0DASIA AhEBAxEB/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAAAgEDAwIEAwUFBAQA AAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1FhByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkKFhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3 ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZWmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWm p6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/8QAHwEA AwEBAQEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtREAAgECBAQDBAcFBAQAAQJ3AAECAxEEBSEx BhJBUQdhcRMiMoEIFEKRobHBCSMzUvAVYnLRChYkNOEl8RcYGRomJygpKjU2Nzg5OkNERUZHSElK U1RVVldYWVpjZGVmZ2hpanN0dXZ3eHl6goOEhYaHiImKkpOUlZaXmJmaoqOkpaanqKmqsrO0tba3 uLm6wsPExcbHyMnK0tPU1dbX2Nna4uPk5ebn6Onq8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwD6N4Lc 49+KZIFxuUHB9qrm3vMki9+v7kUpgvQuDf8A4eSK/M/q9P8A5+r7pf8AyJ3c7/lf4f5goKSA/wBK soxAy2TVM216vW8/HyhTora+fj7ftB65hFSsPT/5+x+6X/yI+d/yv8P8y6JDwFwfxqQF84IAxVVL K7TBGogZ/wCmA/xpXtr9M/8AEy3Y/wCmK1X1en/z9j/5N/8AIi53/K/w/wAy2Scen40u8bcDn8az Sl8RzqI9v3K0eTfZz/aAx6+SKPYU/wDn7H/yb/5EOd/yv8P8y878dcetRNIdvJ/CqhhvOM3v/kIU htrvH/H7/wCQhS9hT/5+x/8AJv8A5EOZ/wAr/D/MklXzQVI57HNV9uOtP+y3p+Zb8/XyhTHt7sHL XvT/AKZCpeHp/wDP2P3S/wDkRqb/AJX+H+Y4I24dBTwnzY55qFYbjAb7Wf8Av0KeIbkY/wBLH18s UfV6f/P2P/k3/wAiHO/5X+H+ZLkISRinGXYOdxJ9+lQNDcYx9r5/65iq7xzICDc5z/sCj6vT/wCf sful/wDIhzv+V/h/mTPdsTwpIHTJp8d6r/u3UK3YZqkIn6mX8NopGgkJ3A9+uKfsaf8Az9j/AOTf /IhzP+V/h/maypuGQ2R6VIE5zxgVmJBdE7WuDjthRVwwXuQv23aOw8oYpqhT/wCfsful/wDIi5n/ ACv8P8yYxhjng+1SJCuct1qstpfY/wCP8f8Afhaf9kvsc6iP+/Io+r0/+fsf/Jv/AJEOd/yv8P8A MtBQOmTR0PbmqnkX6nI1Lj/rgtMeG9Iz/aRB9fJWn7Cn/wA/Y/8Ak3/yIc7/AJX+H+ZaIwOc0gHz YGfzqoLXUW/5i34eQtK1nqBb5dSAwP8AngvNL6vD/n4v/Jv/AJEOd9vy/wAzSi4HIFOB46VlC11L r/a2P+3df8acLTVG4/tvp/06r/jT9hT/AOfsf/Jv/kRcz7P8P8zUwCc5P0zSBuM9qzls9VI/5DP4 /ZV/xoFnqY4Osf8Aksv+NHsKf/Pxf+Tf/IhzPt+X+ZoMTjOD+FRM2D1qqbXUUTnVyc9vs61H5N73 1An6QrR7Cn/z9X/k3/yIcz/lf4f5k5ORj86kXPH8VZo1SxBz5+f+At/hT21e0K48/H/AD/hR9SxP /PuX3MftYd195dJHcA/jRv3EAVmvqVmeDP8A+OH/AApU1KzUf8fH/jrf4UlgsT/z7l9zD2sO6NFp fUnjpUbyH+7iqJ1OxA/1+f8AgLf4Uo1SwI4n/wDHT/hR9SxP/PuX3MPaQ7otbsDkkfQU9WPIz9M1 nvqNmBnz/wDx0/4U0anZqxJm/Ha3+FL6lif+fcvuY/aw7o1A3ODjI74o6kjJ5rNGq2YABn/Eq3+F PXU7EjPn/wDjp/wp/UsT/wA+5fc/8he1h3RePGO9NcnOMD3NUxqtkB/r8jP9w/4Up1OwkHyzAEei n/Cj6lif+fcvuf8AkHtYd0THP94e1PRxna3DdzVE6nZDH7/Gf9g/4Uf2lZEf6781P+FT9SxP/PuX 3MftId0W5DggjIz2xTJUJPyj/wCvVY6nZYyZjkH+6f8ACmjUbJsnzySe20/4UfUsT/z7l9zD2sP5 kSqCSCcDPXircMQI57dhVOC8slzun/8AHD/hVoanp4Xb53/jh/wo+o4n/n3L7mDqw7otrGAjBePT 3p1urMu0k/lVeHUbDOWuDx22N/hTbjWrAHy1n2t1zsb/AAqvqOJ/59y+5i9rDui6W5KknjjANRGR gThuO9Z51ayV8+dn22n/AAoGp2bH/XAn/cP+FDwWJ/59y+5/5B7SHdF/ewAGDn3FIjMzfNkA1S/t Oyz/AK8/QqcfypyalZk4M2Mc/db/AApfUsT/AM+5fcw9rDui8eBxjnvRljwSfaqf9qWJAbzx+Ct/ hThqVj/z8D8Vb/Cj6lif+fcvuYe1h3RbPJ96VTjpzmqZ1SxU/wDHx9Plb/CkbVbDOBOP++G/wp/U sT/z7l9zD2kO6+80UbI5zSnpxWeuq2AP+v5/3D/hR/a1iFyLj6fKf8Kf1LE/8+5fc/8AIPaQ7otT NlsLxzUXPp+tVBqtkTkzEEeiHn9KjOqWQJxPn/gJ/wAKX1LE/wDPuX3P/IPaQ7ot59cUDI470wgA 4BPrT1YZxg1zGg4HgHAqJ3y3uPSnSScbVI+tRKcuF6k0gE35br9acpIz703ad/zKQAfTrSsFzweT 70AKxOAw6+tIeTnnHbmkRsfKR+tBYMMNikAhJJ78+lA8xTvLkY6DFIGGcf1pCSWwcgUATFC2Cp4/ lSkFSqluTTYZeQCMH3qaUZwcHjp70AQuQTjPT2pS2ADj681J5RfGcbu2TUZjf7v8Y7GgAiQu20fi aspGo4GR709I1gjI6ZGSTUZuEU7VGT9aYiUoAcDFKGjUlm+Zv7o7VWDSk5cjHbikZiO+KLgSTzsw brjtzUT5ZAwALKcZqPORkEHnk0+KTLGLI+YYBpDF3BmyOg4px4Pp7A1UG9HI5PHSmxTqCAAcnk0B Ysu+WyMhh2pyyEjdk5qEb2YsueeopDHIrYO4Y6UAWATjrx3peAThj9fSolI64BoJJXn8qYE5l3Jx n8aQMSaiRgRg5z9akXjigBQxBwfx5pHkJ49OtIzjbnHT1qFpASRzSAkEgPYjFGB6/rUAfDdKkVhj r+dO4EEVte4x/aA/78rT2s74A/8AEwAz6Qir+V3BuPwpGB3Z5FdX1ufaP/gMf8jP2a8/vf8AmZq2 18o2m/B/7YrSLbXvX+0MY/6YitB0DAc/jTGHGenqKX1up2j/AOAx/wAh+zXn97/zKklteYAXUPzh FQy2eoA5+3Zx38oVpBTjO0c0hVs7cgZp/W6naP8A4DH/ACDkXn97/wAzINtfA5N7gnr+5FRtBebt v2//AMhCtorkdqFtd3JUHmj61U7R/wDAY/5ByLz+9mOkF8D/AMf5z6+UKnaK/C7ftwP/AGxWtGW2 whKY+neqvzI4Ei8Hpk0vrdTtH/wGP+Qckf6b/wAzPZL1SGF9j/tkKt24vXGf7QwQO8K0+aI4yMH6 VEsgiYF2G2l9bqdo/wDgMf8AIfs15/eyZ4b0DP8AaGP+2K/40kcepMN0WoktjkmEYFShI51Exk2x dyep+gpl3fMUEcPyxjpgU/rdTtH/AMBj/kHs15/eylPHex8HVGmYnn90OKdBBeMc/bdpP/TEU8RM wEjZOe2acCyr824fjS+t1O0f/AY/5B7Nef3seYL8J/yED/35FR+XfDO7Ucf9shU6yOV6HH1ppbK9 O9H1yp2j/wCAx/yD2a8/vZXkiviMC/6ekQpBDfhCVvjn0ES1MqFiAAQe1XY4UJJDYz6Cj63U7R/8 Bj/kLkXn97KzwXsm1jfKM858hcigWt4Thb4D/tiKvCL92w8wr6cU4vHHjYOR940fW6naP/gMf8g9 mvP72VUgvk4/tAY/64rThHescfbx+MK1Jv3U9WAHGSfen9cqdo/+Ax/yF7Nef3srrZ3ZHN8P+/K0 j2d6Mlb8fTyVqzvByQDipA/GMfjQsXU7L/wGP+QezXn97M77Le43DUAPX9yKX7HfdV1AY/65CrpI HIBxTHJXO3v2o+t1Oy/8Bj/kPkXn97M6SC/LYF8c/wDXFaQW99nA1D84RV4OpbkfhSgBhzml9cqd o/8AgMf8g9mvP72Z/wBmvscX+T6+SKd9kvQP+Qh/5BFaCjGRxUgZQOdo+oprF1O0f/AY/wCQezXn 97KY1Kxxgzk/8BP+FB1a04Am/Ha3+FXHOOQR6VEQOMjjtzRz4b+SX/gS/wDkRWn3X3f8Er/2rZZG Zwf+An/CnjU7EDifP/AD/hUoYk4I5p5LDr6daOfDfyS/8CX/AMiFp9193/BK41Kwx/rzn/dP+FCa hY54mz7bW/wq5CxZgCAKnjBHJB601LDfyS/8CX/yIWn3X3f8Ez11Cx4Pn/8AkNv8KlGo2GCTPj/g Df4VoRBR82SR7GmylWIzj061Slhv5Jf+BL/5EVp9193/AATNOp2WCRMB/wABP+FNfUdP7zdf9g/4 VpMuDxjjvTCAR908Uc+G/kl/4Ev/AJELT7r7v+CZcl9YsMLcDHoUP+FUZdQs45eZQB2Hlk/0rbcn yz8+PfHamXVuJ4+Ad3Ucdqhyw38kv/Al/wDIlLn7r7v+CYs+q2jnAm+p2Hn9KZFe2ectKuf91v8A Crnk+UdrVYBXjs3fip58N/JL/wACX/yI7T7r7v8AglMalZBCBMFb2U8fpTRf2WMm4Denyt/hVsFD HzjHQ01VCqoCEKBjH+NHNhv5Jf8AgS/+RC0+6+7/AIJUF/p5GPOYY7bT/hTf7QtDgedjHXCHP8qv bigG7lvbuKFjaQ8g8nrimpYb+SX/AIEv/kQtPuvu/wCCQ2moWKks8x+m0/4VO+pWSj/j4OM91P8A hVtF2oEGNv0pCGAweh7k0c+G/kl/4Ev/AJEVp9193/BKz6vZ7VKzDA/2W/wpg1KwkHE556jaf14q 0eDjn0zionG1ywBHODRz4b+SX/gS/wDkQtPuvu/4JD/adkCSJufZT/hQuqWTHmfp/sN/hVotzhwR 6YNKVOV9AO/ejnw38kv/AAJf/Ihafdfd/wAErNqVkRlZ9v8AwA0q6pZdBLz/ALrf4VZzjmnFuO35 Uc+G/kl/4Ev/AJELT7r7v+CVBqdkF5n/APHD/hTX1KyJ4m4A/uHn9KuZGcYyKaWzRz4b+SX/AIEv /kQtPuvu/wCCVTqNiAWE4z/un/Cl/tKyIx5xH/AT/hVosVQdOfUVGS28cZz6Uc+G/kl/4Ev/AJEL T7r7v+CRDU7FmwZfr8p/wpf7QsP+e3/jrf4VbTGMkEn3FSbiRwtPnw38kv8AwJf/ACIrT7r7v+CQ 7t78ZPtTgMnJB596omC+Xj7fyfSEVOtrfMR/xMP/ACCtHsKf/P2P3S/+RHzP+V/h/mWD7cfhSB2L bCPpmmJY32OdQH/flacLa825+3/h5C0fV4f8/Y/+Tf8AyIud/wAr/D/Mnh7MR9OKtZGM8etZ4tr0 Db9vC+3krSPb3wH/ACEvx8lapUKf/P2P3S/+RByf8r/D/M0dwweB71BJIBz6Vlyi+Q4/tAke8IpF jvWPzagR7+StL2NP/n7H/wAm/wDkQ5n/ACv8P8zQE3p0+tKLjnCoR681nNBeoP8AkIKR6+StIkN7 x/xMc5/6Yil7CH/P2P3S/wDkQ5n/ACv8P8zUZI85HcUq/ezzx+RrK8m+6HUDx/0xH+NAhvx11AnH /TEUewp/8/Y/dL/5EOZ/yv8AD/MvXUEcgwSA38Of5Vnbmjcq4ZSenHNSGK9Yn/T8nqD5K0x7C9f7 1+ST6wil9Xp/8/Y/+Tf/ACI1N/yv8P8AMevUkE5Pb1o5C84Dd80wWN5FjOojkcAQiopbe/IH+m9e whWl9Xp/8/Y/dL/5EfO/5X+H+ZKVLt94DHfNXLRBnAzz71nQ2F6vzLqB55/1Iq0kF8oy2oAdseSK aoU/+fsful/8iJzf8r/D/MuPtwQuGb2pnDckA46nPSqT296T/wAhAgDv5K0JDfKxRr8/hCKfsKf/ AD9j90v/AJEOZ/yv8P8AMuMAvytnnocUpIBwccdapmC+PS/OPUwrSG3vQB/xMP8AyCKXsKf/AD9j 90v/AJEOZ/yv8P8AMsNknIHX2pyFsZLDB6cVSMV5n/j/APrmEUww6g3Jv8c4/wBSOaX1en/z9j/5 N/8AIhzv+V/h/magCnGMj1pxQE84z7CsvyL0nA1Dp1IhFSpHe8f8TLkdD5IpqhT/AOfsf/Jv/kQ5 n/K/w/zLhTYuT39aRUJIJx9KiNretgG/6f8ATEf40ktveKMDUMt/1xWn9Xp/8/Y/dL/5EXO/5X+H +Y+RgSB6d809VxkdfSqa2l4Tn7eOPWEU9ra9ALfbwTn/AJ4rS+r03/y9j/5N/wDIj53/ACv8P8y1 nPBzQd2flA9+api3vf8AoIHjr+5FPNvfdtQB9f3K0/q9P/n7H7pf/IhzP+V/h/maghUHGMmnqpHT OKrf2np4OfP6/wCw3+FA1OxX/lv/AOON/hVfUsT/AM+5fc/8ifaw7r7y2T8o65pFwVPIqr/adh3u OP8Acb/ChtTscY88fXYf8KPqWJ/59y+5/wCQe1h3RPJtKjDE89aaW2qR94VTfU7ID/Xjrx8jf4VG dUsRx52OepVqX1LE/wDPuX3P/IftId0SOA74xn8aXaoXIJxmqy6lY4/1xH/AG5/SozqdmGw0vGf7 p/wpfUsT/wA+5fcw9rDui+cPEM446HHSohuUkeveoRqNmBxOP++G4/SlGo2BXBm/HYf8KHgsT/z7 l9z/AMh+1h3RMvX73FPY5HAH5VV+32eP9ePUfIf8Kd/aNgCSJ/8Ax0/4UfUsT/z7l9z/AMhe1h3R ZVMcHtTy3GPyOetVV1CzLBBMWz0+VuP0qNtTsvMO6bBHX5W/wo+pYn/n3L7mP2kO6LUjk/KykFcH pThJEi5MRLehPArPGo2LNkzE7Tz8p/wqYanY4LGU9P7jf4UvqWJ/59y+5h7SHdFuK5aRW8tUHr8v SopbtJGIdQh6DHT64qm+q2jLgT7QOoEZ/wAKqy6haE7jKfYhD/hR9SxP/PuX3P8AyBVKfdfear8J woY9xmmB2zwBt+lZyapZquBNn1+U/wCFSjUbPBImz/wFv8KX1LE/8+5fcw9pDujQBOfvnHpTSdyd T69Kp/2lZEY84ceqHn9KQ6nYgY80/Xaf8Kf1HE/8+5fcw9pDui2SNvTr7UwBw+Bk/wBKrf2jZH/l t/46f8KBqNnjmYYH+yw/pS+pYn/n3L7mP2kO6LYByoyOe1ODEEjANUv7Tsif9eM/7jf4Ug1K0U/6 /wCnyn/Cj6lif+fcvuYe0h3RqxMp4P45p+d5LLjHSsyPVLAnPnnPptP+FTJqVkAT9oHP+y3+FV9S xP8Az7l9zJ9pDui6UByRn3oxj05qodUsT0uMf8BPP6U5dQsepnB+it/hR9RxP/PuX3P/ACD2kO6L AUsenSn29vKVJbGTUCajYDnzx/3w3+FStqmnk8zMP+At/hT+o4n/AJ9y+5h7WHdGgoOecc9KQgKR nn3p5bJAXGQeuKJeM4XPFYFEZ60MCxAAJpxcZ6D0FNd8nA9eeKQEUqDGOfpjmq5w0gTBGMZ4qy7n bjPyjtTWMQQlyD680mh3Kz5L7dwHY4pxhZnPAGevNWlKRhWAXb7jrUbTDd8wHPUYosFyAqwB6ZA6 ilRUK5IbNSuSRyB7Ug+X055IFIBECBevDDimFWyBwP6VJuGFx+VAGSc4/E0wHW8pt3zt3A8dOabK PP3OQuTxgdRTTKqjlfxoU5Bxn60AV1Qg8kcdTinTMpLBH3YGCadMWCEqhLe1VivzdQPapYxVwQU4 PrzQXcn5gfTApw3FQMfN2OKadw6nJ6EYqRlRxjAG3d159KejgqFVyOedwqaW36sGBA7YqtLC7HcA ODyAaYblhAJBg4DL3Bpx4zuHQZ65zVGKSWEFhg59q0La5iK7prc7GP8ACeKYMiRXlk4BB7nsKnFv J3wMdsdavwPAwzDtNOkxuyCB70+Um5ni2OQDj24pzW0ZbJ5b19KtkAnJ+vSmkALnaOenNFrBcrrB ERnv7dae4wNhwCOnNThF5J7+/SlIGeg46nFFgIIk5zgH8KtiIYXHHtToU+b5iPyp77QOop2Aicle w49RTsOemKew9cHj1pAGUYyB+FMCobe+Az/af/kBaiMOoKcDUv8AyAvFXZGHXPNQE7iRz+NdX1up 2j/4DH/Iz9mvP72Vmivs/wDIRPHfyFpksN9tB/tH/wAgrU8zlflHWo42Zzgml9cqdo/+Ax/yH7Ne f3v/ADIYre+bIbUT7DyRUos71iNuoge/kLUyKV5bNSxtgcHrR9bqdo/+Ax/yF7Nef3sptaXiDaNS LL6GFaQ216xy2ogEdvJWrgIwxbIxTkwV+YD60fW59o/+Ax/yDkXn97/zM42l6Rk6jnH/AExWkMF8 pz9uPPGPJH+Nae0HkDIFNcc+tL61U7R/8Bj/AJByLz+9mcLa9f8A5iJAP/TFaVoL5T/yEenH+pFa ACgZ28fWmyKT26e9H1up2j/4DH/IORef3soG0vivzX68c/6leKT7PqGMDUGBP/TFf8avgc/X2oz0 IH1o+t1O0f8AwGP+Q/Zrz+9lM22oFAP7R+n7haathfYyb45/64LWsrn8KkQZy2SBj/OaPrU30j/4 DH/IORef3sxTYaiMbr8Y/wCuIpPsN+Du/tDkf9MRW5glfmzk9Kj2Lv3YPPvT+sz7R/8AAY/5ByLz +9mN9kvhydROW7eSKSWzvWdV+3DPY+SMVsmIDgkjNPji3HnBz6Cl9aqdo/8AgMf8g5F5/ezAm066 QgNeAj0EIqCW2vlBzegKOgEK11BhVgRwcdCazpLNxzyy+lJ4qp2j/wCAx/yGoLz+9mOkN/GQUv8A Gev7kc1fgW8kAP8AaI9v3K0Spg9DjHQCiA8nBPT0pLGVO0f/AAGP+QezXn97J1tr/r/aI9j5K0G1 vv8AoIjPceQKlhkO3lQasZyCQc596v65U7R/8Bj/AJC9mvP72Uvs18Rj+0ev/TBaclre5z/aR+nk LxVtuQODkelTpFmMBCRjpzT+t1O0f/AY/wCQvZrz+9lEWuoq2f7TwD/0xWhrXUM86icH/pgtaCxY 6sTS7QDgt09aPrdTtH/wGP8AkHIvP72Z62l+P+Yifp5C0G31Akn+0v8AyAtX35O0Dk9KY3y8ZH/f VCxdTtH/AMBj/kHs15/ezEOs2L8i4/8AHD/hSf2rYgcT5HpsP+FTIB13H8qfyxHqannw38kv/Al/ 8iO0+6+7/glL+0rFiczj/vhv8Kktr+xDZ84cf7Lf4VcTJPPTtViBc5A4zmnzYb+SX/gS/wDkQtPu vu/4JQfVbDOBPj/gLf4U9NQsHH+vx/wBv8K0Ft485OfepcAL8gG31o5sN/JL/wACX/yIrT7r7v8A gmU+p2IP+u4z3Vv8KUarp4/5b9f9hv8ACrxZTkGo02vwc+1Pmw38kv8AwJf/ACIWn3X3f8Ep/wBp 2OebjH1Rv8KQarYgf6/t12H/AAq6c9KJOp4PH6UufDfyS/8AAl/8iFp9193/AASi+rWKkZnHP+w3 +FB1OwY7vP8A/HW/wq5tK4yRx707r0Wjnw38kv8AwJf/ACIWn3X3f8EoHVLBiCJz9Np/wpU1Owz/ AK8Y/wB1v8Kt4ycgfWpEVUA2qAM8Uc2G/kf/AIEv/kR2n3X3f8Erf2tpyr/rjj/cP+FSDVtP2YE3 1+Rv8KnBBJHXJzTh8o49Oue1HPhv5Jf+BL/5ELT7r7v+CVTqmn5x9oOP9xv8KcdW0/dkTYGf7jf4 VZGTwcED061IDkY3HdT58N/JL/wJf/IitPuvu/4JQOq2B5Fx+GxuP0pP7VsMHM559Eb/AAq9g7wc cUrjB69qOfDfyS/8CX/yIWn3X3f8EpDV7AqCbj65Ruf0qT+1rA/L9ox/wBv8KnbnC46c05W46c/S jnw38kv/AAJf/Ihafdfd/wAEpy6hpkiYM4yR12Nx+lZ7XdornM45HB2t/hXQKV5yeO3HSmSzKgAE ZcdzScsM/sP/AMCX/wAiC511X3f8EyRe2argS7vfY3+FNF/aLkifDdhsbn9K3YZopB8jfgT0pSwB /wDrUXw38sv/AAJf/Ih7/dfd/wAEyYNQsiAxuMeuUb/CrA1XTh8on/8AHW/wrQ+YcgBh3Gai85GP RhT5sMvsS/8AAl/8iFp9/wAP+CVRqmn5/wCPj/xxv8KifV9PUZ+0jr/cb/CrzybQTj9azriX5+pB z0pc+GX2Jf8AgS/+RC0+6+7/AIIxta09Tzcj6bD/AIVDJrens2fOx/wE/wCFK4Oef500DjnOaOfD fyS/8CX/AMiO0+6+7/ggMnoePSnLztqhJaX6ED+0Bz/0xFOFnqPX7ccj/piKX1en/wA/Y/dL/wCR Hzv+V/h/maUZH3SelWdwUA8D0rMSxvwuTf4/7YrTmtr/ACF/tDgf9MVp+wp/8/Y/+Tf/ACIud/yv 8P8AM2klLKcYBPamTOvlMBgMRwRWULe/z/yEf/IIpVt79h/yEcD/AK4rT9hT/wCfsf8Ayb/5EXM/ 5X+H+ZbRDjBJOeppyICcZH0zVSK2vipA1AAj/piKQ21+oz/aPf8A54LS+r0/+fi/8m/+RDnl/K/w /wAy6Mk8/likLDPIx+NVfIv+P+Jj2/54rUT21+Tk6gP+/K0fV6f/AD9j/wCTf/Igpv8Alf4f5l3v wSQKDjtn86zvJvgONR/DyFpRb33DHUOv/TEUvYU/+fsf/Jv/AJEfM/5X+H+Zpxnnn+XWlPrgVQFv ff8AQQP/AH5FO+z3wPGonP8A1wWn7Cn/AM/Y/wDk3/yIc7/lf4f5l0jjt054oDDHPXofaqfk35P/ ACEOfTyVpv2e+IJOo/X9yv8AjS+r0/8An7H/AMm/+RDnf8r/AA/zL6OC3AH508HAwcZPQ1lLbXoJ /wCJgDn/AKYrT1h1AHB1E/XyVp+wp/8AP1f+Tf8AyIcz/lf4f5mrGzEABgT70rHAHT61mC31Hdg6 l/5BWlMGoEjOo8evkLT9hT/5+x/8m/8AkRcz/lf4f5l3J6nH1pMkHjP0qmLe/wC2oj2xCtIYL4cf 2iTn/pgtHsKf/P2P/k3/AMiHM/5X+H+Zc3tgncfempcEsVwMDv61mzx3+Nq6hn1/cimwW16c/wDE wJx/0xFL2NP/AJ+x/wDJv/kQ5n/K/wAP8y/PGySCSLoeQc1bgn3LzjNZrWl/s/5CP/kFajjt75Sf +Jj+PkrS9hTX/L2P/k3/AMiPnf8AK/w/zN0OCQcmmSBWP+sGRWWIr8cf2kcenkLUM8V6Bk6iPp5C 0/YU/wDn6vul/wDIi5n/ACv8P8zQuJSfukn3zVM/eyeaqsl0vH9p/wDkAUiQXh5/tEY/64rS9hT/ AOfsf/Jv/kR87/lf4f5lognsTmmE44OPyqE298RkagR/2xFILW+YZ+3/APkFaPYU/wDn7H/yb/5E Od/yv8P8y9GPl4yfarCBQOvPuKoDUrAcCc/98H/CnNqlgf8Alv8A+Ot/hTWCxP8Az7l9zF7WHdfe XHY8+lMbrnPFVhqtiRkzj8UP+FMfU7HOBOOf9hv8KHgsT/z7l9z/AMhqpDui2m4nr+FTKB2GDVAa lYgcXHP+6f8ACnjVLEjmf80b/CksFif+fcvuYe1h3RdBwcjBz14pC5PynHvVI6rYf8/BwPVD/hSD VbAHib/xxv8ACn9SxP8Az7l9zD2kO6+80MjsKjmHzcfiaqrqlj/z8Y/4C3+FI2p2JG7z+v8AsN/h R9SxP/PuX3P/ACF7WHdEp4PBGfrTjuwc8n1/z+NUzqViMET5/wCAN/hTl1SwHWbk/wCy3+FT9SxP /PuX3MftYd195cPy9TxT0z2wSehxVNdT0/n9/wA9vkP+FSJqdiP+Xgfgjf4VX1HE/wDPuX3MXtYd 0TsO2efegMcYJ5PU1W/tOzU5MwP/AABv8KBqenMCwnK/8AP+FL6jif8An3L7n/kP2sO6LLZAIOPp QQVIyQPwqp/aFjnIuDk/7Df4U7+0bLo0vQf3W/wo+o4n/n3L7n/kHtYd0WwcHaTwelSYyQPu+2ao xapYHrN267G/wofVbENg3BPvtb/Cn9SxP/PuX3P/ACF7WHdF1mC424APtUbEgHp9c1R/tSx6icZ/ 3W/wobU7LBPn/htaj6lif+fcvuf+Qe1h3RPt+Yk56c1LGpBwaoLqdkuB52ST/db/AAp0+rWioVST 8djf4UvqWJ/59v7n/kNVYd0aisAOQMVBdbMb4+PUCskaxaH705P/AAFv8KdJqtmpG2f5j/st/hS+ p4n/AJ9y+5/5B7SHdFsznA5J96ilcuCA5496oS6pZEZWfr/sn/CoP7UtM584/wDfJ/woWCxP/PuX 3P8AyH7SHdfeaB6dDz2pycDGcD0qmup2LAZmIx/sn/CnJqVlnJnGP908fpT+pYn/AJ9y+5h7WHdG jvcpjODSAZGST+BqoNSsmORMf++T/hUy6hZEf6/H/AG/wo+pYn/n3L7n/kL2kO6NLv8Ay5pvBOKQ +2KF+VuQK5iyXAx6Uh4PINLnB6fh6U7GR3+tMQfhTWPU/pQcH04qKRzjCmjYYjEDPTik3jB+YD2q uzf3ifyoI5G7OTU3Atqw9fwzTt2T0/OqSFuSfw5qSMyk4HPrmi4WLYTIHrTSuDzx+FTKSijJB9eK nAWRPnU8HpVBcgSIthsgCrAUdBj8qbtVTz+dOI45HHWgGAUc9MdcU10XBwM+/wDjTkOBk/zp+OMH HTnmnuIgRD7+3NOB4zgflTznZuQE9uvNQBsnOTSAfIRtygx71W6jnt7VaQ7TnjnrUUsR6qBQBGFI HHTvTTjcMdacrEp0P1pSVLcntQA0jLA4GKdt3Y68e1JHgt8oyOnWnyS+WPlwD60AVJrR8ZiHHcVU ubWZAXL4J7E96tPPKep/Wo5X3KOajQq5QMTqc5HHOR1qdPmGG5P0qVU3HBH0qaO3WRd3IYDBo3C5 RKY4/KgSKOB1qeVQg2r29qbDACAxGAe3rQA+At3HHbmroIwMAdKiRAPSnbvcU0xFMW96R/yEPw8l aPs99jA1D8PJFWl45OT6VKF469a6li6naP8A4DH/ACI9mvP72VEtr/A/4mP/AJAWnC31AjH9pj6e QtXY8D/9VKxA+6Bn1p/W6nZf+Ax/yF7Nef3sz5Ib1FIOo9f+mC1DJDeKeb0n/tkKvyEE/Ng1EcMe c4HvR9bqdo/+Ax/yH7Nef3spGC75zec/9chTTDddTe/+QhV7gDOCaaUJOOPyqfrdTtH/AMBj/kP2 a8/vZXS3u24+2j/v0Knjtb0ABdRAyevkipYVKtz+WKvQpxkgYFUsXU7R/wDAY/5C9mvP72UUs9RP A1TH/butSmz1THGrfh9mWtAcAYwR9KAcZYkUfW6nZf8AgMf8hezXn97M77LqOB/xNs+32daUW+o9 9Tz/ANsF/wAavcnPIxSNxwM0fW6naP8A4DH/ACD2a8/vZTFvqBGBqn/kuv8AKnCz1LZzq2f+3dam UjPAGe5zUgznnIXrT+uT7R/8Bj/kHs15/eymttqR66qcf9cFoa1vw5/4mIB7fuFq98vOM8mklJKE ADNDxdTtH/wGP+QvZrz+9ma1vqCZJ1I8dvJWmmPUs8aiVHp5K1oqkjABlH49qinntYCMk5HYUfW5 9l/4DH/Ifs1/TZQNrqZwRqBb/tiKSeK7hB36oN3p5C/406W/mlDJGPLQdNveqZZmJ3Ek460vrdTt H/wGP+Q/ZLz+9iGW9YAG++X0EKj+VRubzAxeHHYlBUiqQvzflTguSeRgdqn65U7R/wDAY/5D9nHz +9ldVv2P/IQP/flakFpeSc/bguOxhFTDgYHWpEfYVDZwaPrdTtH/AMBj/kHs15/eyBLPUCeNUAHr 5C01otSR9o1fk/e/0Za0pPkHGDmoDEWPU0fW6i6R/wDAY/5C9mvP72QGx1Hr/agP1t1oW01Hvqff /ngtaERLDaSdwo5U4/On9bqdo/8AgMf8g9mvP72Uha6gDzqhJ/691oEN4ODf/wDkFatyFuowaTil 9bqdo/8AgMf8g9mvP72QLqlipz5/P+43+FSf2rp2QftH/jjf4VZzwQc0wTYfaMAHvVc+G/kl/wCB L/5ELT7r7v8AgkP9rWAHFwPrsb/CmNq1iG+WbP8AwFv8KuFjk8E02Rj1BJ9qOfDfyS/8CX/yIrT7 r7v+CUTqVmQP331+U/4Uo1Gy/wCe3/jh/wAKtDOCMcj1oPTp9aXNhv5Jf+BL/wCRHafdfd/wSmdR sT/y3+vyn/ClGoWOcef+O1v8KuxjPOBUgAJ4GKObDfyS/wDAl/8AIhafdfd/wSkmo2GMNcfT5D/h VlNX01R/r/8Axxv8KldXVSy/rUYuiDtxjHcinz4b+SX/AIEv/kQtPuvu/wCCDa1pmMfacf8AbNv8 KDremMc/asf9s2/wqaKdX+Yk7u/pTjKzHIHX0o58N/JL/wACX/yIWn3/AA/4JWfWNOIAS4/AI3+F NXVbEj5rgc+it/hVk5wuCetOU54BFPnw38kv/Al/8iFp9193/BKq6rYYy1xj/tm3+FH9r2BGfP8A /HG/wq2JB1HzexpBKcEAd/Sjnw38kv8AwJf/ACIrT7r7v+CVxq2nhsC4OfXY3+FOfV9PAJMhY+mw /wCFTE5J54xzVGaU+Zn1HTNHPhv5Jf8AgS/+RC0+6+7/AII19Zt5Nw89uf8AZPH6VXmvLFmyZct6 lT/hT5M7vvA/SiKQqGDZJ9annw38kv8AwJf/ACI+Wfdfd/wSoLy2B4m3f8BP+FJ9rtsf63n/AHT/ AIVf3En/AOtTcAnnBo58N/JL/wACX/yI7T7r7v8AglNL22ztaQY7fKf8Ke17aKMmU491P+FXETn0 zSouR6ilz4b+SX/gS/8AkQtPuvu/4JQGpWGeZ8/8Ab/CnNqGng4abH/AW/wrTRMAngZ71IUXoABT 5sN/I/8AwJf/ACIvf7r7v+CZS6rpoGDc59Pkb/Cl/trSxx9qP/ftv8K0gu3k0uCQOmaObDfyS/8A Al/8iFp9193/AATPh1rSwebj8djf4Ur6xph5W5/8cb/CryE7zk/Spcbh7UKWG/kl/wCBL/5EGp91 93/BMpdVsD0uP/HG/wAKeNRscDE598I3+FaRjOOnWmFccDIo5sN/JL/wJf8AyIWn3X3f8EG+6fpV J/8AW/hRRXMy0WlJ8r8KUdvxoooBDX60pJwfrRRQwQqcZx61KvUe5oopoZK33MdsVQmAAGAKKKlg OPGPrU6/dH0NFFCAaScih/6UUUxCJ2pVJyeT96iigOg9+FfFZy/fP1oopsEMb7opo+830oopDJ4e QPrSqBk8UUUgF7L9alTv9aKKEDJB0p1FFUIU0jdR9KKKBLcYAN9Tr90/Wiikhsl7VC3WiimI/9k= ------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C287FF.D1A97870-- From VM Mon Nov 11 10:58:06 2002 Content-Length: 2430 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2430" "Saturday" "9" "November" "2002" "22:33:22" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "88" "Re: starship-design: Scrap The Shuttle Program" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAA3XY3D012410 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 19:33:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAA3XY5H012409 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 19:33:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAA3XW3D012393 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 19:33:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.bf.298a40a1 (14374); Sat, 9 Nov 2002 22:33:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Scrap The Shuttle Program Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 22:33:22 EST The guy had some good points up until he got to nonsence like below. The shuttles expensive because it was never made to be affordable and easy/cheap to maintain, and it flys too seldom to cover its support costs. Curing eiather doesn't require new technology -- much exotics this laglev lauchers and such. Hell they are likely to raise costs further. Problem is no one want to invest the money for better cheaper launchers, without some serious market on the other end. And one thing NASA adamently proved with the X-33 program, was that they did NOT want a new cheap launcher that wouldn't require a fraction of the support staff they now have. It would gut NASA staf size and budget, and hence political support. It would also likely allow comercial companies to do launches with their own launchers - without needing a big expensive Kennedy space center, and NASA, to do it. Kelly In a message dated 11/9/02 3:55:52 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > >Imagine what could happen if the $4 billion a year and 30,000 shuttle > >experts were diverted to R&D? Imagine the panic at NASA after cancellation > >of the shuttle program shatters their comfortable academic climate and > >everyone realizes that a superior method must be developed fast, lest > >Congress deems them inept and cuts funding. > > > > > > > >Innovative ideas like maglev launch, nuclear engines, and the space elevator > >require major funding. Some top level physicists now agree that anti-gravity > >devices like the 512kV rotator can reduce the effects of gravity by spinning > >electrons, but they can't secure funding for research. > > > > > > > >Plans for pneumatic assisted launch have been around for years, but never > >funded. A large rail launch demonstrator requires a billion dollars, or > >funds for just two shuttle missions. NASA may soon cancel the promising > >VARISM plasma engine research project citing a lack of funds. > > > ====== >You can't just make a bigger spacecraft because that requires bigger wings, > >landing gear and engines. So the only way a reusable rocket powered > >spacecraft can work is with a ground assist launch to Mach 1-2 up a > >mountainside. This is possible today, as the Sky Ramp Technology website > >explains. However, funding for Sky Ramps and new technologies will remain > >tight so long as the shuttle program consumes the attention and funding >at > >NASA. > > > > > > > >Lee From VM Mon Nov 11 10:58:06 2002 Content-Length: 2593 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2593" "Saturday" "9" "November" "2002" "20:05:57" "-0800" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" nil "29" "starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAA45w3D021966 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 20:05:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAA45wfS021965 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 20:05:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from web13605.mail.yahoo.com (web13605.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.116]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id gAA45v3D021954 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 20:05:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20021110040557.22437.qmail@web13605.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [206.148.92.226] by web13605.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 09 Nov 2002 20:05:57 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1645096475-1036901157=:22368" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 20:05:57 -0800 (PST) --0-1645096475-1036901157=:22368 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lee went into some detail about how NASA's percentage of all launches keeps getting smaller. To me, this looks like a function of the number of countries and corporations wanting to put communications satellites in orbit -- I'm guessing that they find it cheaper and quicker than they could get the service from NASA, and without the extra red tape as well. He also seems to disparage the Russians for selling astronaut tickets to a few rich folks who just want an exotic vacation trip. Hey, more power to 'em! The Russian economy is a mess, and by some accounts, their government went straight from Communism to Mafia, so if this is a way for them to fund some space work, why not? True, they haven't been pulling their weight with the ISS, but again, their economy . . . well, they're still fighting Chechens. Who wants to bet that NASA won't get shaved a bit to make room in the billfold for kicking Sadam's ass? Cruise missiles are $1M each, last I heard. Bottom line of all this is -- FOLLOW THE MONEY! Keep looking up, Curtis --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD --0-1645096475-1036901157=:22368 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Lee went into some detail about how NASA's percentage of all launches keeps getting smaller. To me, this looks like a function of the number of countries and corporations wanting to put communications satellites in orbit -- I'm guessing that they find it cheaper and quicker than they could get the service from NASA, and without the extra red tape as well.

He also seems to disparage the Russians for selling astronaut tickets to a few rich folks who just want an exotic vacation trip. Hey, more power to 'em! The Russian economy is a mess, and by some accounts, their government went straight from Communism to Mafia, so if this is a way for them to fund some space work, why not? True, they haven't been pulling their weight with the ISS, but again, their economy . . . well, they're still fighting Chechens. Who wants to bet that NASA won't get shaved a bit to make room in the billfold for kicking Sadam's ass? Cruise missiles are $1M each, last I heard.

Bottom line of all this is -- FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Keep looking up,

Curtis


Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD --0-1645096475-1036901157=:22368-- From VM Mon Nov 11 10:58:06 2002 Content-Length: 5818 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5818" "Saturday" "9" "November" "2002" "22:52:50" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "145" "RE: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAA4rU3D005139 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 20:53:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAA4rUU8005125 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 20:53:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAA4rQ3D005110 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 20:53:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18Ak69-0000MA-00; Sat, 09 Nov 2002 20:53:26 -0800 Message-ID: <00d401c28875$08798cd0$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D5_01C28842.BDDF1CD0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20021110040557.22437.qmail@web13605.mail.yahoo.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Curtis Manges'" , "'starship-design'" Subject: RE: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 22:52:50 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00D5_01C28842.BDDF1CD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, to start with, it wasn't my point to make, it was a news article written by someone else, I just posted it to the group, Second, if I remember correctly, growth in the space launch business was practically flat this year. For my part, I would be happy to see NASA out of the Space Launch business entirely. I can see valid reaons for DOD to retain indigenous launch capability, but NASA needs to be out of the launch business. Lee -----Original Message----- From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Curtis Manges Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 10:06 PM To: starship-design Subject: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle Lee went into some detail about how NASA's percentage of all launches keeps getting smaller. To me, this looks like a function of the number of countries and corporations wanting to put communications satellites in orbit -- I'm guessing that they find it cheaper and quicker than they could get the service from NASA, and without the extra red tape as well. He also seems to disparage the Russians for selling astronaut tickets to a few rich folks who just want an exotic vacation trip. Hey, more power to 'em! The Russian economy is a mess, and by some accounts, their government went straight from Communism to Mafia, so if this is a way for them to fund some space work, why not? True, they haven't been pulling their weight with the ISS, but again, their economy . . . well, they're still fighting Chechens. Who wants to bet that NASA won't get shaved a bit to make room in the billfold for kicking Sadam's ass? Cruise missiles are $1M each, last I heard. Bottom line of all this is -- FOLLOW THE MONEY! Keep looking up, Curtis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD ------=_NextPart_000_00D5_01C28842.BDDF1CD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well, to start with, it wasn't my point to = make, it was=20 a news article written by someone else, I just posted it to the=20 group,
 
Second, if I remember correctly, growth in = the space=20 launch business was practically flat this=20 year.
 
For my part, I would be happy to see NASA out = of the=20 Space Launch business entirely. I can see valid reaons for DOD to retain = indigenous launch capability, but NASA needs to be out of the launch=20 business.
 
Lee
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu=20 [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of = Curtis=20 Manges
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 10:06 = PM
To:=20 starship-design
Subject: starship-design: re: scrap the=20 shuttle

Lee went into some detail about how NASA's percentage of all = launches keeps=20 getting smaller. To me, this looks like a function of the = number of=20 countries and corporations wanting to put communications satellites in = orbit=20 -- I'm guessing that they find it cheaper and quicker than they could = get the=20 service from NASA, and without the extra red tape as well.

He also seems to disparage the Russians for selling astronaut = tickets to a=20 few rich folks who just want an exotic vacation trip. Hey, more power = to 'em!=20 The Russian economy is a mess, and by some accounts, their government = went=20 straight from Communism to Mafia, so if this is a way for them to fund = some=20 space work, why not? True, they haven't been pulling their weight with = the=20 ISS, but again, their economy . . . well, they're still fighting = Chechens. Who=20 wants to bet that NASA won't get shaved a bit to make room in the = billfold for=20 kicking Sadam's ass? Cruise missiles are $1M each, last I heard.

Bottom line of all this is -- FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Keep looking up,

Curtis


Do you Yahoo!?
U= 2 on=20 LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits=20 CD ------=_NextPart_000_00D5_01C28842.BDDF1CD0-- From VM Mon Nov 11 10:58:08 2002 Content-Length: 1635 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1635" "Sunday" "10" "November" "2002" "12:00:45" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "46" "Re: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAH123D008647 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:01:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAAH12pN008646 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:01:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m09.mx.aol.com (imo-m09.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.164]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAH103D008622 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:01:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.168.16e2cd39 (17079); Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:00:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <168.16e2cd39.2affeabd@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: clmanges@yahoo.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:00:45 EST In a message dated 11/9/02 11:06:44 PM, clmanges@yahoo.com writes: >Lee went into some detail about how NASA's percentage of all launches keeps >getting smaller. To me, this looks like a function of the number of countries >and corporations wanting to put communications satellites in orbit -- I'm >guessing that they find it cheaper and quicker than they could get the >service from NASA, and without the extra red tape as well. Course the question really is, why have we no competative launch services. Likely its just NASA preserving turf, and not wanting to fund research to unseat themselves. A better question is how to start a industry big enough to attrack commercials enough to shove NASA out of the way. >He also seems to disparage the Russians for selling astronaut tickets to >a few rich folks who just want an exotic vacation trip. Hey, more power >to 'em! The Russian economy is a mess, and by some accounts, their government >went straight from Communism to Mafia, so if this is a way for them to >fund some space work, why not? True, they haven't been pulling their weight >with the ISS, but again, their economy . . . well, they're still fighting >Chechens. Who wants to bet that NASA won't get shaved a bit to make room >in the billfold for kicking Sadam's ass? Cruise missiles are $1M each, >last I heard. > >Bottom line of all this is -- FOLLOW THE MONEY! NASA is a government agency. Cost means nothing, politics means everything. Also the NASA's budgets to small to mater. Dept of Ag spends moer then that keeping food of the market to keep up prices. ;) > >Keep looking up, > >Curtis Kelly From VM Mon Nov 11 10:58:08 2002 Content-Length: 335 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["335" "Sunday" "10" "November" "2002" "12:00:47" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "10" "Re: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAH1Z3D008819 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:01:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAAH1ZDP008818 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:01:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m10.mx.aol.com (imo-m10.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.165]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAH1X3D008775 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:01:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.21.2719d854 (17079); Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:00:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <21.2719d854.2affeabf@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, clmanges@yahoo.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:00:47 EST In a message dated 11/9/02 11:54:29 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >For my part, I would be happy to see NASA out of the Space Launch business >entirely. I can see valid reaons for DOD to retain indigenous launch >capability, but NASA needs to be out of the launch business. > >Lee Oh hell yeah! Give it to fed Ex or something. From VM Mon Nov 11 10:58:08 2002 Content-Length: 707 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["707" "Sunday" "10" "November" "2002" "12:48:21" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "24" "RE: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAImt3D009257 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:48:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAAIms5s009256 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:48:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAIms3D009250 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:48:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18Ax8e-0003n7-00; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:48:53 -0800 Message-ID: <00f301c288e9$be5627b0$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <21.2719d854.2affeabf@aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , , Subject: RE: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:48:21 -0600 Careful, if they hear you, it will end up in the hands of the US Postal Service... Lee > -----Original Message----- > From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 11:01 AM > To: lparker@cacaphony.net; clmanges@yahoo.com; > starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle > > > > In a message dated 11/9/02 11:54:29 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > >For my part, I would be happy to see NASA out of the Space > Launch business > >entirely. I can see valid reaons for DOD to retain indigenous launch > >capability, but NASA needs to be out of the launch business. > > > >Lee > > Oh hell yeah! Give it to fed Ex or something. From VM Mon Nov 11 10:58:08 2002 Content-Length: 641 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["641" "Sunday" "10" "November" "2002" "12:54:46" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "starship-design: Cheap Access to Space" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAItJ3D010596 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:55:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAAItJko010595 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:55:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAItI3D010590 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:55:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18AxEs-0003hu-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 10:55:18 -0800 Message-ID: <00f901c288ea$a4324d40$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design List \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Cheap Access to Space Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:54:46 -0600 What I don't understand, is that if anyone REALLY wants the X-prize and intends on doing anything with the hardware after they win (or even if they don't), why don't they but the rights to the DC-X? It was FLYING. It is closer than anything else out there to managing SSTO, quick turn around and minimal ground crew. Heck, even during testing the ENTIRE ground crew, monitoring crew and engineers on site were less than a tenth of a typical shuttle launch. Worse if you factor in all of the people involved in refurbing the shuttles between trips Lee The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do. - B.F. Skinner From VM Mon Nov 11 10:58:08 2002 Content-Length: 859 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["859" "Sunday" "10" "November" "2002" "15:10:41" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAKBW3D005902 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:11:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAAKBWhs005901 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:11:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAKBV3D005875 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:11:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.190.106747c3 (3657); Sun, 10 Nov 2002 15:10:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <190.106747c3.2b001741@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com, clmanges@yahoo.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 15:10:41 EST That would be NASA's hope. With them as the USPS. ;) In a message dated 11/10/02 1:49:09 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Careful, if they hear you, it will end up in the hands of the US Postal >Service... > >Lee > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] >> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 11:01 AM >> To: lparker@cacaphony.net; clmanges@yahoo.com; >> starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu >> Subject: Re: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle >> >> >> >> In a message dated 11/9/02 11:54:29 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> >> >For my part, I would be happy to see NASA out of the Space >> Launch business >> >entirely. I can see valid reaons for DOD to retain indigenous launch >> >capability, but NASA needs to be out of the launch business. >> > >> >Lee >> >> Oh hell yeah! Give it to fed Ex or something. From VM Mon Nov 11 10:58:09 2002 Content-Length: 964 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["964" "Sunday" "10" "November" "2002" "15:14:17" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "30" "Re: starship-design: Cheap Access to Space" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAKEU3D006594 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:14:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAAKETvl006593 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:14:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAKES3D006548 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:14:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.117.1a82bd35 (3657); Sun, 10 Nov 2002 15:14:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <117.1a82bd35.2b001819@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Cheap Access to Space Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 15:14:17 EST In a message dated 11/10/02 1:56:11 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >What I don't understand, is that if anyone REALLY wants the X-prize and >intends on doing anything with the hardware after they win (or even if >they don't), why don't they but the rights to the DC-X? > >It was FLYING. But it was a long way from orbital ops. And Boeing likely wouldn't sell. ;) >It is closer than anything else out there to managing SSTO, quick turn >around and minimal ground crew. Heck, even during testing the ENTIRE ground >crew, monitoring crew and engineers on site were less than a tenth of a >typical shuttle launch. Worse if you factor in all of the people involved >in refurbing the shuttles between trips > > >Lee Actually it was closer to a thousanth those durring a shuttle flight. The estimates were a full production DC-X like SSTO would take 100 -200 man days of labor to turn around between flights. Suttle takes over a thousand man years!!! From VM Mon Nov 11 10:58:09 2002 Content-Length: 1307 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1307" "Sunday" "10" "November" "2002" "14:51:36" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "47" "RE: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAKqA3D019013 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAAKqAPg019012 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAKqA3D019007 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18Az3w-0000NZ-00; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:52:09 -0800 Message-ID: <00fb01c288fa$f6ab05c0$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <190.106747c3.2b001741@aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , , Subject: RE: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 14:51:36 -0600 Nah, the USPS at least tries to make a profit, their just inept. NASA is both inept and stupid... Lee > -----Original Message----- > From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 2:11 PM > To: lparker@cacaphony.net; KellySt@aol.com; clmanges@yahoo.com; > starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle > > > That would be NASA's hope. With them as the USPS. > > ;) > > > In a message dated 11/10/02 1:49:09 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > >Careful, if they hear you, it will end up in the hands of > the US Postal > >Service... > > > >Lee > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > >> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 11:01 AM > >> To: lparker@cacaphony.net; clmanges@yahoo.com; > >> starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > >> Subject: Re: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle > >> > >> > >> > >> In a message dated 11/9/02 11:54:29 PM, > lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > >> > >> >For my part, I would be happy to see NASA out of the Space > >> Launch business > >> >entirely. I can see valid reaons for DOD to retain > indigenous launch > >> >capability, but NASA needs to be out of the launch business. > >> > > >> >Lee > >> > >> Oh hell yeah! Give it to fed Ex or something. From VM Mon Nov 11 10:58:09 2002 Content-Length: 1084 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1084" "Sunday" "10" "November" "2002" "14:57:23" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "35" "RE: starship-design: Cheap Access to Space" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAKvu3D021490 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:57:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAAKvu1R021489 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:57:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAAKvt3D021483 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:57:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18Az9W-0007JG-00; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:57:54 -0800 Message-ID: <00fc01c288fb$c4d5ccf0$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <117.1a82bd35.2b001819@aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: starship-design: Cheap Access to Space Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 14:57:23 -0600 > -----Original Message----- > From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 2:14 PM > To: lparker@cacaphony.net; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: Cheap Access to Space > > > >It was FLYING. > > But it was a long way from orbital ops. And Boeing likely > wouldn't sell. It was part (actually, the first) of the DC series and was never meant to actually reach orbit. Nevertheless, it was under budget, on time and showed actual promise of becoming a real system someday. Its only problem was that it wasn't sexy. OBTW, McDonnell Douglas was the contractor and not surprisingly, it was managed by the Air Force at first. > Actually it was closer to a thousanth those durring a shuttle > flight. > > The estimates were a full production DC-X like SSTO would > take 100 -200 man > days of labor to turn around between flights. Suttle takes > over a thousand > man years!!! The DC-XA performed a 24 turn around between flights just before it was cancelled. They must have pulled one heck of an all nighter! Lee From VM Mon Nov 11 10:58:09 2002 Content-Length: 1382 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1382" "Sunday" "10" "November" "2002" "21:22:41" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "47" "Re: starship-design: Cheap Access to Space" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAB2Mq3D022180 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:22:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAB2MpsO022179 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:22:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAB2Mo3D022154 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:22:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.10.281ed5ff (25098); Sun, 10 Nov 2002 21:22:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <10.281ed5ff.2b006e71@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Cheap Access to Space Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 21:22:41 EST In a message dated 11/10/02 3:58:55 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> >It was FLYING. >> >> But it was a long way from orbital ops. And Boeing likely >> wouldn't sell. > >It was part (actually, the first) of the DC series and was never meant >to >actually reach orbit. Nevertheless, it was under budget, on time and showed >actual promise of becoming a real system someday. Its only problem was >that >it wasn't sexy. OBTW, McDonnell Douglas was the contractor and not >surprisingly, it was managed by the Air Force at first. I know. I knew folks on the project. McDonnell Douglas was forced toi murge with Boeing. I.E. Boeing, who never liked the idea, now controls all of the DC-X data. McDonnell Douglas estimated they could get production DC-3 (productino SSTO cargo craft) rolling off a assembly line in 3 years and $3 billion. But thats way to much for a X prize contestant to come up with. >> Actually it was closer to a thousanth those durring a shuttle >> flight. >> >> The estimates were a full production DC-X like SSTO would >> take 100 -200 man >> days of labor to turn around between flights. Suttle takes >> over a thousand >> man years!!! > >The DC-XA performed a 24 turn around between flights just before it was >cancelled. They must have pulled one heck of an all nighter! > >Lee Hey, its still hell of a lot better then shuttle. ;) Kelly From VM Mon Nov 11 10:58:09 2002 Content-Length: 271 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["271" "Sunday" "10" "November" "2002" "21:22:58" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "11" "Re: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAB2NA3D022260 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:23:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAB2NA7V022259 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:23:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.103]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAB2N93D022237 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:23:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.160.16d0c65a (25098); Sun, 10 Nov 2002 21:22:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <160.16d0c65a.2b006e82@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, KellySt@aol.com, clmanges@yahoo.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: re: scrap the shuttle Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 21:22:58 EST In a message dated 11/10/02 3:53:14 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Nah, the USPS at least tries to make a profit, their just inept. NASA is >both inept and stupid... > >Lee Why would eiather care if they make a profit? Its not like they get to keep any of it. From VM Thu Nov 14 15:49:39 2002 Content-Length: 29184 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["29184" "Thursday" "14" "November" "2002" "17:36:37" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "575" "starship-design: NASA wants space plane, new shuttle" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAENbItD015117 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:37:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAENbIUJ015115 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:37:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAENbGtD015105 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:37:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18CTXu-0007f2-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:37:14 -0800 Message-ID: <002301c28c36$ad4ad380$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0024_01C28C04.62B06380" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design List \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: NASA wants space plane, new shuttle Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:36:37 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C28C04.62B06380 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0025_01C28C04.62B06380" ------=_NextPart_001_0025_01C28C04.62B06380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Legal Pad StationeryNASA wants space plane, new shuttle Thursday, November 14, 2002 Posted: 1:39 PM EST (1839 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- NASA is proposing to spend $2.4 billion over the next four years to design a new orbital space plane to ferry astronauts between Earth and the International Space Station. In an amendment to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's proposed 2003 budget, agency officials for the first time set a firm figure of $6.6 billion for completing assembly of the basic orbiting space station. That would bring the U.S. share of the international project to less than $25 billion, officials said. The precise cost of the space station, a project started during the Reagan administration, has been an unsettled issue for years between NASA and Congress. After the agency announced last year that it faced cost overruns that could reach more than $600 million, Congress put a $25 billion cap on the project. Sean O'Keefe, a former federal budget officer, was named NASA administrator in January with specific instructions from the White House to define and control the costs of the space station and other NASA programs. The core components of the plan In the budget amendment proposal, O'Keefe describes what he calls a "new integrated space transportation plan" that would complete the core components of the space station by 2004; extend the life of the aging space shuttle fleet; complete design of a new orbital space plane; and continue development of a new, reusable spacecraft and launch system to replace the shuttle. He said the amendment would not add to the proposed NASA 2003 budget of $15 billion, but would redirect some funds. O'Keefe said his plan inserts a "systemic approach" into NASA's space transportation activities, instead of having each element of space transportation acting as a separate program. "All of the elements have a relationship to each other," O'Keefe said. Break down the costs The budget amendment calls for spending: • $1.6 billion to upgrade and improve the four-vehicle space shuttle fleet so it could operate until about 2012. The plan leaves open an option of extending shuttle usage into the 2020s. • $15.2 billion over the next decade or so to add a fifth shuttle flight to the annual schedule. The shuttle has been limited by budget constraints to four flights a year and nearly all have been dedicated to assembly of the space station. The added flight could be used to accelerate station assembly or to perform other missions that are not now possible. • $6.6 billion through 2006 to finish the basic assembly of the space station. This includes completion and installation by February 19, 2004, of Node 2, a U.S.-made cornerstone component to which European and Japanese components will be attached. "Node 2 completion is a big deal for us," said O'Keefe. • $1.8 billion to support biological and physical research aboard the space station. • $2.4 billion to research and develop technologies needed to build a new space system to replace the shuttle. This money would continue a long-range effort to develop a reusable craft that could frequently fly into orbit with less preparation and effort than is required for the space shuttle. O'Keefe would not estimate the final cost of such a craft, but a chart released by the agency suggested it would first fly in 2015. • $2.4 billion to complete by 2004 the design of a new space plane that is intended specifically to ferry people in and out of space. O'Keefe said the design is still uncertain, but it would be a reusable spacecraft launched by expendable rockets. It could carry as many as 10 people. The plan calls for the craft to start operations sometime between 2008 and 2010. Some members of Congress have complained that the space station crew size has been limited to three, the maximum number that could crowd into the Russian Soyuz, an evacuation craft attached to the station as a safety measure. Since maintaining and operating the station requires almost the full-time efforts of the three-member crew, some in Congress say little science has been performed in the multibillion-dollar orbiting laboratory. An independent space plane could allow more people to live on the station and conduct more research. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Lee Once I knew where I was going, but now I have forgotten. Sometimes my mind wanders. Sometimes it goes alone, and other times it takes me along...this isn't one of those times... ------=_NextPart_001_0025_01C28C04.62B06380 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Legal Pad Stationery

NASA wants space plane, new shuttle

 

Thursday, November 14, 2002 Posted: 1:39 PM = EST (1839=20 GMT)


 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- NASA is proposing to spend $2.4 billion over = the next=20 four years to design a new orbital space plane to ferry astronauts = between Earth=20 and the International Space Station.

 

In an amendment to the National Aeronautics and Space = Administration's=20 proposed 2003 budget, agency officials for the first time set a firm = figure of=20 $6.6 billion for completing assembly of the basic orbiting space = station. That=20 would bring the U.S. share of the international project to less than $25 = billion, officials said.

 

The precise cost of the space station, a project started during the = Reagan=20 administration, has been an unsettled issue for years between NASA and = Congress.=20 After the agency announced last year that it faced cost overruns that = could=20 reach more than $600 million, Congress put a $25 billion cap on the = project.=20

 

Sean O'Keefe, a former federal budget officer, was named NASA = administrator=20 in January with specific instructions from the White House to define and = control=20 the costs of the space station and other NASA programs.

 

The core components of the plan

 

In the budget amendment proposal, O'Keefe describes what he calls a = "new=20 integrated space transportation plan" that would complete the core = components of=20 the space station by 2004; extend the life of the aging space shuttle = fleet;=20 complete design of a new orbital space plane; and continue development = of a new,=20 reusable spacecraft and launch system to replace the shuttle.

 

He said the amendment would not add to the proposed NASA 2003 budget = of $15=20 billion, but would redirect some funds.

 

O'Keefe said his plan inserts a "systemic approach" into NASA's space = transportation activities, instead of having each element of space=20 transportation acting as a separate program.

 

"All of the elements have a relationship to each other," O'Keefe = said.

 

Break down the costs

 

The budget amendment calls for spending:

 

* $1.6 billion to upgrade and improve = the=20 four-vehicle space shuttle fleet so it could operate until about 2012. = The plan=20 leaves open an option of extending shuttle usage into the 2020s. =

 

* $15.2 billion over the next decade = or so to=20 add a fifth shuttle flight to the annual schedule. The shuttle has been = limited=20 by budget constraints to four flights a year and nearly all have been = dedicated=20 to assembly of the space station. The added flight could be used to = accelerate=20 station assembly or to perform other missions that are not now = possible.=20

 

* $6.6 billion through 2006 to finish = the basic=20 assembly of the space station. This includes completion and installation = by=20 February 19, 2004, of Node 2, a U.S.-made cornerstone component to which = European and Japanese components will be attached. "Node 2 completion is = a big=20 deal for us," said O'Keefe.

 

* $1.8 billion to support biological = and=20 physical research aboard the space station.

 

* $2.4 billion to research and develop = technologies needed to build a new space system to replace the shuttle. = This=20 money would continue a long-range effort to develop a reusable craft = that could=20 frequently fly into orbit with less preparation and effort than is = required for=20 the space shuttle. O'Keefe would not estimate the final cost of such a = craft,=20 but a chart released by the agency suggested it would first fly in = 2015.=20

 

* $2.4 billion to complete by 2004 the = design of=20 a new space plane that is intended specifically to ferry people in and = out of=20 space. O'Keefe said the design is still uncertain, but it would be a = reusable=20 spacecraft launched by expendable rockets. It could carry as many as 10 = people.=20 The plan calls for the craft to start operations sometime between 2008 = and=20 2010.

 

Some members of Congress have complained that the space station crew = size has=20 been limited to three, the maximum number that could crowd into the = Russian=20 Soyuz, an evacuation craft attached to the station as a safety measure. = Since=20 maintaining and operating the station requires almost the full-time = efforts of=20 the three-member crew, some in Congress say little science has been = performed in=20 the multibillion-dollar orbiting laboratory. An independent space plane = could=20 allow more people to live on the station and conduct more research.

 


Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This = material=20 may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
 
 
 
Lee
 
Once I knew where I was going, = but now I=20 have  forgotten.  Sometimes my mind wanders.  = Sometimes it=20 goes alone, and other times it takes me along...this isn't one of those=20 times...
 
------=_NextPart_001_0025_01C28C04.62B06380-- ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C28C04.62B06380 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="legalpad.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <046103523@14112002-13a7> /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEBCgEKAAD/2wBDAAUDBAQEAwUEBAQFBQUGBwwIBwcHBw8LCwkMEQ8SEhEP ERETFhwXExQaFRERGCEYGh0dHx8fExciJCIeJBweHx7/2wBDAQUFBQcGBw4ICA4eFBEUHh4eHh4e Hh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh7/wAARCADyAP0DASIA AhEBAxEB/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAAAgEDAwIEAwUFBAQA AAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1FhByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkKFhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3 ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZWmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWm p6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/8QAHwEA AwEBAQEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtREAAgECBAQDBAcFBAQAAQJ3AAECAxEEBSEx BhJBUQdhcRMiMoEIFEKRobHBCSMzUvAVYnLRChYkNOEl8RcYGRomJygpKjU2Nzg5OkNERUZHSElK U1RVVldYWVpjZGVmZ2hpanN0dXZ3eHl6goOEhYaHiImKkpOUlZaXmJmaoqOkpaanqKmqsrO0tba3 uLm6wsPExcbHyMnK0tPU1dbX2Nna4uPk5ebn6Onq8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwD6N4Lc 49+KZIFxuUHB9qrm3vMki9+v7kUpgvQuDf8A4eSK/M/q9P8A5+r7pf8AyJ3c7/lf4f5goKSA/wBK soxAy2TVM216vW8/HyhTora+fj7ftB65hFSsPT/5+x+6X/yI+d/yv8P8y6JDwFwfxqQF84IAxVVL K7TBGogZ/wCmA/xpXtr9M/8AEy3Y/wCmK1X1en/z9j/5N/8AIi53/K/w/wAy2Scen40u8bcDn8az Sl8RzqI9v3K0eTfZz/aAx6+SKPYU/wDn7H/yb/5EOd/yv8P8y878dcetRNIdvJ/CqhhvOM3v/kIU htrvH/H7/wCQhS9hT/5+x/8AJv8A5EOZ/wAr/D/MklXzQVI57HNV9uOtP+y3p+Zb8/XyhTHt7sHL XvT/AKZCpeHp/wDP2P3S/wDkRqb/AJX+H+Y4I24dBTwnzY55qFYbjAb7Wf8Av0KeIbkY/wBLH18s UfV6f/P2P/k3/wAiHO/5X+H+ZLkISRinGXYOdxJ9+lQNDcYx9r5/65iq7xzICDc5z/sCj6vT/wCf sful/wDIhzv+V/h/mTPdsTwpIHTJp8d6r/u3UK3YZqkIn6mX8NopGgkJ3A9+uKfsaf8Az9j/AOTf /IhzP+V/h/maypuGQ2R6VIE5zxgVmJBdE7WuDjthRVwwXuQv23aOw8oYpqhT/wCfsful/wDIi5n/ ACv8P8yYxhjng+1SJCuct1qstpfY/wCP8f8Afhaf9kvsc6iP+/Io+r0/+fsf/Jv/AJEOd/yv8P8A MtBQOmTR0PbmqnkX6nI1Lj/rgtMeG9Iz/aRB9fJWn7Cn/wA/Y/8Ak3/yIc7/AJX+H+ZaIwOc0gHz YGfzqoLXUW/5i34eQtK1nqBb5dSAwP8AngvNL6vD/n4v/Jv/AJEOd9vy/wAzSi4HIFOB46VlC11L r/a2P+3df8acLTVG4/tvp/06r/jT9hT/AOfsf/Jv/kRcz7P8P8zUwCc5P0zSBuM9qzls9VI/5DP4 /ZV/xoFnqY4Osf8Aksv+NHsKf/Pxf+Tf/IhzPt+X+ZoMTjOD+FRM2D1qqbXUUTnVyc9vs61H5N73 1An6QrR7Cn/z9X/k3/yIcz/lf4f5k5ORj86kXPH8VZo1SxBz5+f+At/hT21e0K48/H/AD/hR9SxP /PuX3MftYd195dJHcA/jRv3EAVmvqVmeDP8A+OH/AApU1KzUf8fH/jrf4UlgsT/z7l9zD2sO6NFp fUnjpUbyH+7iqJ1OxA/1+f8AgLf4Uo1SwI4n/wDHT/hR9SxP/PuX3MPaQ7otbsDkkfQU9WPIz9M1 nvqNmBnz/wDx0/4U0anZqxJm/Ha3+FL6lif+fcvuY/aw7o1A3ODjI74o6kjJ5rNGq2YABn/Eq3+F PXU7EjPn/wDjp/wp/UsT/wA+5fc/8he1h3RePGO9NcnOMD3NUxqtkB/r8jP9w/4Up1OwkHyzAEei n/Cj6lif+fcvuf8AkHtYd0THP94e1PRxna3DdzVE6nZDH7/Gf9g/4Uf2lZEf6781P+FT9SxP/PuX 3MftId0W5DggjIz2xTJUJPyj/wCvVY6nZYyZjkH+6f8ACmjUbJsnzySe20/4UfUsT/z7l9zD2sP5 kSqCSCcDPXircMQI57dhVOC8slzun/8AHD/hVoanp4Xb53/jh/wo+o4n/n3L7mDqw7otrGAjBePT 3p1urMu0k/lVeHUbDOWuDx22N/hTbjWrAHy1n2t1zsb/AAqvqOJ/59y+5i9rDui6W5KknjjANRGR gThuO9Z51ayV8+dn22n/AAoGp2bH/XAn/cP+FDwWJ/59y+5/5B7SHdF/ewAGDn3FIjMzfNkA1S/t Oyz/AK8/QqcfypyalZk4M2Mc/db/AApfUsT/AM+5fcw9rDui8eBxjnvRljwSfaqf9qWJAbzx+Ct/ hThqVj/z8D8Vb/Cj6lif+fcvuYe1h3RbPJ96VTjpzmqZ1SxU/wDHx9Plb/CkbVbDOBOP++G/wp/U sT/z7l9zD2kO6+80UbI5zSnpxWeuq2AP+v5/3D/hR/a1iFyLj6fKf8Kf1LE/8+5fc/8AIPaQ7otT NlsLxzUXPp+tVBqtkTkzEEeiHn9KjOqWQJxPn/gJ/wAKX1LE/wDPuX3P/IPaQ7ot59cUDI470wgA 4BPrT1YZxg1zGg4HgHAqJ3y3uPSnSScbVI+tRKcuF6k0gE35br9acpIz703ad/zKQAfTrSsFzweT 70AKxOAw6+tIeTnnHbmkRsfKR+tBYMMNikAhJJ78+lA8xTvLkY6DFIGGcf1pCSWwcgUATFC2Cp4/ lSkFSqluTTYZeQCMH3qaUZwcHjp70AQuQTjPT2pS2ADj681J5RfGcbu2TUZjf7v8Y7GgAiQu20fi aspGo4GR709I1gjI6ZGSTUZuEU7VGT9aYiUoAcDFKGjUlm+Zv7o7VWDSk5cjHbikZiO+KLgSTzsw brjtzUT5ZAwALKcZqPORkEHnk0+KTLGLI+YYBpDF3BmyOg4px4Pp7A1UG9HI5PHSmxTqCAAcnk0B Ysu+WyMhh2pyyEjdk5qEb2YsueeopDHIrYO4Y6UAWATjrx3peAThj9fSolI64BoJJXn8qYE5l3Jx n8aQMSaiRgRg5z9akXjigBQxBwfx5pHkJ49OtIzjbnHT1qFpASRzSAkEgPYjFGB6/rUAfDdKkVhj r+dO4EEVte4x/aA/78rT2s74A/8AEwAz6Qir+V3BuPwpGB3Z5FdX1ufaP/gMf8jP2a8/vf8AmZq2 18o2m/B/7YrSLbXvX+0MY/6YitB0DAc/jTGHGenqKX1up2j/AOAx/wAh+zXn97/zKklteYAXUPzh FQy2eoA5+3Zx38oVpBTjO0c0hVs7cgZp/W6naP8A4DH/ACDkXn97/wAzINtfA5N7gnr+5FRtBebt v2//AMhCtorkdqFtd3JUHmj61U7R/wDAY/5ByLz+9mOkF8D/AMf5z6+UKnaK/C7ftwP/AGxWtGW2 whKY+neqvzI4Ei8Hpk0vrdTtH/wGP+Qckf6b/wAzPZL1SGF9j/tkKt24vXGf7QwQO8K0+aI4yMH6 VEsgiYF2G2l9bqdo/wDgMf8AIfs15/eyZ4b0DP8AaGP+2K/40kcepMN0WoktjkmEYFShI51Exk2x dyep+gpl3fMUEcPyxjpgU/rdTtH/AMBj/kHs15/eylPHex8HVGmYnn90OKdBBeMc/bdpP/TEU8RM wEjZOe2acCyr824fjS+t1O0f/AY/5B7Nef3seYL8J/yED/35FR+XfDO7Ucf9shU6yOV6HH1ppbK9 O9H1yp2j/wCAx/yD2a8/vZXkiviMC/6ekQpBDfhCVvjn0ES1MqFiAAQe1XY4UJJDYz6Cj63U7R/8 Bj/kLkXn97KzwXsm1jfKM858hcigWt4Thb4D/tiKvCL92w8wr6cU4vHHjYOR940fW6naP/gMf8g9 mvP72VUgvk4/tAY/64rThHescfbx+MK1Jv3U9WAHGSfen9cqdo/+Ax/yF7Nef3srrZ3ZHN8P+/K0 j2d6Mlb8fTyVqzvByQDipA/GMfjQsXU7L/wGP+QezXn97M77Le43DUAPX9yKX7HfdV1AY/65CrpI HIBxTHJXO3v2o+t1Oy/8Bj/kPkXn97M6SC/LYF8c/wDXFaQW99nA1D84RV4OpbkfhSgBhzml9cqd o/8AgMf8g9mvP72Z/wBmvscX+T6+SKd9kvQP+Qh/5BFaCjGRxUgZQOdo+oprF1O0f/AY/wCQezXn 97KY1Kxxgzk/8BP+FB1a04Am/Ha3+FXHOOQR6VEQOMjjtzRz4b+SX/gS/wDkRWn3X3f8Er/2rZZG Zwf+An/CnjU7EDifP/AD/hUoYk4I5p5LDr6daOfDfyS/8CX/AMiFp9193/BK41Kwx/rzn/dP+FCa hY54mz7bW/wq5CxZgCAKnjBHJB601LDfyS/8CX/yIWn3X3f8Ez11Cx4Pn/8AkNv8KlGo2GCTPj/g Df4VoRBR82SR7GmylWIzj061Slhv5Jf+BL/5EVp9193/AATNOp2WCRMB/wABP+FNfUdP7zdf9g/4 VpMuDxjjvTCAR908Uc+G/kl/4Ev/AJELT7r7v+CZcl9YsMLcDHoUP+FUZdQs45eZQB2Hlk/0rbcn yz8+PfHamXVuJ4+Ad3Ucdqhyw38kv/Al/wDIlLn7r7v+CYs+q2jnAm+p2Hn9KZFe2ectKuf91v8A Crnk+UdrVYBXjs3fip58N/JL/wACX/yI7T7r7v8AglMalZBCBMFb2U8fpTRf2WMm4Denyt/hVsFD HzjHQ01VCqoCEKBjH+NHNhv5Jf8AgS/+RC0+6+7/AIJUF/p5GPOYY7bT/hTf7QtDgedjHXCHP8qv bigG7lvbuKFjaQ8g8nrimpYb+SX/AIEv/kQtPuvu/wCCQ2moWKks8x+m0/4VO+pWSj/j4OM91P8A hVtF2oEGNv0pCGAweh7k0c+G/kl/4Ev/AJEVp9193/BKz6vZ7VKzDA/2W/wpg1KwkHE556jaf14q 0eDjn0zionG1ywBHODRz4b+SX/gS/wDkQtPuvu/4JD/adkCSJufZT/hQuqWTHmfp/sN/hVotzhwR 6YNKVOV9AO/ejnw38kv/AAJf/Ihafdfd/wAErNqVkRlZ9v8AwA0q6pZdBLz/ALrf4VZzjmnFuO35 Uc+G/kl/4Ev/AJELT7r7v+CVBqdkF5n/APHD/hTX1KyJ4m4A/uHn9KuZGcYyKaWzRz4b+SX/AIEv /kQtPuvu/wCCVTqNiAWE4z/un/Cl/tKyIx5xH/AT/hVosVQdOfUVGS28cZz6Uc+G/kl/4Ev/AJEL T7r7v+CRDU7FmwZfr8p/wpf7QsP+e3/jrf4VbTGMkEn3FSbiRwtPnw38kv8AwJf/ACIrT7r7v+CQ 7t78ZPtTgMnJB596omC+Xj7fyfSEVOtrfMR/xMP/ACCtHsKf/P2P3S/+RHzP+V/h/mWD7cfhSB2L bCPpmmJY32OdQH/flacLa825+3/h5C0fV4f8/Y/+Tf8AyIud/wAr/D/Mnh7MR9OKtZGM8etZ4tr0 Db9vC+3krSPb3wH/ACEvx8lapUKf/P2P3S/+RByf8r/D/M0dwweB71BJIBz6Vlyi+Q4/tAke8IpF jvWPzagR7+StL2NP/n7H/wAm/wDkQ5n/ACv8P8zQE3p0+tKLjnCoR681nNBeoP8AkIKR6+StIkN7 x/xMc5/6Yil7CH/P2P3S/wDkQ5n/ACv8P8zUZI85HcUq/ezzx+RrK8m+6HUDx/0xH+NAhvx11AnH /TEUewp/8/Y/dL/5EOZ/yv8AD/MvXUEcgwSA38Of5Vnbmjcq4ZSenHNSGK9Yn/T8nqD5K0x7C9f7 1+ST6wil9Xp/8/Y/+Tf/ACI1N/yv8P8AMevUkE5Pb1o5C84Dd80wWN5FjOojkcAQiopbe/IH+m9e whWl9Xp/8/Y/dL/5EfO/5X+H+ZKVLt94DHfNXLRBnAzz71nQ2F6vzLqB55/1Iq0kF8oy2oAdseSK aoU/+fsful/8iJzf8r/D/MuPtwQuGb2pnDckA46nPSqT296T/wAhAgDv5K0JDfKxRr8/hCKfsKf/ AD9j90v/AJEOZ/yv8P8AMuMAvytnnocUpIBwccdapmC+PS/OPUwrSG3vQB/xMP8AyCKXsKf/AD9j 90v/AJEOZ/yv8P8AMsNknIHX2pyFsZLDB6cVSMV5n/j/APrmEUww6g3Jv8c4/wBSOaX1en/z9j/5 N/8AIhzv+V/h/magCnGMj1pxQE84z7CsvyL0nA1Dp1IhFSpHe8f8TLkdD5IpqhT/AOfsf/Jv/kQ5 n/K/w/zLhTYuT39aRUJIJx9KiNretgG/6f8ATEf40ktveKMDUMt/1xWn9Xp/8/Y/dL/5EXO/5X+H +Y+RgSB6d809VxkdfSqa2l4Tn7eOPWEU9ra9ALfbwTn/AJ4rS+r03/y9j/5N/wDIj53/ACv8P8y1 nPBzQd2flA9+api3vf8AoIHjr+5FPNvfdtQB9f3K0/q9P/n7H7pf/IhzP+V/h/maghUHGMmnqpHT OKrf2np4OfP6/wCw3+FA1OxX/lv/AOON/hVfUsT/AM+5fc/8ifaw7r7y2T8o65pFwVPIqr/adh3u OP8Acb/ChtTscY88fXYf8KPqWJ/59y+5/wCQe1h3RPJtKjDE89aaW2qR94VTfU7ID/Xjrx8jf4VG dUsRx52OepVqX1LE/wDPuX3P/IftId0SOA74xn8aXaoXIJxmqy6lY4/1xH/AG5/SozqdmGw0vGf7 p/wpfUsT/wA+5fcw9rDui+cPEM446HHSohuUkeveoRqNmBxOP++G4/SlGo2BXBm/HYf8KHgsT/z7 l9z/AMh+1h3RMvX73FPY5HAH5VV+32eP9ePUfIf8Kd/aNgCSJ/8Ax0/4UfUsT/z7l9z/AMhe1h3R ZVMcHtTy3GPyOetVV1CzLBBMWz0+VuP0qNtTsvMO6bBHX5W/wo+pYn/n3L7mP2kO6LUjk/KykFcH pThJEi5MRLehPArPGo2LNkzE7Tz8p/wqYanY4LGU9P7jf4UvqWJ/59y+5h7SHdFuK5aRW8tUHr8v SopbtJGIdQh6DHT64qm+q2jLgT7QOoEZ/wAKqy6haE7jKfYhD/hR9SxP/PuX3P8AyBVKfdfear8J woY9xmmB2zwBt+lZyapZquBNn1+U/wCFSjUbPBImz/wFv8KX1LE/8+5fcw9pDujQBOfvnHpTSdyd T69Kp/2lZEY84ceqHn9KQ6nYgY80/Xaf8Kf1HE/8+5fcw9pDui2SNvTr7UwBw+Bk/wBKrf2jZH/l t/46f8KBqNnjmYYH+yw/pS+pYn/n3L7mP2kO6LYByoyOe1ODEEjANUv7Tsif9eM/7jf4Ug1K0U/6 /wCnyn/Cj6lif+fcvuYe0h3RqxMp4P45p+d5LLjHSsyPVLAnPnnPptP+FTJqVkAT9oHP+y3+FV9S xP8Az7l9zJ9pDui6UByRn3oxj05qodUsT0uMf8BPP6U5dQsepnB+it/hR9RxP/PuX3P/ACD2kO6L AUsenSn29vKVJbGTUCajYDnzx/3w3+FStqmnk8zMP+At/hT+o4n/AJ9y+5h7WHdGgoOecc9KQgKR nn3p5bJAXGQeuKJeM4XPFYFEZ60MCxAAJpxcZ6D0FNd8nA9eeKQEUqDGOfpjmq5w0gTBGMZ4qy7n bjPyjtTWMQQlyD680mh3Kz5L7dwHY4pxhZnPAGevNWlKRhWAXb7jrUbTDd8wHPUYosFyAqwB6ZA6 ilRUK5IbNSuSRyB7Ug+X055IFIBECBevDDimFWyBwP6VJuGFx+VAGSc4/E0wHW8pt3zt3A8dOabK PP3OQuTxgdRTTKqjlfxoU5Bxn60AV1Qg8kcdTinTMpLBH3YGCadMWCEqhLe1VivzdQPapYxVwQU4 PrzQXcn5gfTApw3FQMfN2OKadw6nJ6EYqRlRxjAG3d159KejgqFVyOedwqaW36sGBA7YqtLC7HcA ODyAaYblhAJBg4DL3Bpx4zuHQZ65zVGKSWEFhg59q0La5iK7prc7GP8ACeKYMiRXlk4BB7nsKnFv J3wMdsdavwPAwzDtNOkxuyCB70+Um5ni2OQDj24pzW0ZbJ5b19KtkAnJ+vSmkALnaOenNFrBcrrB ERnv7dae4wNhwCOnNThF5J7+/SlIGeg46nFFgIIk5zgH8KtiIYXHHtToU+b5iPyp77QOop2Aicle w49RTsOemKew9cHj1pAGUYyB+FMCobe+Az/af/kBaiMOoKcDUv8AyAvFXZGHXPNQE7iRz+NdX1up 2j/4DH/Iz9mvP72Vmivs/wDIRPHfyFpksN9tB/tH/wAgrU8zlflHWo42Zzgml9cqdo/+Ax/yH7Ne f3v/ADIYre+bIbUT7DyRUos71iNuoge/kLUyKV5bNSxtgcHrR9bqdo/+Ax/yF7Nef3sptaXiDaNS LL6GFaQ216xy2ogEdvJWrgIwxbIxTkwV+YD60fW59o/+Ax/yDkXn97/zM42l6Rk6jnH/AExWkMF8 pz9uPPGPJH+Nae0HkDIFNcc+tL61U7R/8Bj/AJByLz+9mcLa9f8A5iJAP/TFaVoL5T/yEenH+pFa ACgZ28fWmyKT26e9H1up2j/4DH/IORef3soG0vivzX68c/6leKT7PqGMDUGBP/TFf8avgc/X2oz0 IH1o+t1O0f8AwGP+Q/Zrz+9lM22oFAP7R+n7haathfYyb45/64LWsrn8KkQZy2SBj/OaPrU30j/4 DH/IORef3sxTYaiMbr8Y/wCuIpPsN+Du/tDkf9MRW5glfmzk9Kj2Lv3YPPvT+sz7R/8AAY/5ByLz +9mN9kvhydROW7eSKSWzvWdV+3DPY+SMVsmIDgkjNPji3HnBz6Cl9aqdo/8AgMf8g5F5/ezAm066 QgNeAj0EIqCW2vlBzegKOgEK11BhVgRwcdCazpLNxzyy+lJ4qp2j/wCAx/yGoLz+9mOkN/GQUv8A Gev7kc1fgW8kAP8AaI9v3K0Spg9DjHQCiA8nBPT0pLGVO0f/AAGP+QezXn97J1tr/r/aI9j5K0G1 vv8AoIjPceQKlhkO3lQasZyCQc596v65U7R/8Bj/AJC9mvP72Uvs18Rj+0ev/TBaclre5z/aR+nk LxVtuQODkelTpFmMBCRjpzT+t1O0f/AY/wCQvZrz+9lEWuoq2f7TwD/0xWhrXUM86icH/pgtaCxY 6sTS7QDgt09aPrdTtH/wGP8AkHIvP72Z62l+P+Yifp5C0G31Akn+0v8AyAtX35O0Dk9KY3y8ZH/f VCxdTtH/AMBj/kHs15/ezEOs2L8i4/8AHD/hSf2rYgcT5HpsP+FTIB13H8qfyxHqannw38kv/Al/ 8iO0+6+7/glL+0rFiczj/vhv8Kktr+xDZ84cf7Lf4VcTJPPTtViBc5A4zmnzYb+SX/gS/wDkQtPu vu/4JQfVbDOBPj/gLf4U9NQsHH+vx/wBv8K0Ft485OfepcAL8gG31o5sN/JL/wACX/yIrT7r7v8A gmU+p2IP+u4z3Vv8KUarp4/5b9f9hv8ACrxZTkGo02vwc+1Pmw38kv8AwJf/ACIWn3X3f8Ep/wBp 2OebjH1Rv8KQarYgf6/t12H/AAq6c9KJOp4PH6UufDfyS/8AAl/8iFp9193/AASi+rWKkZnHP+w3 +FB1OwY7vP8A/HW/wq5tK4yRx707r0Wjnw38kv8AwJf/ACIWn3X3f8EoHVLBiCJz9Np/wpU1Owz/ AK8Y/wB1v8Kt4ycgfWpEVUA2qAM8Uc2G/kf/AIEv/kR2n3X3f8Erf2tpyr/rjj/cP+FSDVtP2YE3 1+Rv8KnBBJHXJzTh8o49Oue1HPhv5Jf+BL/5ELT7r7v+CVTqmn5x9oOP9xv8KcdW0/dkTYGf7jf4 VZGTwcED061IDkY3HdT58N/JL/wJf/IitPuvu/4JQOq2B5Fx+GxuP0pP7VsMHM559Eb/AAq9g7wc cUrjB69qOfDfyS/8CX/yIWn3X3f8EpDV7AqCbj65Ruf0qT+1rA/L9ox/wBv8KnbnC46c05W46c/S jnw38kv/AAJf/Ihafdfd/wAEpy6hpkiYM4yR12Nx+lZ7XdornM45HB2t/hXQKV5yeO3HSmSzKgAE ZcdzScsM/sP/AMCX/wAiC511X3f8EyRe2argS7vfY3+FNF/aLkifDdhsbn9K3YZopB8jfgT0pSwB /wDrUXw38sv/AAJf/Ih7/dfd/wAEyYNQsiAxuMeuUb/CrA1XTh8on/8AHW/wrQ+YcgBh3Gai85GP RhT5sMvsS/8AAl/8iFp9/wAP+CVRqmn5/wCPj/xxv8KifV9PUZ+0jr/cb/CrzybQTj9azriX5+pB z0pc+GX2Jf8AgS/+RC0+6+7/AIIxta09Tzcj6bD/AIVDJrens2fOx/wE/wCFK4Oef500DjnOaOfD fyS/8CX/AMiO0+6+7/ggMnoePSnLztqhJaX6ED+0Bz/0xFOFnqPX7ccj/piKX1en/wA/Y/dL/wCR Hzv+V/h/maUZH3SelWdwUA8D0rMSxvwuTf4/7YrTmtr/ACF/tDgf9MVp+wp/8/Y/+Tf/ACIud/yv 8P8AM2klLKcYBPamTOvlMBgMRwRWULe/z/yEf/IIpVt79h/yEcD/AK4rT9hT/wCfsf8Ayb/5EXM/ 5X+H+ZbRDjBJOeppyICcZH0zVSK2vipA1AAj/piKQ21+oz/aPf8A54LS+r0/+fi/8m/+RDnl/K/w /wAy6Mk8/likLDPIx+NVfIv+P+Jj2/54rUT21+Tk6gP+/K0fV6f/AD9j/wCTf/Igpv8Alf4f5l3v wSQKDjtn86zvJvgONR/DyFpRb33DHUOv/TEUvYU/+fsf/Jv/AJEfM/5X+H+Zpxnnn+XWlPrgVQFv ff8AQQP/AH5FO+z3wPGonP8A1wWn7Cn/AM/Y/wDk3/yIc7/lf4f5l0jjt054oDDHPXofaqfk35P/ ACEOfTyVpv2e+IJOo/X9yv8AjS+r0/8An7H/AMm/+RDnf8r/AA/zL6OC3AH508HAwcZPQ1lLbXoJ /wCJgDn/AKYrT1h1AHB1E/XyVp+wp/8AP1f+Tf8AyIcz/lf4f5mrGzEABgT70rHAHT61mC31Hdg6 l/5BWlMGoEjOo8evkLT9hT/5+x/8m/8AkRcz/lf4f5l3J6nH1pMkHjP0qmLe/wC2oj2xCtIYL4cf 2iTn/pgtHsKf/P2P/k3/AMiHM/5X+H+Zc3tgncfempcEsVwMDv61mzx3+Nq6hn1/cimwW16c/wDE wJx/0xFL2NP/AJ+x/wDJv/kQ5n/K/wAP8y/PGySCSLoeQc1bgn3LzjNZrWl/s/5CP/kFajjt75Sf +Jj+PkrS9hTX/L2P/k3/AMiPnf8AK/w/zN0OCQcmmSBWP+sGRWWIr8cf2kcenkLUM8V6Bk6iPp5C 0/YU/wDn6vul/wDIi5n/ACv8P8zQuJSfukn3zVM/eyeaqsl0vH9p/wDkAUiQXh5/tEY/64rS9hT/ AOfsf/Jv/kR87/lf4f5lognsTmmE44OPyqE298RkagR/2xFILW+YZ+3/APkFaPYU/wDn7H/yb/5E Od/yv8P8y9GPl4yfarCBQOvPuKoDUrAcCc/98H/CnNqlgf8Alv8A+Ot/hTWCxP8Az7l9zF7WHdfe XHY8+lMbrnPFVhqtiRkzj8UP+FMfU7HOBOOf9hv8KHgsT/z7l9z/AMhqpDui2m4nr+FTKB2GDVAa lYgcXHP+6f8ACnjVLEjmf80b/CksFif+fcvuYe1h3RdBwcjBz14pC5PynHvVI6rYf8/BwPVD/hSD VbAHib/xxv8ACn9SxP8Az7l9zD2kO6+80MjsKjmHzcfiaqrqlj/z8Y/4C3+FI2p2JG7z+v8AsN/h R9SxP/PuX3P/ACF7WHdEp4PBGfrTjuwc8n1/z+NUzqViMET5/wCAN/hTl1SwHWbk/wCy3+FT9SxP /PuX3MftYd195cPy9TxT0z2wSehxVNdT0/n9/wA9vkP+FSJqdiP+Xgfgjf4VX1HE/wDPuX3MXtYd 0TsO2efegMcYJ5PU1W/tOzU5MwP/AABv8KBqenMCwnK/8AP+FL6jif8An3L7n/kP2sO6LLZAIOPp QQVIyQPwqp/aFjnIuDk/7Df4U7+0bLo0vQf3W/wo+o4n/n3L7n/kHtYd0WwcHaTwelSYyQPu+2ao xapYHrN267G/wofVbENg3BPvtb/Cn9SxP/PuX3P/ACF7WHdF1mC424APtUbEgHp9c1R/tSx6icZ/ 3W/wobU7LBPn/htaj6lif+fcvuf+Qe1h3RPt+Yk56c1LGpBwaoLqdkuB52ST/db/AAp0+rWioVST 8djf4UvqWJ/59v7n/kNVYd0aisAOQMVBdbMb4+PUCskaxaH705P/AAFv8KdJqtmpG2f5j/st/hS+ p4n/AJ9y+5/5B7SHdFsznA5J96ilcuCA5496oS6pZEZWfr/sn/CoP7UtM584/wDfJ/woWCxP/PuX 3P8AyH7SHdfeaB6dDz2pycDGcD0qmup2LAZmIx/sn/CnJqVlnJnGP908fpT+pYn/AJ9y+5h7WHdG jvcpjODSAZGST+BqoNSsmORMf++T/hUy6hZEf6/H/AG/wo+pYn/n3L7n/kL2kO6NLv8Ay5pvBOKQ +2KF+VuQK5iyXAx6Uh4PINLnB6fh6U7GR3+tMQfhTWPU/pQcH04qKRzjCmjYYjEDPTik3jB+YD2q uzf3ifyoI5G7OTU3Atqw9fwzTt2T0/OqSFuSfw5qSMyk4HPrmi4WLYTIHrTSuDzx+FTKSijJB9eK nAWRPnU8HpVBcgSIthsgCrAUdBj8qbtVTz+dOI45HHWgGAUc9MdcU10XBwM+/wDjTkOBk/zp+OMH HTnmnuIgRD7+3NOB4zgflTznZuQE9uvNQBsnOTSAfIRtygx71W6jnt7VaQ7TnjnrUUsR6qBQBGFI HHTvTTjcMdacrEp0P1pSVLcntQA0jLA4GKdt3Y68e1JHgt8oyOnWnyS+WPlwD60AVJrR8ZiHHcVU ubWZAXL4J7E96tPPKep/Wo5X3KOajQq5QMTqc5HHOR1qdPmGG5P0qVU3HBH0qaO3WRd3IYDBo3C5 RKY4/KgSKOB1qeVQg2r29qbDACAxGAe3rQA+At3HHbmroIwMAdKiRAPSnbvcU0xFMW96R/yEPw8l aPs99jA1D8PJFWl45OT6VKF469a6li6naP8A4DH/ACI9mvP72VEtr/A/4mP/AJAWnC31AjH9pj6e QtXY8D/9VKxA+6Bn1p/W6nZf+Ax/yF7Nef3sz5Ib1FIOo9f+mC1DJDeKeb0n/tkKvyEE/Ng1EcMe c4HvR9bqdo/+Ax/yH7Nef3spGC75zec/9chTTDddTe/+QhV7gDOCaaUJOOPyqfrdTtH/AMBj/kP2 a8/vZXS3u24+2j/v0Knjtb0ABdRAyevkipYVKtz+WKvQpxkgYFUsXU7R/wDAY/5C9mvP72UUs9RP A1TH/butSmz1THGrfh9mWtAcAYwR9KAcZYkUfW6nZf8AgMf8hezXn97M77LqOB/xNs+32daUW+o9 9Tz/ANsF/wAavcnPIxSNxwM0fW6naP8A4DH/ACD2a8/vZTFvqBGBqn/kuv8AKnCz1LZzq2f+3dam UjPAGe5zUgznnIXrT+uT7R/8Bj/kHs15/eymttqR66qcf9cFoa1vw5/4mIB7fuFq98vOM8mklJKE ADNDxdTtH/wGP+QvZrz+9ma1vqCZJ1I8dvJWmmPUs8aiVHp5K1oqkjABlH49qinntYCMk5HYUfW5 9l/4DH/Ifs1/TZQNrqZwRqBb/tiKSeK7hB36oN3p5C/406W/mlDJGPLQdNveqZZmJ3Ek460vrdTt H/wGP+Q/ZLz+9iGW9YAG++X0EKj+VRubzAxeHHYlBUiqQvzflTguSeRgdqn65U7R/wDAY/5D9nHz +9ldVv2P/IQP/flakFpeSc/bguOxhFTDgYHWpEfYVDZwaPrdTtH/AMBj/kHs15/eyBLPUCeNUAHr 5C01otSR9o1fk/e/0Za0pPkHGDmoDEWPU0fW6i6R/wDAY/5C9mvP72QGx1Hr/agP1t1oW01Hvqff /ngtaERLDaSdwo5U4/On9bqdo/8AgMf8g9mvP72Uha6gDzqhJ/691oEN4ODf/wDkFatyFuowaTil 9bqdo/8AgMf8g9mvP72QLqlipz5/P+43+FSf2rp2QftH/jjf4VZzwQc0wTYfaMAHvVc+G/kl/wCB L/5ELT7r7v8AgkP9rWAHFwPrsb/CmNq1iG+WbP8AwFv8KuFjk8E02Rj1BJ9qOfDfyS/8CX/yIrT7 r7v+CUTqVmQP331+U/4Uo1Gy/wCe3/jh/wAKtDOCMcj1oPTp9aXNhv5Jf+BL/wCRHafdfd/wSmdR sT/y3+vyn/ClGoWOcef+O1v8KuxjPOBUgAJ4GKObDfyS/wDAl/8AIhafdfd/wSkmo2GMNcfT5D/h VlNX01R/r/8Axxv8KldXVSy/rUYuiDtxjHcinz4b+SX/AIEv/kQtPuvu/wCCDa1pmMfacf8AbNv8 KDremMc/asf9s2/wqaKdX+Yk7u/pTjKzHIHX0o58N/JL/wACX/yIWn3/AA/4JWfWNOIAS4/AI3+F NXVbEj5rgc+it/hVk5wuCetOU54BFPnw38kv/Al/8iFp9193/BKq6rYYy1xj/tm3+FH9r2BGfP8A /HG/wq2JB1HzexpBKcEAd/Sjnw38kv8AwJf/ACIrT7r7v+CVxq2nhsC4OfXY3+FOfV9PAJMhY+mw /wCFTE5J54xzVGaU+Zn1HTNHPhv5Jf8AgS/+RC0+6+7/AII19Zt5Nw89uf8AZPH6VXmvLFmyZct6 lT/hT5M7vvA/SiKQqGDZJ9annw38kv8AwJf/ACI+Wfdfd/wSoLy2B4m3f8BP+FJ9rtsf63n/AHT/ AIVf3En/AOtTcAnnBo58N/JL/wACX/yI7T7r7v8AglNL22ztaQY7fKf8Ke17aKMmU491P+FXETn0 zSouR6ilz4b+SX/gS/8AkQtPuvu/4JQGpWGeZ8/8Ab/CnNqGng4abH/AW/wrTRMAngZ71IUXoABT 5sN/I/8AwJf/ACIvf7r7v+CZS6rpoGDc59Pkb/Cl/trSxx9qP/ftv8K0gu3k0uCQOmaObDfyS/8A Al/8iFp9193/AATPh1rSwebj8djf4Ur6xph5W5/8cb/CryE7zk/Spcbh7UKWG/kl/wCBL/5EGp91 93/BMpdVsD0uP/HG/wAKeNRscDE598I3+FaRjOOnWmFccDIo5sN/JL/wJf8AyIWn3X3f8EG+6fpV J/8AW/hRRXMy0WlJ8r8KUdvxoooBDX60pJwfrRRQwQqcZx61KvUe5oopoZK33MdsVQmAAGAKKKlg OPGPrU6/dH0NFFCAaScih/6UUUxCJ2pVJyeT96iigOg9+FfFZy/fP1oopsEMb7opo+830oopDJ4e QPrSqBk8UUUgF7L9alTv9aKKEDJB0p1FFUIU0jdR9KKKBLcYAN9Tr90/Wiikhsl7VC3WiimI/9k= ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C28C04.62B06380-- From VM Fri Nov 15 10:15:02 2002 Content-Length: 2509 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2509" "Thursday" "14" "November" "2002" "22:27:41" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "127" "Re: starship-design: NASA wants space plane, new shuttle" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAF3SPtD002031 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:28:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAF3SPAZ002030 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:28:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.101]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAF3S9tD001902 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:28:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.69.306a8699 (25098); Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:27:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <69.306a8699.2b05c3ad@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: NASA wants space plane, new shuttle Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:27:41 EST A very outdated couple of designs, but at least they are suggesting shuttle replacement. A more interesting article was that NASA contracted GE to test a demonstrator for a turbo jet based system (like the one used on the SR-71's) that go go up to mach 4.5. GE hoped to be able to deliver a 15 to 1 thrust to weight ratin. Now that would do a nice job in a first stage TSTO. ;) In a message dated 11/14/02 6:39:46 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Legal Pad StationeryNASA wants space plane, new shuttle > > > >Thursday, November 14, 2002 Posted: 1:39 PM EST (1839 GMT) > > > > > > > > > >WASHINGTON (AP) -- NASA is proposing to spend $2.4 billion over the next > >four years to design a new orbital space plane to ferry astronauts between > >Earth and the International Space Station. > > > > > > > >In an amendment to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's > >proposed 2003 budget, agency officials for the first time set a firm figure > >of $6.6 billion for completing assembly of the basic orbiting space station. > >That would bring the U.S. share of the international project to less than > >$25 billion, officials said. > > > > > > > >The precise cost of the space station, a project started during the Reagan > >administration, has been an unsettled issue for years between NASA and > >Congress. After the agency announced last year that it faced cost overruns > >that could reach more than $600 million, Congress put a $25 billion cap >on > >the project. > > > > > > > >Sean O'Keefe, a former federal budget officer, was named NASA administrator > >in January with specific instructions from the White House to define and > >control the costs of the space station and other NASA programs. > > > > > > > >The core components of the plan > > > >In the budget amendment proposal, O'Keefe describes what he calls a "new > >integrated space transportation plan" that would complete the core > >components of the space station by 2004; extend the life of the aging space > >shuttle fleet; complete design of a new orbital space plane; and continue > >development of a new, reusable spacecraft and launch system to replace >the > >shuttle. > > > > > > > >He said the amendment would not add to the proposed NASA 2003 budget of >$15 > >billion, but would redirect some funds. > > > > > > > >O'Keefe said his plan inserts a "systemic approach" into NASA's space > >transportation activities, instead of having each element of space > >transportation acting as a separate program. > > From VM Mon Dec 2 12:30:21 2002 Content-Length: 10406 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10406" "Thursday" "28" "November" "2002" "07:18:40" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "194" "starship-design: Small Steps Keep Us Grounded" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil "starship-design: Small Steps Keep Us Grounded" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASDJQxn021111 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 05:19:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gASDJQI5021110 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 05:19:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASDJOxn021105 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 05:19:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18HOZf-0004VQ-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 05:19:24 -0800 Message-ID: <000f01c296e0$ab9059c0$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design List \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Small Steps Keep Us Grounded Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:18:40 -0600 Small Steps Keep Us Grounded The Spacefaring Web 2.19 by John Carter McKnight Scottsdale - Nov 22, 2002 NASA's recent budget request is uninspiring, reactive and constraining - and just what the doctor ordered. Agency Administrator Sean O'Keefe has apparently realized that our grandiose dreams of near-term space triumphs are simply shattered, leaving us - government, industry and advocacy alike - with the unglamorous work of living within our means, delivering on our promises, and slowly building a new space infrastructure, one that, this time, can last. There's an old saying that the best is the enemy of the good enough. NASA, following in the family tradition of its older brother, the Pentagon, has spent twenty years proving the maxim. President Reagan's little $8 billion Space Station Freedom managed to misplace $5 billion last year, in its 18th year of bureaucratic life. Despite the "faster, better, cheaper" mantra, the engineering bells-and-whistles mindset, coupled with government budgeting procedures, has caused most projects to bloat. The gap between expectations and results then gets filled with "viewgraph engineering," more grandiose promises, coupled with requests for yet another one-time-only emergency handout. NASA and its dependent contractors are not alone in overpromising and under-delivering. Space advocacy's track record is, if anything, worse ("L5 in '95," for example). Volunteer enthusiasm couples with pent-up demand fed by NASA's failure to deliver on its promises to create the same dynamic. Ambitious projects are declared, discussed in a frenzy of chat-board activity - then, like so many amateur rockets, either fizzle or explode. Entrepreneurial space companies, often drawn from the ranks of either advocates or frustrated veterans of NASA disappointments, have followed the same pattern: the initial draft of the business plan (if they're that realistic) calls for conquering the Solar System, producing two dozen products and making billionaires of their first round investors, all in five years. To their credit, though, the entrepreneurs have been the first to learn the lesson of "foundations first." The die-off of many of the launch vehicle startups triggered an increase in professionalism and a decrease in grandiosity among their successors. Many current space startups have much more business savvy and vastly more humble - and achievable - goals than their predecessors did. The lessons they learned in the unforgiving school of the marketplace are finally beginning to spread to their governmental and advocacy peers. The space community had no monopoly on excess, to be sure. We've all been down that road. Overpromising was what the latter 1990s were about. While space has had its own dynamic, driven by NASA's pervasive lack of realism, the entire Western economy was, if not, as the Texans say, "all hat and no cattle," at least running with a hat/cattle ratio that no sober banker (had there been any) would have approved. That party's over. NASA must rebuild credibility with the public, with Congress and with its international partners, deliver on promises already made, and live within its budgetary means. Advocacy must do the same. The NASA budget request is a courageous attempt to meet those critical requirements of credibility, frugality and infrastructure repair. The Space Launch Initiative was shaping up to generate a replacement for the Shuttle as disastrously out of step with fiscal and mission requirements as the original has been. There is no good solution to the problems caused by unsafe, spectacularly expensive and antiquated transportation to a largely worthless destination. Sacking the SLI program while extending the life of the existing orbiters and developing a relatively cheap lifeboat capable of supporting a full crew complement on the International Space Station, is a good faith, "good enough" fix. Hopefully, this approach, grounded in a blessed lack of vision, will spread through NASA's upper management. The agency's "NExT" initiative, despite some very positive elements, smacks too much of a re-creation of the process that diverted the bulk of its attention and resources into the Station and Shuttle, to precious little relative return. More microgravity mega-engineering does not seem a reasonable response either to NASA's own priority of exploring life's origins, or to the public and commercial demand for affordable access to space. Criticism of this sort of bureaucratic "beau geste" has been coming from interesting quarters. The Economist, the British news weekly, has long been fanatically hostile to human spaceflight. Yet its November 14 editorial marks a change in tone. While still scathing ("It is true that science can be done in the space station. But science can also be done dressed in a clown suit atop a large Ferris wheel"), the editors go on to express sentiments that could have come from this column: [F]or decades there has been a huge pent-up demand for flights into space. Although the private sector is finally making some progress towards this, NASA should have been there years ago. What is still needed is research and development on economical and safe space transport for the public at large. Space, like the Wild West, can be truly opened up by the private sector. NASA's central goal in human space flight should be to make that possible. A broad consensus seems to be coalescing around this radical view. The Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry delivered its final report to the Administration this week. No visionary programs are called for: rather, the focus is on rebuilding infrastructure, improving basic research and removing trade barriers - the impediments to spacefaring identified in the previous issue of this column. The Commission calls for a realignment of Federal efforts around these unglamorous but essential issues. The advocacy community as well should follow suit, to aid in this effort and to redeem itself from the overpromising/under-delivering space curse. This past week marked the twentieth anniversary of a fringe organization whose beginnings were much less promising than those of the space groups', but whose influence, unlike that of our community, has become immense. The Federalist Society began as a campus-based movement of conservative, statist law students in an era when the top law schools were largely liberal and biased against the exercise of imperial power. It was a fringe organization regarded with deep suspicion by mainstream students and faculty (as I recall from firsthand experience, having attended law school with co-founders of the organization in its second year of existence). Yet its anniversary was noted prominently in the New York Times - as the commemorative celebration was attended by a Supreme Court Justice and the Attorney General. No cabinet-level official has ever attended a space-advocacy party, to the best of my knowledge. What did the Federalist Society do right that the various space societies have not? Three things of utterly critical significance: it focused on training and promoting cadre, and on engaging in genuine, respectful debate with its opponents. Also, it did not squander its energy on personality-driven factional infighting or schismatic doctrinal squabbles. The space advocacy organizations should learn that lesson and radically revision themselves around those two positive projects. The Federalist Society made the front pages because it spent twenty years recruiting bright students who were receptive to its message, training and indoctrinating them, and networking them with alumni and supporters in positions of influence. In less than a generation their strategy has given them policy dominance over the Federal agency of concern to them, the Justice Department. Imagine if a space organization could have placed its members throughout the NASA hierarchy, claiming the Administrator and the Secretary of Defense as allies - we might actually have a Federal space effort accomplishing something other than intellectual and financial bankruptcy restructuring. The other critical technique involves recruiting one's adversaries as marketing representatives. By providing a forum for liberal and libertarian opponents to hone their arguments through debate, the Federalist Society forced those opponents to accord it respect and legitimacy. By putting their people on panels alongside respected mainstream opinion leaders, they declared themselves peers and serious players. When their opponents would go out marketing themselves, they would likely refer to having assailed their Federalist Society adversaries - again, marking the once-fringe organization as a legitimate peer of the prominent mainstream figure. Space advocacy groups have consistently chosen to preach to the choir rather than to engage their critics. This choice ghettoizes us, prevents us from becoming truly proficient or convincing in delivering our message, denies us the opportunity to win over moderates who have only heard the opposition's case, and denies us the leverage of putting our adversaries to work marketing us. There has been talk of engaging the environmental and religious communities, of opening a dialog with the technologically-skeptical "Party of Nah," but little concrete action. Our failure costs us influence. NASA now has an opportunity to rebuild its financial, reputational and physical infrastructure. Only when this process is complete will it be able to move on to grander things. By abandoning the impulse to build deep-space Egyptian pyramids in favor of more mundane and infinitely more useful Roman roads, the agency may actually accomplish its true goal of opening the space frontier. If the space advocacy groups similarly choose to abandon millennial fervor and narcissistic self-destruction in favor of recruiting, training and influence-building, they can provide the leadership of government and industry necessary for opening that frontier. Critical to both efforts is accepting that, for now, building a spacefaring civilization does not involve grand theorizing, viewgraph engineering or marching gaily off to triumph. For now, revolutionary patience lies in inspiring the kids, paying the bills and building the roads. If we do those things right, the triumphs will surely come. From VM Mon Dec 2 12:30:22 2002 Content-Length: 1576 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1576" "Thursday" "28" "November" "2002" "08:18:46" "-0800" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" nil "31" "Re: starship-design: Small Steps Keep Us Grounded" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil "starship-design: Small Steps Keep Us Grounded" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASGImxn021663 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:18:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gASGIluj021662 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:18:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from web13606.mail.yahoo.com (web13606.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.117]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id gASGIkxn021657 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:18:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20021128161846.63730.qmail@web13606.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [206.148.92.125] by web13606.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:18:46 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-996719018-1038500326=:63671" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: Re: starship-design: Small Steps Keep Us Grounded Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:18:46 -0800 (PST) --0-996719018-1038500326=:63671 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Gentlemen, I hadn't heard the term "viewgraph engineering" before, and I'm wondering, could this be like a computer simulation of something that doesn't exist (yet, anyway)? Enlighten, please. Keep looking up, Curtis "L. Parker" wrote: The gap between expectations and results then gets filled with "viewgraph engineering," more grandiose promises, coupled with requests for yet another one-time-only emergency handout. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-996719018-1038500326=:63671 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Gentlemen,

I hadn't heard the term "viewgraph engineering" before, and I'm wondering, could this be like a computer simulation of something that doesn't exist (yet, anyway)?

Enlighten, please.

Keep looking up,

Curtis

 "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net> wrote:


The gap between expectations and results then gets filled with "viewgraph
engineering," more grandiose promises, coupled with requests for yet another
one-time-only emergency handout.


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-996719018-1038500326=:63671-- From VM Mon Dec 2 12:30:22 2002 Content-Length: 422 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["422" "Thursday" "28" "November" "2002" "16:00:21" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "15" "Re: starship-design: Small Steps Keep Us Grounded" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil "starship-design: Small Steps Keep Us Grounded" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASL0Xxn016240 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gASL0X9e016239 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m03.mx.aol.com (imo-m03.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASL0Wxn016218 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id z.18a.11f1ac4f (18403) for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:00:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <18a.11f1ac4f.2b17dde5@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Small Steps Keep Us Grounded Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:00:21 EST In a message dated 11/28/02 11:20:09 AM, clmanges@yahoo.com writes: >Gentlemen, >I hadn't heard the term "viewgraph engineering" before, and I'm wondering, >could this be like a computer simulation of something that doesn't exist >(yet, anyway)? >Enlighten, please. >Keep looking up, >Curtis I think its engineering concepts to the point of cool looking slide presentations, but which will never get past that. Kelly From VM Mon Dec 2 12:30:22 2002 Content-Length: 29837 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["29837" "Thursday" "28" "November" "2002" "15:59:56" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "1136" "starship-design: A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil "starship-design: A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASL0Bxn016176 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gASL0Ah9016175 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASL09xn016115 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.e4.315e70ca (18403); Thu, 28 Nov 2002 15:59:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 15:59:56 EST ============================================================================== = A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away ======================================== by John Walker September 27, 1993 There's a pretty general consensus that one of the greatest barriers to the exploration and development of space is the cost of launch to low earth orbit. The incessant and acrimonious arguments among partisans of the Shuttle, DC-*, NASP, TSTO, Big Dumb Boosters, bringing back the Saturn V, buying launches from the Russians and/or Chinese, or of developing exotic launch technologies (laser, electromagnetic, skyhook, etc.) conceal the common premise of all those who argue--that if we could launch payloads for a fraction of today's cost, perhaps at a tenth to a thousandth of today's rates of thousands of US$ per kilogram, then the frontier would open as the great railway to orbit supplanted the first generation wagon trains. The dispute is merely over which launch technology best achieves this goal. Conventional wisdom as to why industry and government choose not to invest in this or that promising launch technology is that there aren't enough payloads to generate the volume to recoup the development cost and, in all likelihood, there never will be. How much would it cost to find out if this is true? What we pay today ----------------- Could we take a moment's pause from debating which is the best successor to the outrageously expensive way we launch now and, as engineers, ask ourselves just why it is that rockets have to cost tens or hundreds of million of US$ per shot. Space FAQ space/launchers gives approximate per-launch costs of representative systems on which commercial launches can be purchased as: Vehicle Mission cost, US$ millions ------- -------------------------- Scout G1 12 Pegasus 13.5 Soyuz 15 Long March 3 33 Titan II 43 Delta 45 - 50 Proton 35 - 70 Zenit 65 Atlas 45 - 85 Ariane 4 65 - 115 Energia 110 H-2 110 Titan III 158 Titan IV 315 - 360 I've deliberately not included data on performance, reliability, or anything else because that would distract us from the most striking observation about these vehicles; each and every one of them, whatever the technology, country of origin, original design intent, launch history, fuel and oxidiser, success or failure in the commercial launch market, have mission costs in ranging from tens to hundreds of millions of US$. Why is this? Why do rockets cost so much? What's in a launcher? --------------------- Let's simplify the problem by focusing entirely on expendable boosters built with current technologies--those used in the existing launchers named above. Further, let's consider only pure liquid-fueled launchers (with the exception of Scout and Pegasus, the core stages of each of the above launchers are liquid rockets). From an engineering standpoint, then, what is a rocket? Well, it consists of a collection, often vertically stacked, of: Cylindrical fuel and oxidiser tanks Rocket engines (including turbopumps, gas generators, etc.) Guidance mechanisms (gimbal joints, hydraulic actuators, APUs) Guidance and navigation system (IMU, GPS, radio command receiver) plus other ancillary details like range safety receivers and telemetry sensors and transmitters and the like, and that's about it, isn't it? Now the question that comes to mind is this: why should something like that cost tens to hundreds of millions of US$? Cylindrical fuel tanks aren't that expensive, and they make up most of the rocket. (Sure, if you're striving for every last gram of throw-weight in an ICBM, you can push the tankage cost as high as you like, but in a commercial launcher?) And rocket engines are finicky, complicated, and intolerant of defects. Well, yes...but so is a DOHC 4 valve per cylinder turbocharged, intercooled V-8 internal combustion engine, and nonetheless one can purchase such an engine, integrated into a ground transportation vehicle, from a number of manufacturers at a cost three orders of magnitude less than that charged for the rocket, and expect it to function without catastrophic failures or extensive maintenance, for five years, tens of thousands of kilometers, and thousands of mission cycles. Guidance? Again, as long as we aren't gram-shaving, this is pretty mundane stuff--the hydraulics can mostly be adapted from airliners, and the electronics from a PC--"mem'ry for nothin', chips for free". (For an LEO launcher we don't need radiation-hardened electronics.) The first mass-produced launcher -------------------------------- We've seen from the "standing army" argument for launchers requiring minimal (airline-scale) ground mission support the impact of fixed costs on per-mission costs when the number of missions is limited. But the presence or absence of a "standing army", and the frequency of flights over which fixed costs are spread, isn't fundamentally linked to whether the launcher is reusable or expendable. Consider the following mass-produced expendable rocket. Number manufactured: 6,240 Number launched: 3,590 Successes: 2,890 (81%) Failures: 700 (19%) In inventory: 2,100 Work in progress: 250 Expended in development: 300 Development program cost: US$ 2 billion Development cost per launcher: US$ 350,512 Total manufacturing cost per launcher: US$ 43,750 Marginal cost, launchers 5000+: US$ 13,000 (Yes, 13K!) These are actual figures for the first mass-produced rocket vehicle, the V2 (A4)--fifty years ago. Prices are in US wartime dollars. Stating the obvious.... The V2 was a suborbital vehicle, intended to lob high explosive over relatively short distances. Quantity production of the V2 at Mittelwerk was accomplished with unpaid slave labour under the brutal rule of the SS. And the failure rate was unacceptable by current standards. And yet...consider that this was the very first space-capable rocket ever built. That it was manufactured under the constraints of a war that Germany was losing, subject to aerial bombardment by night and by day, with continual supply shortages. That, as a consequence of Nazi slave-labour, the desperate war situation, and the state of current technology, no significant automation was applied to its manufacture. In February 1945 the underground Mittelwerk V2 factory delivered 800 ready-to-launch V2s; after the war U.S. intelligence expert T. P. Wright estimated that at full production, unconstrained by wartime shortages, the Mittelwerk plant could have produced 900 to 1000 V2s per month. One thousand rockets per month...fifty years ago. Think about that. A Rocket a Day -------------- Suppose we translate these figures, almost incomprehensible by modern standards (*three hundred* launch vehicles expended in the development program!) into quasi-modern terms. Consider an orbital launch vehicle two-stage, say, clean and green thanks to LH2/LOX propulsion in all stages. Engines: J2 or RL10s or follow-on uprated versions (we'll have plenty of opportunity to develop them and phase them in). A simple two stage cylindrical stack like Titan II, with GPS or ground-commanded navigation. Payload interface is a big ring with bolt-holes and a standard fairing with plenty of volume inside. Sounds a lot like NLS/SpaceLifter, doesn't it? STMEs may have marginal advantages over sea-level-optimised derivatives of RL10 or J2, but otherwise what's the difference? What if we launch one every day? Three hundred and sixty-five a year. That would be less than one twenty-fifth the production rate of the V2 under concentrated Allied bombardment in 1945. How much would each one cost? Assume we expense the development cost or amortise it over a sufficiently large number of vehicles that it can be ignored. Further, assume that our bigger, more complicated (two-stage), and higher tech (LH2/LOX instead of Ethanol/LOX), launcher costs ten times as much as the V2, and that 1945 wartime dollars convert into current dollars at 10 to 1. Then, starting with the US$13,000 marginal cost of a V2, we arrive at a cost of US$1.3 million per launch vehicle. If we launch one a day our total vehicle budget will be US$475 million per year--comparable to a single shuttle flight (no, I don't want to re-open *that* debate again; let's just say it's the same order of magnitude, OK?). If our mass produced LH2/LOX launcher equals the performance of the Delta 6925 by placing 3900 kg in LEO, the cost to LEO is US$333/kg; if we achieve better throw-weight, this figure goes down accordingly. If we build the thing so cheap, dumb, and heavy that its payload is only 1000 kg--one metric ton--the cost rises to US$1300/kg, which is still a factor of ten lower than the comparable cost to LEO for Ariane, Atlas, Delta, and Titan. Logistics and Ground Support ---------------------------- Okay, you say, suppose mass production in these absurd quantities could actually drive the hardware cost down to less than a million and half per bird, we still haven't accounted for the standing army that launch operations require. If it takes thousands or tens of thousands of people to launch tens of vehicles per year, won't it take hundreds of thousands to launch one every day? Well, why should it? Again consider the V2. In the two weeks from September 18-30 1944, a total of 127 V2s were launched from five different launch sites. That's an average of almost ten a day. This was accomplished by two mobile groups totaling about 6,300 men and 1600 vehicles, forced to relocate frequently due to the Allied advance, and subjected to frequent aerial bombardment. It was estimated that, given adequate supply, one hundred V2s could be launched per day in a "maximum effort" by the mobile units, and that a rate of half that, 350 per week, was sustainable. Parkinson's law notwithstanding, why, after fifty years of technological progress and experience in launch operations, should it take tens of thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars to achieve a launch rate one fiftieth that of a V2 group launching the very first operational ballistic missile from a launch site with tanks and infantry advancing toward it and airplanes flying over dropping bombs on them? Yes, LH2 is trickier to handle; a multistage rocket requires a more complicated launch and service facility, and so on. But if we design up-front for a sustained launch rate of one per day, can we not find ways around these problems? Perhaps a mobile transporter / erector / launcher like SS24 or Pershing II, with fuel and oxidiser delivered by underground pipes that attach to the launch truck. Or something.... Let's tell the engineers to go figure it out and see if they come up with something that works. It can't be impossible; the Soviet R-7 series launchers (Vostok / Voskhod / Soyuz) almost furnish an existence proof. These launchers, despite their mechanical complexity (4 liquid boosters and 20 first stage engines), are typically launched one to two days after horizontal delivery to the pad. On several occasions beginning in 1962, two manned launches were made from the same pad less than 24 hours apart. On October 11-13 1969, three manned missions (Soyuz 6, 7, and 8) were launched from the same pad within 48 hours. If we use contemporary sensors and computers to automate the fueling and checkout, why does the "launch team" need to be huge? Bob drives the launcher out to the middle of the circle of concrete, hooks up the hoses, then goes back to the blockhouse and presses the green "Start" button. An hour later, or so, the "Ready" light comes on, and at High Noon he pushes the red "Go" button. Sitting immediately to his right Fred, in the blue suit, follows the proceedings on a laptop computer with his index finger on the orange "Oops" button. Assuming things go OK, ten minutes after the ship lifts, Bob goes out and drives the launch truck back to the garage where it's reloaded with the next rocket (assume we have ten trucks, or so, to pipeline the setup process and account for attrition). Then it's off the cafeteria for lunch. Excess Capacity --------------- Every proposal, prosaic or exotic, for a high-capacity, fast-turnaround launch system immediately runs into the objection, "There just aren't enough payloads to make the system pay. Other than a few established markets for satellites, there just aren't that many profitable, useful, or interesting things to do in space right now, and we already have too many launchers chasing too few launch customers." This is the heart of the chicken-and-egg problem that is blocking the development and exploration of space. As long as launches cost tens or hundreds of millions of US$ each, only governments and the very largest corporations will be able to afford them, and only for the most obvious and essential purposes, such as communication, earth resource, navigation, and reconnaissance satellites. And as long as the number of such payloads is less than a hundred per year, who is realistically going to pay to develop a launcher capable of sustained rates many times as great, however cheap it ends up being? You'd just end up with a huge pile of rockets gathering dust waiting for payloads, wouldn't you? Would you? Consider the following scenario. The Agency announces a procurement in which bidders are invited to provide launches, one per day, of 2000 kg or more to a standard Low Earth Orbit, mating with a specified payload and shroud interface and to a prescribed set of services on a flat concrete pad. A suitably derated payload is specified for polar orbit. Bids of more than US$1.25 million per successful launch will be returned unread. The winner of the bid will be awarded a fixed-price contract for 1000 launches at the agreed price. The first 100 launches will be considered development flights and will be purchased at the bid price regardless of success or failure; afterward only successful launches will be purchased. The procurement will be re-competed every 1000 launches; if a new vendor wins with a substantially lower cost per launch, they will be granted the same development period for the first 100 flights. The vendor retains all rights to the launcher design and is free to offer it on the open market independent of the Agency. Immediately the launch contract awarded, the Agency announces the availability of daily flights of 2000 kg to LEO or 1500 kg to polar orbit. Commercial enterprises may purchase launches for whatever purpose they wish at a price equal to the Agency's cost per launch plus 25%. Unsold flights are offered on a first-come, first-served basis to researchers, government agencies, and individuals. In the event of excess demand, non-commercial proposals will be selected by a peer review process similar to that used to allocate telescope time at astronomical observatories. All risks of launch failure are borne by the provider of the payload; clients should note historical failure rates and build appropriate spares. Provider of the payload assumes all liability for it once it separates from Agency's rocket. Payloads shall be delivered by truck to the loading dock of the Agency's Rocket Garage. All payloads must be supplied with adequate documentation to verify their content and safety. The payload interface specification handbook is available for US$5 from the Agency's toll-free order line; payload test and integration jigs are available in the Agency's regional centres and many major universities around the world. Plans for building your own are available for US$5. Payloads delivered to the Rocket Garage are inspected to ensure they are not nuclear bombs, sacks of gravel, or otherwise unacceptable. Payloads containing propulsion hardware are reviewed especially closely. Assuming no big no-nos, the payload is bolted to the top of the next free rocket, the requested orbit inclination is dialed into the rocket's guidance system, and it moves down the queue toward the pad. The adventurous will recall that the Project Mercury capsule had a launch weight of 1935 kg. If fewer than one payload a day arrives at the Rocket Garage (as is certain at the outset), the Agency will store the excess rockets in the Rocket Warehouse out back, while continuing to launch at least one per week with an inert concrete payload (in a rapidly decaying orbit) to maintain launch team proficiency and verify the continuing quality of rockets supplied by the vendor. This procurement and offering of launch services is explicitly intended to punch through the chicken-and-egg problem. In essence, the Agency would be spending US$475 million a year on a flock of 365 hens, then waiting to see if eggs started to show up. This runs the risk, of course, of ending up with egg all over one's face. Suppose it isn't possible to build a rocket that will orbit half the payload of a Delta, launched 50 times less frequently than the V2, at a cost ten times greater than that primitive fifty year old missile. In that case nobody responds seriously to the Agency's bid, and the Agency goes and blows the money on something else, vowing to try again in ten years. Now suppose the rockets do start showing up one a day, and departing on schedule with a success rate that makes the supplier's profit margin juicy enough to fund further R&D, but the payloads don't appear. The Agency rapidly becomes the butt of every stand-up comic and a motion is introduced in the Legislature to re-name it the "Orbital Ready-Mix Delivery Agency". Well, if that's how it plays out, I guess we all ought to pack up and go home then, shouldn't we? Because that would demonstrate, in a real-world test, than there really aren't very many useful things to do in space, after all. That even if we push the marginal cost of launches down to zero, nobody will be able to think of anything to use them for, not for Venus probe science fair projects, personal spysats, hypersonic surfing demonstration/validation flights, nor microgravity research, material processing, life sciences, remote sensing, VLBI radio astronomy, optical astronomy, or anything else. That other than the existing big-market space applications, there's no earthly reason to leave the Earth, that much of the "space age" was based on faulty premises, that the "final frontier" isn't worth exploring. Is this likely to be the case? Loose Ends ---------- Naturally, things aren't as easy to accomplish in the real world as they are to bandy about on paper. Special relativity limits the velocity with which one can wave one's arms, and the UNDO button doesn't remove a hole you've just bored the wrong place into an expensive piece of metal. Many things might go wrong in an attempt to jump-start the exploitation of space this way. The two real biggies are discussed above: "it won't work", or "space isn't worth it". Here are some others I'm concerned about as well. Range Capacity. Given current low launch rates, configuring a range is complicated and takes a long time which couldn't accommodate daily launches, especially to a variety of inclinations. And most existing spaceports can't handle both equatorial and polar launches. Maybe we should plan on Hawaii or Cape York from the outset and get the paperwork started to declare an appropriate air and sea exclusion zone (for two hours per day around the scheduled launch time). Any rocket that meets the launch rate and cost criteria cannot require complex or expensive ground infrastructure. Environmental Issues. One reason for insisting on LH2/LOX rather than Kerosene/LOX, hypergolics, or solids/hybrids is that it's clean. We could launch one every minute and contribute less to global warming, ozone layer depletion, and other varieties of atmospheric pollution than 747s crossing the Atlantic every day. Also, exhaust and/or fluffy white clouds resulting from the occasional really bad day aren't harmful to anybody who happens to be downwind. On the solid waste issue, clearly dropping big chunks of aluminum and steel into the ocean every day isn't a particularly elegant way to break the bonds of gravity, not compared to all those sleek paper spaceplanes on the magazine covers. But I suspect if one were to compare the total mass wasted in expended stages to that of non-recycled aluminum cans and automobile engines, it would be an insignificant percentage. It's worth noting that what we're throwing away every day consists basically of aluminum and iron with a dash of silicon, and that these are three of the four most abundant elements in the Earth's crust. Besides, outside the two-hour launch period, salvage boats are welcome to recover the expended stages and sell them for scrap. Space Junk. So many launches may run the risk of unacceptably polluting the near-Earth environment. Clearly, as noted above, care will be required not to launch payloads likely to explode or otherwise misbehave in orbit. Payloads will probably have to be released in orbits which guarantee the timely decay and burn-up of expended upper stages. We need to make sure the upper stage always burns up completely, leaving no chunks to go "thump" in the night. Payloads intended for high-traffic or high-risk final orbits will require special certification that they will dispose of themselves in a responsible manner. Fuel cost. It may be that if we succeed in pushing the hardware cost down, we'll end up with an airline-like situation where fuel cost becomes a major component of the expense. I don't know how much liquid hydrogen goes for today, and I haven't tried to predict what it would cost when purchased in the quantities a launch a day would require. This needs to be worked out. Even daily launches should be a minor consumer in the market for liquid oxygen. Payload pyrotechnic servicing. In the discussion of payload delivery and integration, I confess to glossing over the issue of pre-launch payload servicing. You can't just take a satellite with a solid kick motor and a hundred kilograms of hydrazine on board down to the DHL counter and ship it to the spaceport. The hazardous aspects of payload processing must be done in a thoroughly professional manner at a facility close to the launch site, and the design of these aspects of payloads must be subjected to design reviews comparable to those currently used for commercial launches. This increases the payload cost, but not the launch cost. It will probably promote the emergence of standard spacecraft buses which provide these components of the payload, which can be serviced for launch for a flat fee by their vendors. Tracking and control. The daily launch rate envisioned here would overwhelm existing ground control facilities. Yet the experience of AMSAT and UOSAT proves that sophisticated and expensive gear isn't required to manage a satellite, at least in LEO. Without access to TDRSS or a global tracking network, most satellites are going to have be very autonomous, communicating with their makers in occasional high-bandwidth gabfests as they pop above the horizon. Since it's very likely that one or more manufacturers will offer a standard satellite bus compatible with the launcher, providing power, communications, etc., perhaps they will also market access to an uplink and downlink as a value-added service. From your nearest ISDN jack or Internet site, you could send and receive packets to your satellite and let the bus vendor worry about how and when they were delivered. Deep space missions are a problem; those who propose them are going to have to obtain time on a big dish as part of their grant proposal. One hopes that if many missions with clear scientific merit are proposed, money might be forthcoming to expand the existing deep space communication facilities. NASA/Congress will never do it. Who said anything about NASA or the U.S. Congress? A total budget of US$475 million per year is within the reach of many industrialised nations, especially at a time when defence spending is being curtailed, aerospace companies are suffering from excess capacity, engineering and manufacturing people are suffering lay-offs, and policy makers worry about how to convert defence industries without harming readiness by eroding the industrial base. US$475 million per year represents the following percentage of the early 1990's defence budgets (CIA World Factbook 1992) of the following countries: Country % Defence Budget --------- ---------------- South Africa 13.6% Switzerland 10.3% Sweden 7.7% Australia 6.3% Israel 6.3% Spain 5.5% China 4.0% (approx) Italy 2.1% France 1.4% Japan 1.3% Germany 1.2% United Kingdom 1.1% United States 0.15% Any country whose government became convinced that a scheme like this might give it a long-term (literal) leg up in the world and beyond, eventually, could implement it by reprogramming a small percentage of its existing military spending, much of which would flow right back into its own industries and economy and might be seen to have military value it its own right. For that matter, US$475 million is just about what Microsoft will spend on R&D in fiscal year 1993 and a third of their pre-tax profit, and it's less than 3% of Motorola's sales for the same year, so well-heeled and forward-looking companies (or consortium of such) could play as well. Conclusion ---------- The near-term development of space is constrained by excessive costs of launching payloads to low Earth orbit. The development of innovative launch technologies is discouraged by an apparent over capacity of existing launchers, "where will the payloads come from?", while development of payloads for new space applications isn't affordable given current launch costs. Rocketry was originally developed as a branch of artillery. Proponents of various reusable launch technologies argue that as long as an artillery-like model is maintained, affordable launches will never be possible. But to be effective, artillery must not only have adequate throw-weight, it must also provide a rapid rate of fire while minimising the cost of expended rounds. Today's space launch "artillery" costs tens to hundreds of millions of US$ per shot and fires at intervals measured in weeks or months. Yes, expendable launchers are artillery, and the ones we have today are, as artillery pieces, extremely overpriced and under-performing. The last time liquid rockets were truly treated as artillery was the very first time they were used in war, the A4/V2, fifty years ago. Despite an increasingly desperate war situation, constant supply problems, and aerial bombardment, V2s were manufactured at rates of up to 800 per month, launched at a comparable pace, and produced at a marginal cost of US$13,000 (1945 dollars) for each additional rocket after the first 5000. Making allowances for all the differences between Nazi Germany and the modern world, between a not very militarily useful nor reliable weapon and a viable space launcher, between a one-stage Ethanol/LOX missile and a multistage LH2/LOX launcher, between 1945 wartime dollars and current currency, still one must ask why, after 50 years of technological progress and rocket experience, our current rockets cost not five, not ten, not twenty times as much as a V2, but between one hundred (Pegasus) and two thousand four hundred (Titan III/SRM) times as much. Is what a Delta 6925 does, lobbing 3900 kg into LEO, fundamentally three hundred times more expensive than what a V2 did fifty years ago? It is interesting to observe that current launchers are bought and launched in quantities about a thousand times less than those of the V2 at peak production. In no sense are they mass-produced, and therefore they do not benefit from either the means of mass production (investment in highly-automated manufacturing), nor from the learning curve that results when one builds hundreds and thousands of an identical product. Could it be that a large component of the present unacceptably high launch cost is both cause and effect of the present low rate of launches? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Starks Internet: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com Sr. Systems Engineer Magnavox Electronic Systems Company (Magnavox URL: http://www.fw.hac.com/external.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From VM Mon Dec 2 12:30:23 2002 Content-Length: 4900 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4900" "Thursday" "28" "November" "2002" "16:00:12" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "115" "starship-design: Lox kerosine SSTO numbers" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil "starship-design: Lox kerosine SSTO numbers" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASL0Oxn016214 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gASL0OiH016213 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r09.mx.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.105]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASL0Nxn016186 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.126.1b8ba364 (18403); Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:00:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <126.1b8ba364.2b17dddc@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Lox kerosine SSTO numbers Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:00:12 EST Subject: LOX/KERO v LOX/LH2 SSTO From: "Steven S. Pietrobon" Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:17:55 +0930 Message-ID: <33ADB9AB.54A2@sworld.com.au> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. [Mod note: I am bending the usual no-MIME encoded messages rule for this one; it's got a postscript ascii document in the second part which is of reasonable, smallish size and which seems to add to the utility of the message quite a bit. Those without MIME capable newsreaders can extract the contents with a text editor if they so desire. Any complaints to gherbert@crl.com - gwh] --------------367E49BE69E4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think it is worth investigating the use of LOX/KERO as propellants for single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicles. Attached is a postscript file which shows delta V versus propellant volume/final mass ratio. As can be seen, in terms of propellant volume LOX/KERO (or H2O2/KERO) is significantly better than LOX/LH2 (all the way to orbital speeds of 9000 to 10,000 m/s). The numbers I used were v_e (m/s) d_p (kg/l) MR Mass (kg) Engine H2O2/KERO 3042 1.314 7.2 8755 RD-170 (calculated) LOX/KERO 3305 1.025 2.6 8755 RD-170 LOX/LH2 4441 0.3611 6.0 3177 SSME where v_e is the exhaust speed, d_p is the propellant density, and MR is the mixture ratio. The VentureStar has the following specifications (1 t = 1000 kg) m_e = 89.8 t (empty mass) m_p = 875.0 t (propellant mass) m_c = 26.8 t (cargo mass) m_t = 991.6 t (total liftoff mass) F_s = 13,419 kN (sea level thrust) v_es = 3403 m/s (sea level exhaust speed) v_ev = 4462 m/s (vacuum exhaust speed) V_p = 2423 m^3 (propellant volume) The total delta V for the vehicle is dV = 4462 ln(1+ 875.0/(89.8 + 26.8)) = 9551 m/s The liftoff acceleration (ignoring gravity) is a = F_s/m_t = 13,419/991.6 = 13.53 m/s^2 Let us assume that the propellant volume flow rate through the LOX/KERO and LOX/LH2 engines is constant. Then the liftoff thrust for an equivalent LOX/KERO engine is F_s2 = (d_p2/d_p1) (v_e2/v_e1) F_s1 = (1.025/0.3611) (3032/3403) 13,419 = 33,938 kN The sea level v_e of the RD-170 is 3032 m/s. This thrust is about the same as the Saturn V. Let us assume that the liftoff acceleration is the same, thus m_t2 = F_s2/a = 33,938/13.53 = 2507.8 t Assuming the same delta V (the actual delta V will be lower due to the larger thrust and thus smaller gravity losses) we have 9551 = 3305 ln(1+ m_p2/m_f2) 2507.8 = m_p2 + m_f2 where m_f2 = m_e2 + m_c2. Solving we have m_p2 = 2368.4 t and m_f2 = 139.4 t. The tank volume is V_p2 = 2368.4/1.025 = 2311 m^3 which is 112 m^3 smaller than VentureStar. The final mass of VentureStar is m_f1 = 89.8 + 26.8 = 116.6 t. Thus, the new design will have a final mass that is 22.8 t greater than VentureStar. Unfortunately, this greater mass can not be converted into payload mass since the engine mass for the new design is greater than for VentureStar. For the RD-170 the engine mass to sea level thrust ratio is 8755/7259 = 1.206 kg/kN. I don't know this ratio for the VentureStar engines so I'll take the figures for the SSME which are 3177/1668 = 1.905 kg/kN. Thus the engine mass for the new design is 33,938 x 1.206 = 40.9 t and for the VentureStar the mass is 13,419 x 1.905 = 25.6 t. Thus, the new design requires an increased engine mass of 40.9-25.6 = 15.3 t which reduces the extra payload mass to orbit to 22.8-15.3 = 7.5 t. Let us use this mass for the stronger thrust structure. Thus, with a 26.8 t payload (the same as VentureStar) we have that the empty mass of the new design is 139.4-26.8 = 112.6 t (of which 36.3% is engine mass). This compares to the empty mass of 89.8 t of VentureStar (of which 28.5% is engine mass). Despite the higher empty mass the new design will be slightly smaller dimensionally due to the smaller tank volume. So there you go. If reduced gravity losses reduce the delta V by 500 m/s (Mitchell Burnside Clapp showed that a H2O2/KERO powered SSTO reduces delta V by 595 m/s) then the empty mass can increase to 135.4 t (of which 30.2% is engine mass) with a 26.8 t payload. The tank volume is 2288 m^3 (135 m^3 smaller than VentureStar). So, I think a LOX/KERO SSTO is technically feasible but the large engine mass could be a problem. Still, it may be desirable to make a LOX/KERO SSTO work due to the operational advantages it offers. KERO is much easier to work with than LH2. The propellant costs will also be less which in a resuable system (like airplanes) will hopefully be a large part of the cost of a launch. -- Steven S. Pietrobon, Small World Communications, 6 First Avenue Payneham South SA 5070, Australia fax +61 8 8332 3177 mailto:steven@sworld.com.au http://www.sworld.com.au/ From VM Mon Dec 2 12:30:23 2002 Content-Length: 1227 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1227" "Thursday" "28" "November" "2002" "15:59:58" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "41" "starship-design: Black horse info" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil "starship-design: Black horse info" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASL0Axn016167 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gASL0AoU016161 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com (imo-r03.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.99]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASL08xn016097 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.b9.2aa8eee7 (18403); Thu, 28 Nov 2002 15:59:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Black horse info Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 15:59:58 EST FYI. I presume you all know what Black Horse is? I'm not a big fan, but the equations should be usefull. Kelly >Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 19:07:05 -0500 >From: KellySt@aol.com >To: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com >Subject: Black horse > >Subject: assessing Black Horse style vehicles >From: magnus@im.lcs.mit.edu (Daniel Risacher) >Date: 17 Mar 1996 19:37:30 -0500 >Message-ID: > > >Mitchell Burnside Clapp has written a piece entitled "An approximate >method of assessing the performance of propellant transfer >spaceplanes" > >I've formatted this into HTML and added it to the Black Horse page as: > > http://www.im.lcs.mit.edu/bh/dfh.html > >The good bits are the equations, which are included as inline gif's, >so use a graphical browser. > >In the paper, Mitch works through some of the math to determine the >performance of a Black Horse type vehicle, and extends it to look at >APT spaceplaces with turbofans or fan-ramjets such as those proposed >by Kaiser-Marquardt. > >The gist is that adding turbofans to a Black Horse vehicle would not >work very well, but adding fan-ramjets could be of considerable >advantage. > > >The Black Horse W3 Page, is, as always: > > http://www.im.lcs.mit.edu/bh/ From VM Mon Dec 2 12:30:24 2002 Content-Length: 4942 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4942" "Thursday" "28" "November" "2002" "16:00:07" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "115" "starship-design: FYI black horse" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil "starship-design: FYI black horse" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASL0Kxn016193 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gASL0KcK016191 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.103]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASL0Ixn016183 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.68.29570078 (18403); Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:00:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <68.29570078.2b17ddd7@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Language: en X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id gASL0Jxn016187 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: FYI black horse Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:00:07 EST I thought I'ld foreward some stuff you might be intersted in, or might be worth working into a updated site. Date: Mon, Sep 16, 1996 11:40 AM EST From: MbClapp Subj: Answer to your question on Usenet RE Airdrop vs. Retanking To: Kelly St There has been a great deal of work done on examining space access concepts that are based on air launch as a means of reducing Delta-V to orbit to a level that reduces the performance requirements on a launch vehicle. Essentially, subsonic staging provides benefits over single stage to orbit in several areas. The gravity losses are reduced because the vehicle is in horizontal flight, supporting itself by aerodynamic means rather than by engine thrust. The drag losses are reduced as well. Above 18,000 feet, over half the atmosphere is beneath you. The back pressure losses on the engines are also reduced because the limit for no separated nozzle flow permits larger expansion engines. Finally, there is the possibility of staging above weather, an operational advantage. Relatively little work has examined the possibility of inflight propellant transfer as an alternative to air launch, however. The reasons for this are unclear. The inflight propellant transfer concept does offer five distinct advantages over air launch. First of all, the experience base in military aviation with inflight propellant transfer is enormously greater than that for air launch. Perhaps four hundred manned aircraft have ever been released from beneath other aircraft. A similar number of inflight propellant transfers are performed each day. And the number of stores in excess of 50,000 pounds that have been released from aircraft total a few dozen at most. Every modern military aircraft can be refueled in flight, and for many missions it is critical. "Take off, top off and continue with the primary mission" is an everyday operation in the US Air Force. Second, the separation of two large objects in flight is an inherently risky maneuver. Stores certification history for military aircraft is full of examples of released objects striking the parent aircraft and causing major damage. The risk can be minimized by a number of means, including captive carry testing, wind tunnel work, and build-up flight test, but at some point the certification program must commit to releasing the object – an all-or-nothing affair. This level of risk can be managed, but doing so drives costs up. Propellant transfer, on the other hand, can be certified by slowly and incrementally flying formation, then near the tanker, then in dry contact with the tanker, then with increasing amounts of propellant transfer, opening the envelope in a very gradual fashion. Inflight refueling accidents are unheard of in flight test. It is a safer activity to certify. Third, the performance of an air-launch system is subject to some important limitations. Because two airframes are under the influence of one set of engines, the aircraft cannot climb quite as high for separation as an inflight propellant transfer concept can. The interference drag between the two airframes also limits the envelope of the ensemble to some degree. The effect is not enormous, adding up to an advantage of perhaps 250 ft/sec of Delta-V to the inflight propellant transfer concept, but it is noticeable. Fourth, the inflight propellant transfer concept offers some important advantages in flexibility. The orbital aircraft has the capability to fly suborbital missions without propellant transfer, to distances of 3,000 to 6,000 nautical miles, depending on the aerodynamic configuration. This capability exists because the airframe is capable of independent takeoff and landing. This offers a transcontinental range for a number of alternate missions that are difficult to imagine for an air launch concept. For the same reason, the tanker and orbital aircraft may be based at different locations, and interfaced only in flight. This offers more basing flexibility and removes the requirements for specialized facilities and ground support equipment such as that needed to mate the Shuttle orbiter to its carrier aircraft. Finally, the carrier aircraft for an air launch concept must be either an entirely new aircraft or a major, airworthiness affecting structural modification to an existing aircraft (unless the gross weight of the orbital segment is very small). The carrier must bear not only the weight of the propellant, but also the empty weight of the aircraft as well as its payload. The orbital aircraft must be a great deal smaller than its carrier for an air-launch concept, while it can be larger than the tanker (or tankers) for an inflight propellant transfer concept. This drives the designer to very large carrier aircraft, which can be expensive. Mitchell Burnside Clapp From VM Mon Dec 2 12:30:24 2002 Content-Length: 12059 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["12059" "Thursday" "28" "November" "2002" "16:00:20" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "434" "Re: starship-design: Small Steps Keep Us Grounded" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil "starship-design: Small Steps Keep Us Grounded" nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASL0Yxn016249 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gASL0YqO016248 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m02.mx.aol.com (imo-m02.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASL0Xxn016219 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.1a6.cb93b3d (18403); Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:00:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1a6.cb93b3d.2b17dde4@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Small Steps Keep Us Grounded Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:00:20 EST I agree with a lot of this, especial the contrast of space advocacy groups vrs the federalist group. But I'm much less optimistic about NASA after the SLI (space launch initiative) reports came in. They again focused on very old crude designs, optimized for NASA's needs, and not optimized for practicality or commercial adaptability. I mean when your bold new idea is mini-shuttle on the tip of multistage expendable booster?! That was a old Air force proposal for a X-15 spin off in the mid '60's! NASA might want to at least look at concepts like Blackhorse the airforce came up with a decade or two ago!! NASA needs to be more of a aeronautical research org. One supporting aeospace and space launch systems. Not just eternal research on technollogies decades away from use, but trying to get something developed and runing now that could really make a difference. Top on the list for space is a versital, relyable, low cost, space launcher. Kelly In a message dated 11/28/02 8:20:30 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Small Steps Keep Us Grounded > >The Spacefaring Web 2.19 > > > >by John Carter McKnight > >Scottsdale - Nov 22, 2002 > > > >NASA's recent budget request is uninspiring, reactive and constraining >- and > >just what the doctor ordered. Agency Administrator Sean O'Keefe has > >apparently realized that our grandiose dreams of near-term space triumphs > >are simply shattered, leaving us - government, industry and advocacy alike >- > >with the unglamorous work of living within our means, delivering on our > >promises, and slowly building a new space infrastructure, one that, this > >time, can last. > > > >There's an old saying that the best is the enemy of the good enough. NASA, > >following in the family tradition of its older brother, the Pentagon, has > >spent twenty years proving the maxim. President Reagan's little $8 billion > >Space Station Freedom managed to misplace $5 billion last year, in its >18th > >year of bureaucratic life. > > > >Despite the "faster, better, cheaper" mantra, the engineering > >bells-and-whistles mindset, coupled with government budgeting procedures, > >has caused most projects to bloat. > > > >The gap between expectations and results then gets filled with "viewgraph > >engineering," more grandiose promises, coupled with requests for yet another > >one-time-only emergency handout. > > > >NASA and its dependent contractors are not alone in overpromising and > >under-delivering. Space advocacy's track record is, if anything, worse >("L5 > >in '95," for example). > > > >Volunteer enthusiasm couples with pent-up demand fed by NASA's failure >to > >deliver on its promises to create the same dynamic. Ambitious projects >are > >declared, discussed in a frenzy of chat-board activity - then, like so >many > >amateur rockets, either fizzle or explode. > > > >Entrepreneurial space companies, often drawn from the ranks of either > >advocates or frustrated veterans of NASA disappointments, have followed >the > >same pattern: the initial draft of the business plan (if they're that > >realistic) calls for conquering the Solar System, producing two dozen > >products and making billionaires of their first round investors, all in >five > >years. > > > >To their credit, though, the entrepreneurs have been the first to learn >the > >lesson of "foundations first." The die-off of many of the launch vehicle > >startups triggered an increase in professionalism and a decrease in > >grandiosity among their successors. > > > >Many current space startups have much more business savvy and vastly more > >humble - and achievable - goals than their predecessors did. The lessons > >they learned in the unforgiving school of the marketplace are finally > >beginning to spread to their governmental and advocacy peers. > > > >The space community had no monopoly on excess, to be sure. We've all been > >down that road. Overpromising was what the latter 1990s were about. > > > >While space has had its own dynamic, driven by NASA's pervasive lack of > >realism, the entire Western economy was, if not, as the Texans say, "all >hat > >and no cattle," at least running with a hat/cattle ratio that no sober > >banker (had there been any) would have approved. > > > >That party's over. NASA must rebuild credibility with the public, with > >Congress and with its international partners, deliver on promises already > >made, and live within its budgetary means. Advocacy must do the same. > > > >The NASA budget request is a courageous attempt to meet those critical > >requirements of credibility, frugality and infrastructure repair. The Space > >Launch Initiative was shaping up to generate a replacement for the Shuttle > >as disastrously out of step with fiscal and mission requirements as the > >original has been. > > > >There is no good solution to the problems caused by unsafe, spectacularly > >expensive and antiquated transportation to a largely worthless destination. > >Sacking the SLI program while extending the life of the existing orbiters > >and developing a relatively cheap lifeboat capable of supporting a full >crew > >complement on the International Space Station, is a good faith, "good > >enough" fix. > > > >Hopefully, this approach, grounded in a blessed lack of vision, will spread > >through NASA's upper management. The agency's "NExT" initiative, despite > >some very positive elements, smacks too much of a re-creation of the process > >that diverted the bulk of its attention and resources into the Station >and > >Shuttle, to precious little relative return. > > > >More microgravity mega-engineering does not seem a reasonable response > >either to NASA's own priority of exploring life's origins, or to the public > >and commercial demand for affordable access to space. > > > >Criticism of this sort of bureaucratic "beau geste" has been coming from > >interesting quarters. The Economist, the British news weekly, has long >been > >fanatically hostile to human spaceflight. Yet its November 14 editorial > >marks a change in tone. > > > >While still scathing ("It is true that science can be done in the space > >station. But science can also be done dressed in a clown suit atop a large > >Ferris wheel"), the editors go on to express sentiments that could have >come > >from this column: > > > >[F]or decades there has been a huge pent-up demand for flights into space. > >Although the private sector is finally making some progress towards this, > >NASA should have been there years ago. What is still needed is research >and > >development on economical and safe space transport for the public at large. > >Space, like the Wild West, can be truly opened up by the private sector. > >NASA's central goal in human space flight should be to make that possible. > > > >A broad consensus seems to be coalescing around this radical view. The > >Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry delivered > >its final report to the Administration this week. No visionary programs >are > >called for: rather, the focus is on rebuilding infrastructure, improving > >basic research and removing trade barriers - the impediments to spacefaring > >identified in the previous issue of this column. > > > >The Commission calls for a realignment of Federal efforts around these > >unglamorous but essential issues. The advocacy community as well should > >follow suit, to aid in this effort and to redeem itself from the > >overpromising/under-delivering space curse. > > > >This past week marked the twentieth anniversary of a fringe organization > >whose beginnings were much less promising than those of the space groups', > >but whose influence, unlike that of our community, has become immense. > > > >The Federalist Society began as a campus-based movement of conservative, > >statist law students in an era when the top law schools were largely liberal > >and biased against the exercise of imperial power. It was a fringe > >organization regarded with deep suspicion by mainstream students and faculty > >(as I recall from firsthand experience, having attended law school with > >co-founders of the organization in its second year of existence). > > > >Yet its anniversary was noted prominently in the New York Times - as the > >commemorative celebration was attended by a Supreme Court Justice and the > >Attorney General. No cabinet-level official has ever attended a > >space-advocacy party, to the best of my knowledge. > > > >What did the Federalist Society do right that the various space societies > >have not? Three things of utterly critical significance: it focused on > >training and promoting cadre, and on engaging in genuine, respectful debate > >with its opponents. Also, it did not squander its energy on > >personality-driven factional infighting or schismatic doctrinal squabbles. > >The space advocacy organizations should learn that lesson and radically > >revision themselves around those two positive projects. > > > >The Federalist Society made the front pages because it spent twenty years > >recruiting bright students who were receptive to its message, training >and > >indoctrinating them, and networking them with alumni and supporters in > >positions of influence. In less than a generation their strategy has given > >them policy dominance over the Federal agency of concern to them, the > >Justice Department. > > > >Imagine if a space organization could have placed its members throughout >the > >NASA hierarchy, claiming the Administrator and the Secretary of Defense >as > >allies - we might actually have a Federal space effort accomplishing > >something other than intellectual and financial bankruptcy restructuring. > > > >The other critical technique involves recruiting one's adversaries as > >marketing representatives. By providing a forum for liberal and libertarian > >opponents to hone their arguments through debate, the Federalist Society > >forced those opponents to accord it respect and legitimacy. > > > >By putting their people on panels alongside respected mainstream opinion > >leaders, they declared themselves peers and serious players. When their > >opponents would go out marketing themselves, they would likely refer to > >having assailed their Federalist Society adversaries - again, marking the > >once-fringe organization as a legitimate peer of the prominent mainstream > >figure. > > > >Space advocacy groups have consistently chosen to preach to the choir rather > >than to engage their critics. This choice ghettoizes us, prevents us from > >becoming truly proficient or convincing in delivering our message, denies >us > >the opportunity to win over moderates who have only heard the opposition's > >case, and denies us the leverage of putting our adversaries to work > >marketing us. > > > >There has been talk of engaging the environmental and religious communities, > >of opening a dialog with the technologically-skeptical "Party of Nah," >but > >little concrete action. Our failure costs us influence. > > > >NASA now has an opportunity to rebuild its financial, reputational and > >physical infrastructure. Only when this process is complete will it be >able > >to move on to grander things. > > > >By abandoning the impulse to build deep-space Egyptian pyramids in favor >of > >more mundane and infinitely more useful Roman roads, the agency may actually > >accomplish its true goal of opening the space frontier. If the space > >advocacy groups similarly choose to abandon millennial fervor and > >narcissistic self-destruction in favor of recruiting, training and > >influence-building, they can provide the leadership of government and > >industry necessary for opening that frontier. > > > >Critical to both efforts is accepting that, for now, building a spacefaring > >civilization does not involve grand theorizing, viewgraph engineering or > >marching gaily off to triumph. For now, revolutionary patience lies in > >inspiring the kids, paying the bills and building the roads. If we do those > >things right, the triumphs will surely come. From VM Mon Dec 2 12:30:24 2002 Content-Length: 7797 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7797" "Thursday" "28" "November" "2002" "16:00:10" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "201" "starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "11" nil "starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASL0Kxn016201 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gASL0KHj016200 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.104]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gASL0Jxn016184 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:00:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.16a.17c11d30 (18403); Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:00:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <16a.17c11d30.2b17ddda@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:00:10 EST Worked this up a while ago. Its more then a little rough, but might be interesting. ================ Was looking over SeaDragon statistics from those URL's I posted. Liftoff Thrust is 36,000,000 kgf, or about 36,000 tons. The saturn 5's F-1's were about 780,000 kgf. So you'ld need about 46 of them. Good thing you launch them in the deep ocean. The sound of 10 Saturn 5's taking off at once would play hell with anything breakable in the county. John Chancelor was there for one of the forst Sat-V test launches. The vibration shook apart the viewing stands set up for the reporters. In colapsed under them adn they scrambled for safy. He remembers sprawling out on the ground as it shok under him and he watch that giant take off. Next time the moved the stands back a mile. Anyway thats a lot of noise. Its also a lot of engines. Then I remembered a stat on injector ramjet engines. The injectors could "entrain" in 20 times the exaust mass gas'es mass of air. Thus driving a BIG ramjet/scramjet engin e with 2 or 3 F-1 engines. Has to be simpler to build a 36,000,000 kgf suite of ramjets/scramjets then a rocket wityh that size. Also lightens the take off weight by a rediculas amount. Also given the first stage (if i did the math right given the burn out times adn DV given the rocket equation) cuts out at about Mach-6. ================= Sea Dragon-first stage Gross Mass 11,600,000 kg. Empty Mass 1,300,000 kg. Thrust (vac) 36,400,000 kgf. Isp 290 sec. [[ 300 -360 (vac) or so is normal ]] Burn time 81 sec. Propellants Lox/Kerosene Isp(sl) 200 sec. Diameter 21.5 m. Span 30.0 m. Length 68.0 m. Comments Sea level thrust shown. Thrust, chamber pressure varies during ascent. Vacuum thrust at cut-off 40 million kgf. Total mass, specific impulse estimated from booster performance figures. >>>> speed at stage 1 burn out??? The classic rocket equation gives the fuel to ship mass ratio, needed to get a given change in speed, with a fuel that has a given exaust velocity. dv = Desired change (or delta) in the ships speed. Vexh = Exaust velocity of the material (290 x 9.8m/s) = 2842 M = The fuel mass ratio =Exp(dV/Vexh) Liftoff Thrust: 36,000,000 kgf. Liftoff Total Mass: 18,000,000 kg. fuel mass first stage 10,300,000 kg. mass at stage 1 burnout 7,700,00 m = M liftoff / (M liftoff - M fuel ) = 18,000,000 / 7,700,000 dv - Vexh ln ( m ) - gt dv = Vexh ln (m ) - gt = 2,413 - gt = 2,413m/s - (9.8 x 81 ) = 1,619m/s 2,413m/s = 5,212 m/hour about mach 7 1,619m/s = 3497 m/hour about mach 5 ================ Also noticed the Sea Dragon's first stage motor was expected to give 290 sec of ISP the F-1s were Isp (vac): 304 sec. Isp (sea level): 265 sec. And the first stage had a bout a 10-1 fuel mass ratio. If you lose most all of the LOx, you might spend it on Wings to lower take off thrust needs (and noise) and since its seaworthy, your not paying a weight price for seaplane abilities. Secound stage is Sea Dragon-second stage has a Gross Mass: 5,900,000 kg. Empty Mass: 530,000 kg. Thrust (vac): 6,350,000 kgf. or about 8 F-1 engines Isp: 320 sec. [[ LH/LOx engine usually give 440-460!!]] Burn time: 260 sec. Propellants: Lox/LH2 320 isp with LOx/LH?? Thats hardly better then the numbers for the LOx/Kerosine engines of the '60's? Its actually worse then the current gen of LOx/Kero engines which get up to 350 isp! Shuttle LOx/LH engines get about 450isp! Anyway >>>> stage 2 delta-V capacity ??? dv = Desired change (or delta) in the ships speed. Vexh = Exaust velocity of the material (320 x 9.8m/s) = 3136m/s m = The fuel mass ratio =Exp(dV/Vexh) m = M liftoff / (M liftoff - M fuel ) = 5,900,000 / 530,000 = 11.1 dv = Vexh ln ( m ) = 3136m/s ln ( 11.1 ) = 7548 m/s >>>>>>>> Given liquid hydrogens (LH) huge bulk and tank weight, not to mention cost, I'm thinking a pure LOx/Kerosine TSTO system makes more sence? Up the number of F-1s from 2-3 for the first stage to 8 (most of which arn't turned on until you leave the air), and you have the thrust. Ok, Sea Dragons second stage had a Gross Mass: 5,900,000 kg. Empty Mass: 530,000 kg. Mass of the fuel tanks would be less without the LH. But the LEO Payload was 450,000 kg. (550 tons), so your only talking about 80 tons of structure to orbit. Total Liftoff Mass was 18,000,000 kg. Sea Dragon-first stage Gross Mass 11,600,000 kg. Empty Mass 1,300,000 kg. Course that 10,300,000 kg of LOx and Kerosine can be reduced by a factor of 3.5 or so if you assume airbreathing. Thats down to 2,940,000 kg. That frees up a lot weight for structure or extra fuel. If you can take off HTOL you can assend more slowly on your wings until you get to high altitudes for your big run to speed. Saving more in fuel. A 747 has a empty weight about half its max takeoff weight. Course it has to takeoff at slower speeds. I think lift is one of those V^2 things. Given the size of this monster, it can handal light seas at speed. Probably lift off into its ground effect, then run up into far high speeds for assent. (lots of open ocean out there.) So possibly tripling its speed to 450-500ish mph could get you 9 times the take off weight? That big Russuan surface effect ship had numbers like that. If true the winged vehicle can lift maybe 10 times its dry weight. First stage fuel 2,940,000 kg 2nd stage fuel and LOX 5,370,000 kg. Cargo 450,000 kg. (550 tons) total - structure 8,760,000 kg So if you can do a 9 to 1 take off to empty weigh ratio, you need about 100,000 kg. for plane and drive & lift stuff. Sea Dragon had 1,300,000 plus 370,000 kg. or 1,670,000 Course eliminating the LOx from the first stage would cut at least half of the weight out of the first stage. Getting you under 1,000,000 total structure and systems. You can lose 100,000 kg of flight structure in there pretty easy, but you just doubled the dry weight to orbit. Doubling the dry weight to orbit would double the fuel load you'ld need to carry. You might save more weight from less thrust needed for a HTOL, or by airbreathing longer. Or you could switch to higher efficency LH/LOx for the post atmosphere boost, or build the hull out of something lighter then plate steel. The Russuans built whole attack subs out of titanium, so something of the weight of this is possible, and would more then halve the weight. It also is more heat and corrosion resistent. Pricy though. Don't know how much off hand. But anyway halving the structure weight by switch from '60's steel shouldn't be a big problem. If you stick to Kerosine / LOx all around. Thats about: 4,480,000 kg of kerosine $ 0.20 per kg = $816,000 3,900,000 kg of LOx $ 0.08 per kg = $312,000 Course thats not much of the cost of a launch now, but in mature systems it gets to be up to a 1/3rd. Dev costs? About all complex aircraft from RLV's to F-22s adn B-2s seem to be in the $10-$20 billion club now a days. At 500 tons cargo to LEo per flight. Our 3 million ton O'Neil would eat 6,000 flights to LEO just for the material, and could take more then that for the support stuff to fly it to L5. So even if we assume $60 billion in dev costs and only 6,000 total flights, the overhead costs should only be about a million dollars a flight. About the same as the fuel costs. Together only about $2 per pound of cargo to orbit. Servicing for launch was estimated in the tens of million of dollars per launch by seadragon. Course that was nearly 40 years ago, with a differnt configuration. Not sure how to guess for this. From VM Mon Dec 2 12:30:27 2002 Content-Length: 1324 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1324" "Monday" "2" "December" "2002" "11:47:55" "-0700" "ben franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "25" "Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil "starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB2Inmxn028643 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:49:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB2Inm0C028641 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:49:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from bach.ccinet.ab.ca (bach.ccinet.ab.ca [198.161.96.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB2Inkxn028606 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:49:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (gc-jet-208.jetnet.ab.ca [207.34.60.208]) by bach.ccinet.ab.ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB2IprFG053052 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:51:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca) Message-ID: <3DEBAADB.8050207@jetnet.ab.ca> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20021005 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <16a.17c11d30.2b17ddda@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ben franchuk From: ben franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 11:47:55 -0700 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > 320 isp with LOx/LH?? Thats hardly better then the numbers for the > LOx/Kerosine engines of the '60's? Its actually worse then the current gen > of LOx/Kero engines which get up to 350 isp! Shuttle LOx/LH engines get > about 450isp! > A 747 has a empty weight about half its max takeoff weight. Course it has to > takeoff at slower speeds. I think lift is one of those V^2 things. Given > the size of this monster, it can handal light seas at speed. Probably lift > off into its ground effect, then run up into far high speeds for assent. > (lots of open ocean out there.) So possibly tripling its speed to 450-500ish > mph could get you 9 times the take off weight? That big Russuan surface > effect ship had numbers like that. The problem with Rocket design is because things are so sensitive to the isp factor a minor change can throw a design right out the window. I think a smallish designed craft can be optinum for mass/payload in the 800 kg/2400 kg range providing the second stage is unmanned to a fixed space platform. Has any work on a third stage using microwave or solar powered engine that stays in orbit and captures the second stage? 1st stage -- air breathing/wings manned 2nd stage -- payload pod /winged reentry 3rd stage == booster shuttle/space frame Ben. From VM Mon Dec 2 12:50:57 2002 Content-Length: 2208 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2208" "Monday" "2" "December" "2002" "15:34:41" "-0500" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB2KYuxn014100 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:34:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB2KYuHS014099 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:34:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com (imo-m05.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB2KYrxn014039 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:34:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id z.161.17fdeb9c (15900); Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:34:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from aol.com (mow-m29.webmail.aol.com [64.12.137.6]) by air-id09.mx.aol.com (v89.21) with ESMTP id MAILINID93-1202153441; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:34:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <0642F7D4.01D9DA65.0017FCD8@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca (ben franchuk) Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 15:34:41 -0500 In a message dated 12/2/2002 1:47:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, ben franchuk writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> 320 isp with LOx/LH??  Thats hardly better then the numbers for the >> LOx/Kerosine engines of the '60's?  Its actually worse then the current gen >> of LOx/Kero engines which get up to 350 isp!  Shuttle LOx/LH engines get >> about 450isp! > >> A 747 has a empty weight about half its max takeoff weight.  Course it has to >> takeoff at slower speeds.  I think lift is one of those V^2 things.  Given >> the size of this monster, it can handal light seas at speed.  Probably lift >> off into its ground effect, then run up into far high speeds for assent.   >> (lots of open ocean out there.)  So possibly tripling its speed to 450-500ish >> mph could get you 9 times the take off weight?  That big Russuan surface >> effect ship had numbers like that. > >The problem with Rocket design is because things are so sensitive to >the isp factor a minor change can throw a design right out the window. >I think a smallish designed craft can be optinum for mass/payload in >the 800 kg/2400 kg range providing the second stage is unmanned to >a fixed space platform. Has any work on a third stage using microwave >or solar powered engine that stays in orbit and captures the second >stage? >1st stage -- air breathing/wings manned >2nd stage -- payload pod /winged reentry >3rd stage == booster shuttle/space frame >Ben. ISP isn't a critical cost factor, though you need to avoid designs with ISP to do it. Its worth noting that airbreathing systems have ISP's in the thousands, so they make up for a lot of upper stage issues. As to solar or microwave upper stages, only for orbit to orbit transfers. They simply don't mave the raw power needed for burning into Earth orbit. Their was some studies of a mid orbit intercept by a nuclear powered tug. In theory you could do a factor of ten increase cargo to orbit with a rocket based SSTO, overloaded into a suborbital capacity to intercept the boster tug. NOt real sure I'ld recomend the idea though. might as well just add the nuke to the upper stage or cary more fuel, and deal with a simpler system. Kelly From VM Mon Dec 2 19:08:49 2002 Content-Length: 2526 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2526" "Monday" "2" "December" "2002" "21:36:24" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "58" "Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB32aXxn003054 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:36:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB32aXbn003051 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:36:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB32aWxn003006 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:36:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id z.1a8.cebb026 (3657) for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 21:36:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1a8.cebb026.2b1d72a8@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 21:36:24 EST In a message dated 12/2/02 3:36:17 PM, KellySt@aol.com writes: >Their was some studies of a mid orbit intercept by a nuclear powered tug. > In theory you could do a factor of ten increase cargo to orbit with a >rocket based SSTO, overloaded into a suborbital capacity to intercept the >boster tug. NOt real sure I'ld recomend the idea though. might as well >just add the nuke to the upper stage or cary more fuel, and deal with a >simpler system. > > > >Kelly To: Mark Jensen From: KellySt@aol.com Hi everyone, I just read the Fall 94 "Journal of practical applications in space". (Yeah, I know I'm behind.) I finally finished Philip Chapman's artical on Reviving Spaceflight. It had some good ideas, but had bad writing. One idea he had sounded like half a good idea, and I wanted to know if anyone confirmed/picked it apart yet. The idea was that given a basic SSTO at launch is 90% fuel, 9% ship, and 1% cargo by weight. (Its not quite that bac, but close.) If you launch it to a suborbital speed that takes 10% less fuel and have a orbital tug come down and take the cargo (or give the ship a boost) you can save 9% of the total weight and can get a tenfold upgrade in cargo capacity. (1% standard cargo capacity + the 9% saved fuel alotment.) Now he fiqured out that this could require 40% of your launches to be fuel for the tug (specifically water to be processed into fuel), but he didn't seem to realize that a 10% cut in orbital speed wouldn't save you 10% of your fuel. Anybody have any ideas as to how much fuel you could save? Or for that matter how much speed you could sacrafice and still have a reasonable chance of intercept and boost? The trick sounds like it could be usefull (especially later if you get a nuclear rocket tug or Lunar water to cut down up mass) but I wonder if he messed up his math somewhere. Anyway thought somebody might know offhand, or just be curious. Subj: Re:SSTO + Tug launcher? By: == On your SSTsub-O w/Tug idea, I ran some numbers: At lift-off, 90K of fuel, 9K of structure, and 10K of payload. With LOX/LH2, that ought to leave you just 6,000 fps shy of LEO. A tug with 5.5K of fuel and 0.55K of structure could boost your 10K payload up to LEO. For simplicity, let's say that the previous payload supplies the fuel. 10K payload minus 5.5K for fuel minus 0.3K of fuel to take the Tug from LEO to a rendezvous trajectory minus 0.2K for a fuel container, leaving 4K of usable payload. That's a four-fold increase, IT WORKS! == From VM Tue Dec 3 14:02:52 2002 Content-Length: 1137 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1137" "Tuesday" "3" "December" "2002" "15:58:19" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "26" "RE: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB3Lwsxn015571 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:58:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB3LwsU6015570 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:58:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB3Lwrxn015561 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:58:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18JL44-0005Kq-00; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:58:48 -0800 Message-ID: <002a01c29b17$17c2f140$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <0642F7D4.01D9DA65.0017FCD8@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , "'ben franchuk'" Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:58:19 -0600 All- Time for a reality check... If you are going to even think about nuclear powered rockets in any capacity, you might as well go for broke. DUMBO was the (potential) successor to NERVA and is easily buildable today. It has both sufficient ISP and sufficiently high thrust (it takes both) to make an SSTO design doable with LARGE payload capacities. No need for mid-orbit tug transfers, etc. Now for the reality part, if you have to fight tooth and nail just to get an RTG mission like Cassini off the ground, getting routine flights to orbit (or mid-orbit transfers) with a nuclear powered rocket are, frankly, impossible. Lots of scientists and engineers have run the numbers and the risk is low, the amount of contamination if the worst happens is low, in fact, this should be a no brainer. Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear lobby has done a VERY good job of playing to the public's fear. So much so that I suspect that even if we were to come up with some sort of cold fusion non-radioactive engine, it STILL wouldn't be politically acceptable. Might as well wish for anti-gravity, at least the public thinks that is cool! Lee From VM Tue Dec 3 15:37:09 2002 Content-Length: 2168 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2168" "Tuesday" "3" "December" "2002" "15:26:35" "-0800" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" nil "29" "Fwd: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB3NQaxn015253 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:26:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB3NQaoV015252 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:26:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from web13607.mail.yahoo.com (web13607.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.118]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id gB3NQZxn015237 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:26:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20021203232635.16463.qmail@web13607.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [206.148.92.28] by web13607.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:26:35 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1606545271-1038957995=:16408" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: Fwd: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:26:35 -0800 (PST) --0-1606545271-1038957995=:16408 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ben franchuk wrote: I think a smallish designed craft can be optinum for mass/payload in the 800 kg/2400 kg range providing the second stage is unmanned to a fixed space platform. Uh, Ben, except for the part about stages, aren't you talking about something like the Rotary? You remember the Rotary, don't you -- goes up, gets low orbit, comes down -- all by itself. I think it was called "SSO." Damn shame about Rotary, but really, they didn't have a chance, due to their payload limit. Customers will demand payloads in the largest chunks they can, to avoid needing such fancy maneuvers as orbital assembly. They must figure it's the cheaper deal. Anyway, you're back to having to think big. Curtis --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-1606545271-1038957995=:16408 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

 ben franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:


I think a smallish designed craft can be optinum for mass/payload in
the 800 kg/2400 kg range providing the second stage is unmanned to
a fixed space platform.

Uh, Ben, except for the part about stages, aren't you talking about something like the Rotary? You remember the Rotary, don't you -- goes up, gets low orbit, comes down -- all by itself. I think it was called "SSO." Damn shame about Rotary, but really, they didn't have a chance, due to their payload limit. Customers will demand payloads in the largest chunks they can, to avoid needing such fancy maneuvers as orbital assembly. They must figure it's the cheaper deal. Anyway, you're back to having to think big.

Curtis


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-1606545271-1038957995=:16408-- From VM Tue Dec 3 16:17:51 2002 Content-Length: 1374 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1374" "Tuesday" "3" "December" "2002" "19:14:11" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB40EMxn018104 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:14:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB40ELg2018099 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:14:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB40EKxn018021 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:14:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id z.b7.2ae1a911 (4196); Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:14:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:14:11 EST In a message dated 12/3/02 1:36:38 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> >> Subj: Re:SSTO + Tug launcher? >> By: == >> >> On your SSTsub-O w/Tug idea, I ran some numbers: >> At lift-off, 90K of fuel, 9K of structure, and 10K of payload. With >LOX/LH2, >> that ought to leave you just 6,000 fps shy of LEO. A tug with 5.5K of >fuel >> and 0.55K of structure could boost your 10K payload up to LEO. For >> simplicity, let's say that the previous payload supplies the fuel. 10K > >> payload minus 5.5K for fuel minus 0.3K of fuel to take the Tug from LEO >to a >> rendezvous trajectory minus 0.2K for a fuel container, leaving 4K of >usable >> payload. That's a four-fold increase, IT WORKS! >> >I like the idea of useing methane or propane as the main fuel because >fossil fuel will run out in the near future, and synthetic fuels will >hve to be used. Could somebody check the numbers on this. Sorry thats a myth. We have a estimated 4 centuries of oil if consumption grows at current rates. >Note the space tug could also supply some re-entry thrust so I expect >you would only get a 3x increase but a bit of a safety margin in your >design. But that would require the tug to then reboost itself even more, before rentering. It might be dangerous, or completly cancel out the advantage of using the tug. Kelly From VM Tue Dec 3 16:17:51 2002 Content-Length: 1023 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1023" "Tuesday" "3" "December" "2002" "19:14:14" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB40EPxn018133 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:14:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB40EP28018129 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:14:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB40EOxn018046 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:14:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id z.f9.262aa8fb (4196) for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:14:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:14:14 EST In a message dated 12/3/02 6:28:15 PM, clmanges@yahoo.com writes: > > ben franchuk wrote: > >I think a smallish designed craft can be optinum for mass/payload in >the 800 kg/2400 kg range providing the second stage is unmanned to >a fixed space platform. > >Uh, Ben, except for the part about stages, aren't you talking about something >like the Rotary? You remember the Rotary, don't you -- goes up, gets low >orbit, comes down -- all by itself. I think it was called "SSO." Damn shame >about Rotary, but really, they didn't have a chance, due to their payload >limit. Customers will demand payloads in the largest chunks they can, to >avoid needing such fancy maneuvers as orbital assembly. They must figure >it's the cheaper deal. Anyway, you're back to having to think big. > >Curtis Most of the small launchers like Rotary, Pineer, Kelly, etc were hunting for the Irridium launch market for small sats Problem was, Irridium and that market fell on its face. So they all died. Kelly From VM Tue Dec 3 16:17:51 2002 Content-Length: 1677 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1677" "Tuesday" "3" "December" "2002" "19:14:13" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "67" "Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB40EPxn018123 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:14:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB40EPpT018119 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:14:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB40ENxn018045 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:14:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id z.18e.127f0574 (4196) for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:14:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <18e.127f0574.2b1ea2d5@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:14:13 EST Good point about the politics. Course you could simply flag it out of another country that doesn't worry about such things. Or get a powerfull enough backer to ignor the Eco-nuts. Certainly nuclear power is critical if we ae to do any deep space stuff. Even manmed flights to Mars would be far to risky and dificult without nukes. So if you can't get nukes, you can't do space. In a message dated 12/3/02 4:59:42 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >All- > > > >Time for a reality check... > > > >If you are going to even think about nuclear powered rockets in any > >capacity, you might as well go for broke. DUMBO was the (potential) > >successor to NERVA and is easily buildable today. It has both sufficient >ISP > >and sufficiently high thrust (it takes both) to make an SSTO design doable > >with LARGE payload capacities. No need for mid-orbit tug transfers, etc. > > > >Now for the reality part, if you have to fight tooth and nail just to get >an > >RTG mission like Cassini off the ground, getting routine flights to orbit > >(or mid-orbit transfers) with a nuclear powered rocket are, frankly, > >impossible. > > > >Lots of scientists and engineers have run the numbers and the risk is low, > >the amount of contamination if the worst happens is low, in fact, this > >should be a no brainer. Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear lobby has done >a > >VERY good job of playing to the public's fear. So much so that I suspect > >that even if we were to come up with some sort of cold fusion > >non-radioactive engine, it STILL wouldn't be politically acceptable. > > > >Might as well wish for anti-gravity, at least the public thinks that is > >cool! > > > >Lee From VM Wed Dec 4 16:50:06 2002 Content-Length: 764 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["764" "Wednesday" "4" "December" "2002" "19:00:03" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB500Hxn020002 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:00:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB500HGl020001 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:00:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB500Gxn019953 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:00:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id z.17b.1299bc73 (4196); Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:00:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <17b.1299bc73.2b1ff103@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:00:03 EST In a message dated 12/3/02 9:31:56 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> Good point about the politics. Course you could simply flag it out of > >> another country that doesn't worry about such things. Or get a powerfull > >> enough backer to ignor the Eco-nuts. >> >> Certainly nuclear power is critical if we ae to do any deep space stuff. > >> Even manmed flights to Mars would be far to risky and dificult without >nukes. >> So if you can't get nukes, you can't do space. > >Anti-matter is the only way to go once in orbit. >http://www.transorbital.net/Library/D001_S01.html >Also I think with cheap solar power from space >the cost could be resonable. To dangerous and unstable. I doubt it would be competative with fusion. From VM Wed Dec 4 16:50:07 2002 Content-Length: 321 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["321" "Wednesday" "4" "December" "2002" "17:15:21" "-0700" "ben franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "9" "Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB50IRxn029740 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:18:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB50IROY029738 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:18:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from bach.ccinet.ab.ca (bach.ccinet.ab.ca [198.161.96.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB50IPxn029720 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:18:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (gc-jet-193.jetnet.ab.ca [207.34.60.193]) by bach.ccinet.ab.ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB50JhPS005231 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:20:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca) Message-ID: <3DEE9A99.8050809@jetnet.ab.ca> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20021005 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <17b.1299bc73.2b1ff103@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ben franchuk From: ben franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:15:21 -0700 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > To dangerous and unstable. I doubt it would be competative with >fusion. Other than anti-matter induced fusion regular fusion does not look to have the mass/thust ratio needed. Also anti-matter fusion looks practial in the near future compared to the +20 years for conventional development. From VM Thu Dec 5 11:36:53 2002 Content-Length: 743 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["743" "Thursday" "5" "December" "2002" "00:17:46" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "18" "Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB55HwNF006465 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:17:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB55Hwhe006464 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:17:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.101]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB55HvNF006442 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 21:17:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id z.39.3131e85f (4184) for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 00:17:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <39.3131e85f.2b203b7a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 00:17:46 EST In a message dated 12/4/02 7:19:52 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: > > To dangerous and unstable. I doubt it would be competative with >fusion. > >Other than anti-matter induced fusion regular fusion does not look >to have the mass/thust ratio needed. Also anti-matter fusion looks >practial in the near future compared to the +20 years for conventional >development. In space its the specific impulse that is more critical. And its not clear that a anti-mater system would have a better thrust to weight ration. You forget the extream weight ratin of the antimater storage and handeling gear. Also, fusino propulsion - or power - is generally considered doiable in a short term dev program if there is focused work on it. Kelly From VM Thu Dec 5 11:36:57 2002 Content-Length: 755 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["755" "Thursday" "5" "December" "2002" "10:25:28" "-0700" "ben franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" "<3DEF8C08.2030803@jetnet.ab.ca>" "18" "Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB5HRLNF010660 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:27:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB5HRLXg010657 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:27:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from bach.ccinet.ab.ca (bach.ccinet.ab.ca [198.161.96.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB5HRKNF010640 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:27:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (gc-jet-195.jetnet.ab.ca [207.34.60.195]) by bach.ccinet.ab.ca (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB5HTZPS009820 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:29:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca) Message-ID: <3DEF8C08.2030803@jetnet.ab.ca> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021005 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <39.3131e85f.2b203b7a@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ben franchuk From: ben franchuk Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:25:28 -0700 KellySt@aol.com wrote: > In space its the specific impulse that is more critical. And its not clear > that a anti-mater system would have a better thrust to weight ration. You > forget the extream weight ratin of the antimater storage and handeling gear. > > Also, fusino propulsion - or power - is generally considered doiable in a > short term dev program if there is focused work on it. I have been waiting for them to hit break even with fusion since the 1970's. The same could be said of re-usable space transport. Anti-matter designs barring getting anti-matter seem to be practical and in the reach of small industry so development could proceed faster. I don't think the anti-matter tank would be much bigger than a bell-jar. > Kelly From VM Thu Dec 5 11:36:58 2002 Content-Length: 2318 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2318" "Thursday" "5" "December" "2002" "10:52:03" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "42" "Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB5Iq4NF009196 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:52:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB5Iq4UX009194 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:52:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (stevev@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB5Iq3NF009182 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:52:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB5Iq3gP009178; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:52:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15855.41043.628933.857789@darkwing.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <3DEF8C08.2030803@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <39.3131e85f.2b203b7a@aol.com> <3DEF8C08.2030803@jetnet.ab.ca> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 10) "Military Intelligence" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:52:03 -0800 ben franchuk writes: > KellySt@aol.com wrote: > > In space its the specific impulse that is more critical. And its not clear > > that a anti-mater system would have a better thrust to weight ration. You > > forget the extream weight ratin of the antimater storage and handeling gear. > > > > Also, fusino propulsion - or power - is generally considered doiable in a > > short term dev program if there is focused work on it. > > I have been waiting for them to hit break even with fusion since the > 1970's. The same could be said of re-usable space transport. Anti-matter > designs barring getting anti-matter seem to be practical and in the > reach of small industry so development could proceed faster. I don't > think the anti-matter tank would be much bigger than a bell-jar. If your antimatter tank is the size of a bell jar, then it won't hold enough antimatter to get anything bigger than about the size of a bell jar to even low relativistic speeds. Essentially, boosting a ship to a decent relativistic speed (which I'll call > 0.5 c for purposes of this discussion) requires additional energy input of approximately the initial rest energy of the payload. That means that a relativistic ship needs at least as much antimatter + reaction mass as payload mass to reach relativistic speeds. The situation with fusion power is worse, but in some ways not too much worse; there you need something like a 1,000,000 :: 1 ratio of fusion fuel :: payload. That's a lot of fuel, but it's much easier to store that much hydrogen than it is to store the much smaller amount of antimatter in the case above. Unfortunately ramscoops don't help the fusion situation much since scooping up interstellar gas for fuel induces drag proportional to the speed of the ship through the interstellar medium, which quickly matches the thrust you get from fusing the fuel. The expected top speed for a traditional ramscoop ends up being something on the order of 0.1 c, maybe a bit better if you do some other clever things. I keep intending to put together a sort of breezy summary of the various interstellar travel scenarios that have been considered and their various tradeoffs, partly to get some newer list members up to date, but mainly in the hopes it will revive active discussion on the list. From VM Thu Dec 5 11:36:58 2002 Content-Length: 1578 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["1578" "Thursday" "5" "December" "2002" "12:57:17" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" "<009801c29c90$228dfeb0$0201a8c0@broadsword>" "34" "RE: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB5IxlNF014803 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:59:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB5Ixj8K014739 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:59:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB5IwrNF013209 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:59:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18K1Bv-0000BD-00; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:57:43 -0800 Message-ID: <009801c29c90$228dfeb0$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3DEF8C08.2030803@jetnet.ab.ca> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'ben franchuk'" Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:57:17 -0600 There are no true anti-matter storage containers yet. (There aren't any anti-atoms to store in one if we had one.) Scientists are still experimenting with various methods of containing anti-atoms (anti-matter). Unless the atom carries a charge (an anti-ion), there does not seem to be a simple way to isolate the atom from contact normal matter. Current anti-matter storage vessels are called Penning Traps. They are about the size of a small hot water heater. They are transportable and can carry sufficient numbers of anti-protons for research and medical usage. Note that these store only anti-particles, anti-protons to be exact. In the last few months, several different researchers have claimed to have created anti-atoms and their evidence to support their claims is being evaluated by the scientific community. The jury is still out. At the moment, the front runners in the deep space reaction engine market appear to be VASIMR and ACMF. VASIMR is basically a microwave pumped plasma engine, ACMF stands for Anti-proton Catalyzed Micro Fusion. True fusion rockets will probably never be used, the performance stats for ACMF are better than the theoretical performance of fusion engines if we ever figure out how to make one. It is expected that ACMF will lead to development of a true anti-matter drive in a few decades. Lee Parker It is by coffee alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire trembling. The trembling becomes a warning. It is by coffee alone I set my mind in motion. -- Frank Herbert From VM Thu Dec 5 12:17:25 2002 Content-Length: 631 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["631" "Thursday" "5" "December" "2002" "11:22:16" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "11" "RE: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB5JMHNF029141 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:22:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB5JMH9s029139 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:22:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (stevev@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB5JMGNF029127 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:22:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB5JMGHh029119; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:22:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15855.42856.232551.539516@darkwing.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <009801c29c90$228dfeb0$0201a8c0@broadsword> References: <3DEF8C08.2030803@jetnet.ab.ca> <009801c29c90$228dfeb0$0201a8c0@broadsword> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 10) "Military Intelligence" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: RE: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:22:16 -0800 L. Parker writes: > There are no true anti-matter storage containers yet. (There aren't any > anti-atoms to store in one if we had one.) Scientists are still > experimenting with various methods of containing anti-atoms (anti-matter). Actually, I've seen a recent Science News article about physicists creating on the order of a few hundred atoms of anti-hydrogen and containing them for a brief but useful time (they started out very cold, and eventually drifted into the sides of the container where they annihilated). Containment is still a problem, but anti-atoms, at least of anti-hydrogen, are being made fairly easily. From VM Thu Dec 5 12:17:25 2002 Content-Length: 335 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["335" "Thursday" "5" "December" "2002" "13:39:01" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "12" "starship-design: Interesting paper on gravity..." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB5JdSNF012869 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:39:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB5JdS1P012868 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:39:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB5JdSNF012851 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:39:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18K1qJ-0004eK-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 11:39:27 -0800 Message-ID: <009901c29c95$f70475c0$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design List \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Interesting paper on gravity... Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:39:01 -0600 Interesting paper on gravity... http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/pdf/Robertson-JPC.PDF Lee Parker It is by coffee alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire trembling. The trembling becomes a warning. It is by coffee alone I set my mind in motion. -- Frank Herbert From VM Thu Dec 5 12:31:07 2002 Content-Length: 7916 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7916" "Thursday" "5" "December" "2002" "14:10:59" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "159" "RE: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB5KBSNF005014 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:11:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB5KBSd2005004 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:11:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB5KBRNF004949 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:11:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18K2LG-0004TI-00; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 12:11:26 -0800 Message-ID: <009a01c29c9a$6e649f60$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <15855.42856.232551.539516@darkwing.uoregon.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Steve VanDevender'" , Subject: RE: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:10:59 -0600 As far as I am aware, the reports below are the most recent published on creation of antimatter in significant numbers. It is one of the ones I said was under review. CERN and others have been manufacturing "antihydrogen" for several years, but not in a way that was useful for study or in any significant numbers. This year they have actually been able to contain them long enough to do something with them. The containment device is a modified Penning Trap. Note, if you read the full paper, you will find that this just barely qualifies as an atom - there is only an antiproton and a positron. Here is the text of the news articles from AIP: Number 611 #1, October 29, 2002 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein The Internal States of Anti-Hydrogen The internal states of anti-hydrogen have been studied, for the first time, by the ATRAP collaboration, working at CERN where antiprotons are slowed and then joined with positrons to form anti-hydrogen atoms within a detector- and electrode-filled enclosure (a nested Penning trap) over the past year. This work suggests that anti-hydrogen is preferentially formed in an excited state via a three-body process when two positrons and an anti-proton collide. Only a month ago the ATHENA collaboration, working at the same CERN facility, made the first report of cold anti-H atom detection (Update 605) using techniques largely pioneered by ATRAP (the antiproton accumulation techniques, the nested Penning trap used, the positron cooling approach, etc.) So what has changed since then? Three things: (1) First of all, the ATHENA detection of anti-atoms is indirect. The presumed presence of the anti-atom (positron plus antiproton) is registered by a dual annihilation of the positron with an electron and the antiproton with a nearby proton. Complicating the detection scenario is the fact that the proton-antiproton annihilation itself sometimes spawns positrons which (when they annihilate in their turn) could falsely indicate the prior presence of an anti-atom. This class of events constitutes a background which must be subtracted out in the analysis process, and it precludes one from identifying any particular double-annihilation event as having been a genuine anti-hydrogen (sometimes written as an H with a bar over it). By contrast, the ATRAP direct detection process unambiguously identifies H-bar in a process called field ionization, which works as follows. Having formed in the center of the enclosure, neutral anti-atoms are free to drift in any direction. Some of them annihilate but others move into an "ionization well," a region where strong electric fields tear the H-bar apart. Negatively charged antiprotons not in the company of a positively charged positron cannot reach the well. Once there, though, the field sunders the atom, and the antiprotons are trapped in place, leaving the positron to move off and annihilate elsewhere. By counting the number of antiprotons one knows how many anti-atoms had arrived at the well. Every event represents an anti-atom. (See figure.) (2) Moreover, one can now make a statistical study of the electric field needed to ionize the positron and deduce from this, in a rudimentary way, some information about the internal energy states of the H-bar. Thus the internal properties of an anti-atom have been studied for the first time. The observed range in principal quantum number n (n=1 corresponding to the ground state, or lowest level) goes from 43 up to 55. (3) Finally, another thing that is different in this experiment is the much higher rate of anti-H production. The collaboration spokesperson, Gerald Gabrielse of Harvard (617-495-4381, CERN 41-22-767-9813, gabrielse@physics.harvard.edu) says that more anti-H atoms can be recorded in a few hours than have been reported in all previous experiments. The ultimate goal of these experiments will be to trap neutral cold anti-hydrogen atoms and to study their spectra with the same precision (parts per 1014 for an analysis of the transition from the n=2 to the n=1 state) as for plain hydrogen. One could then tell whether the laws of physics apply the same or differently to atoms and anti-atoms. (Gabrielse et al., Physical Review Letters, 18 November; other ATRAP contacts are Walter Oelert at Forschungszentrum Julich, 49-2461-61-4156, CERN 41-22-767-1758; Jochen Walz at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Physics, 49-89-32905-281, CERN 41-22-767-9813; Eric Hessels at York University, CERN 41-22-767-9813; ATRAP website). In recent work ATRAP sees a further increase in the antihydrogen production rate by using a small radio transmitter to heat antiprotons into making repeated collisions with cold positrons. With this higher production rate, they are able to make the first measurements of a distribution (not just the range) of excited states of antihydrogen. (For an early background article, by Gabrielse, see Scientific American, Dec 1992.) There is also an earlier article of interest: Number 577 #1, February 20, 2002 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein Cold Antihydrogen Atoms Cold antihydrogen atoms might have been made, for the first time, in an experiment at the CERN lab, where positrons and antiprotons are brought together in a bottle made of electric and magnetic fields. Nature allows the existence of antiparticles but hasn't seen fit to make a lot of them. Modest amounts of antiprotons show up in cosmic ray showers, and positrons (antielectrons) are forged in certain high-energy regions of the sky such as galactic nuclei. But if larger forms of anti-matter like anti-atoms, anti-stars, and anti-galaxies were plentiful in the visible part of the universe then we would see the catastrophic gamma ray glare from places where matter brushes up against antimatter. Such radiation has not been seen and scientists must make their own anti-atoms artificially. Making antihydrogen is difficult, however, because positrons and antiprotons, even when they can be marshaled and brought near each other, are usually going past each other too quickly for neutral atoms to form. A few years ago a dozen or so hot antihydrogen atoms were made on the fly amid violent scattering interactions at CERN and Fermilab (Updates 253, 297). These did not dally long enough to be studied, but instead expired quickly when they crashed into detectors that established the antihydrogen's brief existence. At CERN several experiments are devoted to making cold anti-atoms in a controlled environment amenable to detailed studies. The main goal here is to determine whether the laws of physics (gravity, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc.) apply to anti-atoms the same as they do to regular atoms. At this week's meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Boston, Gerald Gabrielse of Harvard, spokesperson for the Antihydrogen Trap Collaboration (ATRAP), reported new results. In this experiment 6-MeV antiprotons (themselves made by smashing a beam of protons into a target) are slowed by a factor of 10 billion (to an equivalent temperature of 4 K), partly by mixing them with cold electrons, and then collected in a trap. Positrons from the decay of sodium-22 nuclei are cooled and collected at the other end of the device. Eventually about 300,000 positrons are electrically nudged into the vicinity of about 50,000 antiprotons. Gabrielse believes that what sits in the trap isn't entirely a neutral plasma consisting of coincident positron and antiproton clouds, and that cold antihydrogen atoms might have formed. More diagnostic equipment being installed now may settle the issue in the coming months. A larger version of the ATRAP apparatus, which might be in operation as early as this fall, should allow the researchers to introduce some lasers for the purpose of studying the spectroscopy of prospective anti-hydrogen atoms in the trap. From VM Thu Dec 5 16:27:49 2002 Content-Length: 832 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["832" "Thursday" "5" "December" "2002" "19:19:00" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB60J8NF016566 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:19:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB60J8CA016563 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:19:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB60J7NF016523 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:19:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id z.a.29717c85 (18403) for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:19:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:19:00 EST In a message dated 12/5/02 2:09:56 PM, stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu writes: >The situation with fusion power is worse, but in some ways not too much >worse; there you need something like a 1,000,000 :: 1 ratio of fusion >fuel :: payload. That's a lot of fuel, but it's much easier to store >that much hydrogen than it is to store the much smaller amount of >antimatter in the case above.== And a lot of fusion fuels ae sold materials that don't need tanks, and ae pretty dense. >I keep intending to put together a sort of breezy summary of the various >interstellar travel scenarios that have been considered and their >various tradeoffs, partly to get some newer list members up to date, but >mainly in the hopes it will revive active discussion on the list. Yeah, thought of that to. Never get around to it eaither. ;) From VM Thu Dec 5 16:27:50 2002 Content-Length: 1146 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1146" "Thursday" "5" "December" "2002" "19:19:02" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB60JUNF016673 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:19:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB60JUkw016670 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:19:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.101]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB60JTNF016635 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:19:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.103.20e16c2d (18403); Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:19:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <103.20e16c2d.2b2146f6@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 19:19:02 EST >Current anti-matter storage vessels are called Penning Traps. They are >about >the size of a small hot water heater. They are transportable and can carry >sufficient numbers of anti-protons for research and medical usage. Note >that >these store only anti-particles, anti-protons to be exact. Well thats all you want. Anti atoms are nutrally charged, which makes thm far easier to handel. == >At the moment, the front runners in the deep space reaction engine market >appear to be VASIMR and ACMF. VASIMR is basically a microwave pumped plasma >engine, ACMF stands for Anti-proton Catalyzed Micro Fusion. True fusion >rockets will probably never be used, the performance stats for ACMF are >better than the theoretical performance of fusion engines if we ever figure >out how to make one. It is expected that ACMF will lead to development >of a >true anti-matter drive in a few decades. How can a ACMF motor have significantly more power then a pure fusion drive, given the bulk of th power is from the fusion engine? Also fusion engines aren't a big problem. They ae far easier to make then fusion power reactors. > >Lee Parker From VM Thu Dec 5 17:42:14 2002 Content-Length: 2086 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2086" "Thursday" "5" "December" "2002" "18:30:07" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "65" "RE: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB60WONF024267 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:32:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB60WOvG024266 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:32:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB60WNNF024257 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:32:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18K6ON-0002b5-00; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:30:55 -0800 Message-ID: <000201c29cbe$a1b92560$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <103.20e16c2d.2b2146f6@aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Cc: Subject: RE: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:30:07 -0600 Antiproton Catalyzed Micro Fusion (ACMF) engines ARE fusion engines, but the fusion reaction is catalyzed by anti matter. The ISP and thrust figures are based on a lower overall weight and greater efficiency than a "conventional" fusion engine. I emphasized conventional, because there are no conventional fusion engines, so comparison is automatically suspect! Nevertheless, the performance figures given are based on the ACMF prototype, which DOES exist, and currently accepted figures for a theoretical fusion engine. How accurate those theoretical figures are is anybody's guess. Lee > -----Original Message----- > From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 6:19 PM > To: lparker@cacaphony.net; bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca > Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. > > > > >Current anti-matter storage vessels are called Penning > Traps. They are > >about > >the size of a small hot water heater. They are transportable > and can carry > >sufficient numbers of anti-protons for research and medical > usage. Note > >that > >these store only anti-particles, anti-protons to be exact. > > Well thats all you want. Anti atoms are nutrally charged, > which makes thm > far easier to handel. > > > > == > >At the moment, the front runners in the deep space reaction > engine market > >appear to be VASIMR and ACMF. VASIMR is basically a > microwave pumped plasma > >engine, ACMF stands for Anti-proton Catalyzed Micro Fusion. > True fusion > >rockets will probably never be used, the performance stats > for ACMF are > >better than the theoretical performance of fusion engines if > we ever figure > >out how to make one. It is expected that ACMF will lead to > development > >of a > >true anti-matter drive in a few decades. > > How can a ACMF motor have significantly more power then a > pure fusion drive, > given the bulk of th power is from the fusion engine? > > Also fusion engines aren't a big problem. They ae far easier > to make then > fusion power reactors. > > > > > > >Lee Parker From VM Thu Dec 5 17:53:50 2002 Content-Length: 2895 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["2895" "Thursday" "5" "December" "2002" "17:40:40" "-0800" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" "<20021206014040.47108.qmail@web13607.mail.yahoo.com>" "61" "Fwd: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB61efNF002104 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:40:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB61efd0002103 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:40:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from web13607.mail.yahoo.com (web13607.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.118]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id gB61eeNF002089 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:40:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20021206014040.47108.qmail@web13607.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [206.148.92.105] by web13607.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 17:40:40 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1651406012-1039138840=:45617" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: Fwd: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:40:40 -0800 (PST) --0-1651406012-1039138840=:45617 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii KellySt@aol.com wrote: From: KellySt@aol.com Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:00:03 EST Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu In a message dated 12/3/02 9:31:56 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes: >KellySt@aol.com wrote: >> Good point about the politics. Course you could simply flag it out of > >> another country that doesn't worry about such things. Or get a powerfull > >> enough backer to ignor the Eco-nuts. >> >> Certainly nuclear power is critical if we ae to do any deep space stuff. > >> Even manmed flights to Mars would be far to risky and dificult without >nukes. >> So if you can't get nukes, you can't do space. > >Anti-matter is the only way to go once in orbit. >http://www.transorbital.net/Library/D001_S01.html >Also I think with cheap solar power from space >the cost could be resonable. To dangerous and unstable. I doubt it would be competative with fusion. gentlemen: two words: gravity control Keep looking up, Curtis --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-1651406012-1039138840=:45617 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

 

 KellySt@aol.com wrote:

From: KellySt@aol.com
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:00:03 EST
Subject: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea.
To: bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu


In a message dated 12/3/02 9:31:56 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes:

>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>> Good point about the politics. Course you could simply flag it out of
>
>> another country that doesn't worry about such things. Or get a powerfull
>
>> enough backer to ignor the Eco-nuts.
>>
>> Certainly nuclear power is critical if we ae to do any deep space stuff.
>
>> Even manmed flights to Mars would be far to risky and dificult without
>nukes.
>> So if you can't get nukes, you can't do space.
>
>Anti-matter is the only way to go once in orbit.
>http://www.transorbital.net/Library/D001_S01.html
>Also I think with cheap solar power from space
>the cost could be resonable.


To dangerous and unstable. I doubt it would be competative with fusion.

gentlemen:

two words: gravity control

Keep looking up,

Curtis


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-1651406012-1039138840=:45617-- From VM Thu Dec 5 17:53:50 2002 Content-Length: 69 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["69" "Thursday" "5" "December" "2002" "17:47:07" "-0800" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "4" "Fwd: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB61l8NF006129 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:47:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB61l8DO006126 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:47:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (stevev@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB61l7NF006110 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:47:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB61l7Mc006106; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:47:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15856.411.312672.998915@darkwing.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <20021206014040.47108.qmail@web13607.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20021206014040.47108.qmail@web13607.mail.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 10) "Military Intelligence" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: Fwd: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:47:07 -0800 Curtis Manges writes: > two words: gravity control One word: How? From VM Thu Dec 5 18:22:54 2002 Content-Length: 1622 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1622" "Thursday" "5" "December" "2002" "18:09:17" "-0800" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" nil "33" "Fwd: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea." "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gB629JNF015106 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:09:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gB629IDU015102 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:09:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from web13603.mail.yahoo.com (web13603.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.114]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id gB629INF015084 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:09:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20021206020917.7985.qmail@web13603.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [206.148.92.105] by web13603.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:09:17 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1770523631-1039140557=:6090" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: Fwd: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:09:17 -0800 (PST) --0-1770523631-1039140557=:6090 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Steve VanDevender wrote: From: Steve VanDevender Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:47:07 -0800 To: starship-design Subject: Fwd: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea. Curtis Manges writes: > two words: gravity control One word: How? Hell, Steve, I don't know -- you guys are the rocket scientists, not me. It just seems to me like such an elegant approach to the interstellar drive problem. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-1770523631-1039140557=:6090 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

 

 Steve VanDevender <stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:

From: Steve VanDevender
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:47:07 -0800
To: starship-design
Subject: Fwd: Re: starship-design: HOTOL SeaDragon idea.

Curtis Manges writes:
> two words: gravity control

One word: How?

Hell, Steve, I don't know -- you guys are the rocket scientists, not me. It just seems to me like such an elegant approach to the interstellar drive problem.


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-1770523631-1039140557=:6090-- From VM Thu Dec 19 19:27:17 2002 Content-Length: 10437 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10437" "Thursday" "19" "December" "2002" "21:07:57" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "197" "starship-design: Earth's Groundhog Days Continue Thirty Years Later" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gBK39CNF017125 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:09:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gBK39CbV017111 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:09:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gBK38oNF016046 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:09:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18PDWr-0004dK-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:08:49 -0800 Message-ID: <000b01c2a7d4$ff6c7b00$0201a8c0@broadsword> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design List \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Earth's Groundhog Days Continue Thirty Years Later Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:07:57 -0600 SPACEFARING WEB Earth's Groundhog Days Continue Thirty Years Later by John Carter McKnight Scottsdale - Dec 19, 2002 Today marks the thirtieth anniversary of the end of the Apollo program when Apollo 17 returned to Earth in a flawless splash down in the Pacific Ocean. It is also the day we abandoned the universe beyond low Earth orbit and to commemorate the event I propose that we move that quintessential American holiday forward a couple months and declare December 19 - Groundhog Day. As in the Bill Murray movie of the same name, our space efforts have been stuck in a loop, endlessly repeating the same events over and over until maybe, finally, we learn something and free ourselves to move on. Thirty years should be enough repetition of tax-financed circling in LEO: let's draw some conclusions and get on with building a spacefaring civilization. In the movie, Murray played a cynical drone of a TV weatherman, someone who'd chosen to ignore his own talents in order to cultivate a superficial appeal, to his audiences and to the people in his personal life. The repetition of one Groundhog Day forced him to develop skills and values enabling him to be of service to his community, to develop a popularity built on real utility and deep connection. NASA and the global space community, after a generation of Groundhog Days, are just beginning to learn the lessons that enabled Murray to break the cycle and move on. Some of those lessons are beginning to generate real change, the kind of change necessary to put an end to thirty years of more-of-the-same in space and launch us into an era of progress and transformation. What We're Doing Doesn't Work: If our goal is to build a permanent, sustainable human presence in space, we have to begin by acknowledging failure. We're not there; we don't have the "2001: A Space Odyssey" future. The observation is obvious, but much of the space community has failed to draw the logical conclusion: the methods we've been using to achieve our goals have failed. We've stuck ourselves with repetitive behaviors, and so we keep reliving Groundhog day. Dependence on governments and the aerospace giants who service them has failed. A space-enthusiast effort focused on government-agency boosterism has failed. Entrepreneurial efforts ungrounded in incrementalism and ruthless financial realism have failed. "Space is cool" educational programs have failed. Success will require not just new approaches but an end to wasting efforts on the old ones. You can't dig your way out of a hole. We're Only Fooling Ourselves: All of us in the space community have been like Murray's smarmy weatherman, pulling ever-more outrageous stunts, making increasingly grandiose claims, to grab the attention of fickle audiences. Nobody bought Murray's act, and nobody's buying ours. The primary work product of NASA and Big Aerospace is "viewgraph engineering:" ferociously expensive studies that generate beautiful artwork of cool spaceships - and nothing else. Nobody other than newcomers believes any of the stuff will ever be built. The cynicism behind such efforts, verging on corruption where public funds are involved, is corrosive to the credibility of the entire space enterprise. The same holds true with much of the outreach focused on schoolchildren: that captive audience has a fine nose for adult speciousness, and they're not buying outer-space gee-whiz: they can see the level of interest and attention paid to space by their parents and the media, and can see for themselves that the humans-in-space effort in particular is ghastly dull. To be sure, our messages to our children are more a product of wishful thinking than the intentional design of space Potemkin villages perpetrated on taxpayers, but the disconnect between reality and the empty flash of presentations is equally discrediting. Bureaucracies Aren't Bold: Another lesson that should be obvious, this one has escaped government space supporters and critics alike. Governmental efforts can't afford to fail, but they can afford not to succeed. "We're still working on it" prevents blame and ensures a continued supply of funding to manage what must be an oh-so intractable problem. "We thought we had it, but it blew up" leads to messy investigations. This simple rule of human behavior has several consequences for space. One is that very old technology will stay in service long past its intended life: better the devil you know. Another is that simultaneously, research and development will focus on the most distant, blue-sky, projects, ones that can safely be studied for generations without incurring the wrath of legislators expecting results. Ignored if possible and stamped out if necessary are the incremental advances and completely new products that are the staple of commercial efforts. Some of this is driven by the procurement process, which ensures that product development must meet current, not envisioned, needs, and must incur great documentation expense up front. Some of it is the inevitable product of the bureaucratic mindset, which in all times and cultures values stability and self-preservation over innovation and progress. Bureaucracies excel at repetition, at established and routine procedures - at being stuck in Groundhog Day. We Need to be Useful: Arguably, Apollo generated real utility for the American culture of its time. Soviet space efforts had severely threatened America's self-perception as a technologically advanced, can-do society. That image had to be redeemed, and through a grand gesture. Otherwise, the "space program" has provided little to meet the real needs of the community, be that America or the world. There have been quiet triumphs: the general ability of remote sensing data has made a real contribution to safety and prosperity. Certainly communications satellites have been an immense boon. But much space effort, including, often, this column, lack grounding in the needs of the community - as it perceives them, rather than as we wish it did. Ours is not an expansive, bold, frontier-oriented civilization. Projects designed to meet those needs will fail, for lack of demand. Scientific data is of only passing interest beyond a community of specialists: NASA's focus on scientific questions marginalizes its own efforts and leaves it open to charges of hypocrisy for projects with other, unconfessed, motivations, such as the ISS and the choice of Mars missions over those to Pluto or Europa. What would be useful? Efforts increasing interconnectedness and communications: commercial suborbital vehicles fit that bill. A counter to fears of terrorism, more than to its actuality - which is why ballistic missile defense remains a priority. So long as SUV sales continue to increase, our society remains unwilling to confront the consequences of its demands for energy and raw materials, and unwilling to perceive any need for change. Once it does, expansion of our material resource base may become useful quite soon, enabling solar power satellites and asteroid mining. We Need Skills: We really do have things to learn before we can live and work in space and expand outward through the solar system. By focusing on endless human microgravity studies - and ignoring Russian data in the field - NASA has squandered opportunities to grow and learn during its long Groundhog Day. Thirty years in LEO could have been put to use prototyping spacesuits, conducting crew composition studies, running simulated Mars missions, and developing a myriad other essential skills. Return to the Moon supporters have been among the most clear and consistent in recognizing and trying to address the need for many of these skills. We'll still have to learn them someday, and until we do, it'll remain Groundhog Day, and we'll keep endlessly repeating what we already know. We Need to Start Small and Persevere: On the final repetition of his Groundhog Day, Murray's character had become a competent emergency medic, a good dancer, and a terrific piano player. His transformations weren't magical, but were the product of lots of time to practice, during his infinitely looping day. The discipline to abandon his grandiose bluster in favor of daily incremental progress was one of the keys to his release. It is ours as well. A new generation of rocket entrepreneurs is starting small, building, testing and flying hardware in steady development. Some of them will succeed, unlike the purveyors of giant orbital vehicle designs and "spend twenty billion dollars and they'll come" business plans. Some of the current crop of grad students will persevere in their disciplines, moving on eventually from volunteering on analog missions to running the real thing. Some of the enthusiasts who keep working through this time when space is far from the public consciousness will hone immense talents to be applied when a new era opens. The grandiose dreamers won't be there, the burnouts won't be there. The folks who kept showing up for piano lessons will. To our credit, we're beginning to learn some of the lessons of Groundhog Day. Some of the space advocacy groups are turning from a futile focus on government towards private action - either directly, as with the Mars Society's habs, or indirectly, through the Space Frontier Foundation's focus on training and encouragement for space entrepreneurs. Those entrepreneurs are shedding the vices of their military-industrial competitors and taking a steady progression of small steps with real hardware. A very few advocates are beginning to address the question of how the space movement can be a productive, integrated, valued member of the global community. The Spacefaring Web, that network of scientists, entrepreneurs and advocates, is becoming real, and honest, and useful. Thirty years isn't too much time for that: progress tends to be made by the old guard dying off. We still have Groundhog Days ahead of us, but if we keep their lessons in mind, and if we persevere, one Groundhog Day not too long from now will be our last, and once again we'll move on, beyond Earth orbit and out for good into the universe. The Spacefaring Web is a biweekly column © 2002 by John Carter McKnight, an Advocate of the Space Frontier Foundation. Views expressed herein are strictly the author's and do not necessarily represent Foundation policy. Contact the author at kaseido@earthlink.net From VM Tue Dec 24 09:23:06 2002 Content-Length: 4690 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4690" "Tuesday" "24" "December" "2002" "00:20:24" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "178" "Re: starship-design: Earth's Groundhog Days Continue Thirty Years Later" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gBO5L0NF024387 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:21:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gBO5L0Fg024386 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:21:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gBO5KbNF024347 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:20:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id 4.d5.20d5e20a (18707); Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:20:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Earth's Groundhog Days Continue Thirty Years Later Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 00:20:24 EST In a message dated 12/19/02 10:25:41 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >What We're Doing Doesn't Work: If our goal is to build a permanent, > >sustainable human presence in space, we have to begin by acknowledging > >failure. We're not there; we don't have the "2001: A Space Odyssey" future. > > > >The observation is obvious, but much of the space community has failed >to > >draw the logical conclusion: the methods we've been using to achieve our > >goals have failed. Or, the goal itself is a dude? We never settled America to settle America. We settled it to make money or such. Thats not what advocates focus on. === >A space-enthusiast effort focused on government-agency boosterism has > >failed. Entrepreneurial efforts ungrounded in incrementalism and ruthless > >financial realism have failed. Bingo. >"Space is cool" educational programs have > >failed. Success will require not just new approaches but an end to wasting > >efforts on the old ones. You can't dig your way out of a hole. Bingo >The primary work product of NASA and Big Aerospace is "viewgraph > >engineering:" ferociously expensive studies that generate beautiful artwork > >of cool spaceships - and nothing else. Nobody other than newcomers believes > >any of the stuff will ever be built. NASA's job is spectacal and good press. >The cynicism behind such efforts, verging on corruption where public funds > >are involved, is corrosive to the credibility of the entire space > >enterprise. The same holds true with much of the outreach focused on > >schoolchildren: that captive audience has a fine nose for adult > >speciousness, and they're not buying outer-space gee-whiz: they can see >the > >level of interest and attention paid to space by their parents and the > >media, and can see for themselves that the humans-in-space effort in > >particular is ghastly dull. Yup. They know its BS PR. Space was a dead frounteer long before they were born, and they know it. ==== >Bureaucracies Aren't Bold: Another lesson that should be obvious, this >one > >has escaped government space supporters and critics alike. Governmental > >efforts can't afford to fail, but they can afford not to succeed. Now your thinking like NASA. The prime directive is to never do anything that looks bad! ===== >What would be useful? Efforts increasing interconnectedness and > >communications: commercial suborbital vehicles fit that bill. A counter >to > >fears of terrorism, more than to its actuality - which is why ballistic > >missile defense remains a priority. None of these ae, or should be, relaed to NASA. >So long as SUV sales continue to increase, our society remains unwilling >to > >confront the consequences of its demands for energy and raw materials, >and > >unwilling to perceive any need for change. Once it does, expansion of our > >material resource base may become useful quite soon, enabling solar power > >satellites and asteroid mining. This is a myth. Oil will last far far longerthen we will neede it to, and Earth is to rich in or to need asteroid matierial. The refined materials cost less per pounnd then any near term shiping costs of anything back from the asteroids. >We Need Skills: We really do have things to learn before we can live and > >work in space and expand outward through the solar system. By focusing >on > >endless human microgravity studies - and ignoring Russian data in the > >field - NASA has squandered opportunities to grow and learn during its >long > >Groundhog Day. The data showsthat you do not want to keep folks in lkow to zero G. I.E. big wheeled statinos or not. Whicjh does lesve anything for NASA to study -- and they live for endless studies! ====== >The discipline to abandon his grandiose bluster in favor of daily > >incremental progress was one of the keys to his release. It is ours as >well. > >A new generation of rocket entrepreneurs is starting small, building, > >testing and flying hardware in steady development. Now your back in the NASA game. We don't need to study this stuff. Firms will do that for you IF YOU SUPPY A MARKET TO BUY THEM!!! The Rocket entrepreneurs are kiding themselves. TRying to start a aitline, by trying to backyard tinker a airliner - is a waste of time. The areo companies know how to make cost effective, relyable, aero space craft -- and investors will trust their gear a lot more then one you make. The areo companies just don't know how to run a air/space line profoitably. THATS what the rocket entrepreneurs need to focus on and solve. Problem is they are frustrated engineers who really would rather develop space craft. ;) Kelly