From VM Fri Jan 10 18:14:39 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3648" "Friday" "10" "January" "2003" "19:32:43" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "67" "starship-design: The Speed of Gravity" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) X-VM-Labels: nil X-VM-Summary-Format: "%n %*%a %-17.17F %-3.3m %2d %4l/%-5c %I\"%s\"\n" X-VM-IMAP-Retrieved: nil X-VM-POP-Retrieved: nil X-VM-Last-Modified: (16683 38796 732493) Content-Length: 3648 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h0B1WlUJ027392 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:32:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) id h0B1WkV9027391 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:32:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h0B1WjUJ027380 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:32:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18XAVx-0002HP-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:32:45 -0800 Message-ID: <01f201c2b911$56e50f30$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: The Speed of Gravity Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:32:43 -0600 Most of us have by now heard of the speed of gravity being "measured" a few weeks ago. As the synopsis below explains this was done by a gravity lensing experiment utilizing Jupiter and several quasars, an event which occurs only once every ten years or so. When I first read the report, I was skeptical, on first read I thought, "gee, all we have really measured is the speed of light after gravity has had its effect". Which of course is the same as the speed of light as we have all come to know and love it. I was tempted to post a message to the board then, but held my peace. I just received the latest installment of AIP News, which predictably, covers the experiment. I have appended the article below, but to summarize, it seems that a lot of other scientists agree with me. This may not be the definitive experiment it is being purported to be. Okay, I am done throwing oil on the waves, here is the article: CAN THE SPEED OF GRAVITY be measured directly through the observation of gravitational lensing effects? Two scientists who monitored the deflection of quasar light as it passed very near Jupiter argue that they have derived an experimental value for the speed of gravity equal to 1.06 times the speed of light (with an uncertainty of 20%). But two other scientists claim that the lensing experiment only served as a crude measurement of the speed of light itself. Physicists have long taken for granted that the effect of gravitational force, like the effect of electromagnetic force, is not instantaneous but should travel at a finite velocity. A familiar example of this delay is the fact that when we see the sun, we see it as it was 8 minutes ago. Many believe that gravity also travels at the speed of light. The trouble is, while it is relatively easy to gauge the strength of gravity (one can measure gravity even near a black hole, where orbiting matter emits telltale x rays), it is difficult to study the propagation of gravity. Although not as heavy as a star, Jupiter still has considerable gravity, and when on September 8, 2002, it swept very near the position of quasar J0842 + 1835, the theory of general relativity suggests that the apparent quasar position on the sky would execute a small loop over the course of several days owing to the lensing of quasar light by the passing planet. Sergei Kopeiken (University of Missouri) and Ed Fomolont (National Radio Astronomy Observatory, or NRAO) have now seen just such a loop, as they reported this week at the meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) in Seattle. For this purpose they employed the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) of radio telescopes, a configuration of dish detectors providing an angular resolution of 10 micro-arcseconds. Actually the observed lensing loop was slightly displaced from what one would expect if gravity propagated instantaneously. Kopeiken and Fomolont interpret this slight displacement as providing an experimental handle on the speed of gravity itself, and thereby calculate the value of 1.06 times c. Other scientists disagree with this interpretation, and say that the radio lensing data can do little more than provide a measurement of the speed of light, not gravity. Two such opinions, by scientists who did not report at the AAS meeting, are as follows: Clifford Will of Washington University in the US (preprint at (www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145 ) and Hideki Asada of Hirosaki University in Japan (www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0206266 ) Lee -- If cats had thumbs, they'd still expect us to open the canned food. If dogs had thumbs they'd cook for us, but not very well. Certain Maxims of Rufus From VM Wed Jan 22 15:31:52 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["502" "Wednesday" "22" "January" "2003" "17:26:42" "-0600" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "starship-design: Electromagnetic Pulse Shockwaves As A result of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 502 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h0MNQicj012967 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:26:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) id h0MNQibD012965 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:26:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h0MNQhcj012947 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:26:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18bUGZ-00052R-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:26:43 -0800 Message-ID: <012b01c2c26d$ba3a1e30$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 V6.00.2800.1106 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: Electromagnetic Pulse Shockwaves As A result of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:26:42 -0600 This is an example of an article which should never have been published. It sounds like one of our younger members wrote it... "Electromagnetic Pulse Shockwaves As A result of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion" http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03a.html 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 Jan 23 12:05:29 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["17093" "Wednesday" "22" "January" "2003" "20:45:31" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "636" "starship-design: Fwd: nasa nuke rocket articles mars by 2010" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 17093 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h0N1jicj005999 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:45:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) id h0N1jiOO005998 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:45:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h0N1jgcj005966 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:45:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id i.1e3.9344a (4196); Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:45:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1e3.9344a.2b60a33b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_1e3.9344a.2b60a33b_boundary" 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: JohnFrance@aol.com, dtaylor611@comcast.net, moschleg@erols.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, RICKJ@btio.com, lparker@cacaphony.net, rddesign@rddesigns.com Subject: starship-design: Fwd: nasa nuke rocket articles mars by 2010 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:45:31 EST --part1_1e3.9344a.2b60a33b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Last Friday NASA got approval for a nuclear propulsion program, and It looks like Bush will announce a man to Mars by 2010 program. They hope the project will push tech, and make engineering more apealling to kids. Of more interest s that they are even considering nuclear powered RLV's. One idea had the hot hydrogen exaust from a nuclear thermal Rocket, mixed witrh air and burned. THAT WOULD HAVE A HELL OF A SPEC IMPULSE!!!! I'm guessing something effectivly showing 5,000 isp in the air!! VERY COOL! ;) Kelly Starks > 19 January 2003: NASA plans two-month manned dash > to Mars, LA Times > article via The Age > http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/18/1042520819544.html > > NASA plans two-month manned dash to Mars January 19 2003 By Duncan Campbell Los Angeles The United States was hoping to send an astronaut to Mars in a nuclear-powered rocket within eight years, said a senior NASA official. Under the space agency's ambitious plan, the project would involve a two-month journey to Mars in a spaceship travelling at three times the present speed of space travel. President George Bush may announce the plan, termed Project Prometheus, in his State of the Union address on January 28, the Los Angeles Times reported. The plan would commit the US to the exploration of Mars as a priority, and herald the development of a nuclear-powered propulsion system. The first voyage could be as early as 2010. The plan brings to mind the words of President John Kennedy, who, on May 25, 1961, said: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth." On July 20, 1969, Apollo XI landed on the area known as the Sea of Tranquillity. A NASA administrator, Sean O'Keefe, said: "We're talking about doing something, on a very aggressive schedule, to not only develop the capabilities for nuclear propulsion and power generation, but to have a mission using the new technology within this decade." Nasa would be expected to ask Boeing to assist in the design of the new rocket. Spacecraft at present travel at 28,000kmh. The goal is to build a vehicle that uses small nuclear reactors to give the engines greater thrust and circumvent problems of fuel supply. This would mean that the craft could reach Mars within two months as opposed to six to seven months. "We've been restricted to the same speed for 40 years," Mr O'Keefe said. "With the new technology, where we go next will be limited only by our imagination." There may, however, be limitations of a different kind. With the US entering a recession and facing the potential costs of attacking Iraq, Congress may not be willing to sign a blank cheque for a multi-billion-dollar project with no guarantee of success. Part of the attraction now for the project would be the stimulus it could provide for scientists and engineers. Many pioneers of space travel have retired, or are about to retire, and they are not being replaced. And the numbers of students enrolling in tertiary science and engineering courses have declined. Some observer say a Mars project could improve the industry's image. The project throws up many questions about the effects of such travel on humans. Already astronauts are returning to Earth with a decrease of up to 30 per cent in their muscle mass and 10 per cent in bone mass. The more arduous flight to Mars would increase such problems. And there would be medical concerns about nuclear radiation. * From Cape Canaveral, BROWARD LISTON reports that astronauts in the space shuttle Columbia spent their first full day in space working on experiments on subjects ranging from dust storms to prostate cancer. Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon, worked on an Earth-study project called MEIDEX (for Mediterranean Israeli dust experiment), which aims to film dust storms that sweep off the Sahara Desert and spread around much of the planet. The effect of such suspended particles (aerosols) on global climate has never been studied in such detail. Other Columbia astronauts were working on a study designed to show how prostate cancer spreads to bones and how bone cells react in zero gravity. Columbia's seven astronauts are working two 12-hour shifts, meaning 24-hour research on the 16-day mission, one of the longest in the shuttle program's history. ====================== > http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/4967388.htm > > NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket Agency expected to seek funding to develop way to travel 3 times faster PETER PAE Los Angeles Times Hoping to pave the way for the human exploration of Mars within the next decade, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is expected to announce that developing a nuclear-powered rocket is its top research priority. The space agency is expected to request "significant resources and funding" to design a nuclear-powered propulsion system to triple the speed of current space travel, theoretically making it possible for humans to reach Mars in a two-month voyage. The Bush administration has signed off on the ambitious nuclear-rocket propulsion project, dubbed Project Prometheus -- though not specifically for the Mars landing -- and the president may officially launch the initiative during his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said. The initiative would greatly expand the nuclear propulsion plans that NASA quietly announced last year when the agency said it may spend $1 billion over the next five years to design a nuclear rocket. NASA and the Bush administration are keeping the lid on the details, including how much more it expects to request from Congress, but O'Keefe said the funding increase will be "very significant." --part1_1e3.9344a.2b60a33b_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-xc04.mx.aol.com (rly-xc04.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.137]) by air-xc01.mail.aol.com (v90.10) with ESMTP id MAILINXC14-0122162927; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:29:27 -0500 Received: from mail3.utc.com (mail.utc.com [192.249.46.81]) by rly-xc04.mx.aol.com (v90_r1.1) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXC48-0122162853; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:28:53 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by mail3.utc.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) id h0MLSqV10784; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:28:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from uusnwa08.utc.com(159.82.80.244) by mail3.utc.com via csmap (V6.0) id srcAAASya4cv; Wed, 22 Jan 03 16:28:52 -0500 Received: from saexch-bh1-stf.sikorsky.com (saexch-bh1-stf.sikorsky.com [140.76.216.20]) by uusnwa08.utc.com (Switch-2.2.4/Switch-2.2.4) with ESMTP id h0MLSo522966; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:28:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by saexch-bh1-stf.sikorsky.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:28:50 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Starks, Kelly Apollo" To: "'Kellys Home'" Cc: "Frawley, Robert C" , "'Carol'" , "Love, Philip B" , "'Rhonda office'" Subject: RE: nasa nuke rocket articles mars by 2010 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:28:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I wonder if they'll need any contractors. :) > 19 January 2003: NASA plans two-month manned dash > to Mars, LA Times > article via The Age > http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/18/1042520819544.html > > NASA plans two-month manned dash to Mars January 19 2003 By Duncan Campbell Los Angeles The United States was hoping to send an astronaut to Mars in a nuclear-powered rocket within eight years, said a senior NASA official. Under the space agency's ambitious plan, the project would involve a two-month journey to Mars in a spaceship travelling at three times the present speed of space travel. President George Bush may announce the plan, termed Project Prometheus, in his State of the Union address on January 28, the Los Angeles Times reported. The plan would commit the US to the exploration of Mars as a priority, and herald the development of a nuclear-powered propulsion system. The first voyage could be as early as 2010. The plan brings to mind the words of President John Kennedy, who, on May 25, 1961, said: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth." On July 20, 1969, Apollo XI landed on the area known as the Sea of Tranquillity. A NASA administrator, Sean O'Keefe, said: "We're talking about doing something, on a very aggressive schedule, to not only develop the capabilities for nuclear propulsion and power generation, but to have a mission using the new technology within this decade." Nasa would be expected to ask Boeing to assist in the design of the new rocket. Spacecraft at present travel at 28,000kmh. The goal is to build a vehicle that uses small nuclear reactors to give the engines greater thrust and circumvent problems of fuel supply. This would mean that the craft could reach Mars within two months as opposed to six to seven months. "We've been restricted to the same speed for 40 years," Mr O'Keefe said. "With the new technology, where we go next will be limited only by our imagination." There may, however, be limitations of a different kind. With the US entering a recession and facing the potential costs of attacking Iraq, Congress may not be willing to sign a blank cheque for a multi-billion-dollar project with no guarantee of success. Part of the attraction now for the project would be the stimulus it could provide for scientists and engineers. Many pioneers of space travel have retired, or are about to retire, and they are not being replaced. And the numbers of students enrolling in tertiary science and engineering courses have declined. Some observer say a Mars project could improve the industry's image. The project throws up many questions about the effects of such travel on humans. Already astronauts are returning to Earth with a decrease of up to 30 per cent in their muscle mass and 10 per cent in bone mass. The more arduous flight to Mars would increase such problems. And there would be medical concerns about nuclear radiation. * From Cape Canaveral, BROWARD LISTON reports that astronauts in the space shuttle Columbia spent their first full day in space working on experiments on subjects ranging from dust storms to prostate cancer. Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon, worked on an Earth-study project called MEIDEX (for Mediterranean Israeli dust experiment), which aims to film dust storms that sweep off the Sahara Desert and spread around much of the planet. The effect of such suspended particles (aerosols) on global climate has never been studied in such detail. Other Columbia astronauts were working on a study designed to show how prostate cancer spreads to bones and how bone cells react in zero gravity. Columbia's seven astronauts are working two 12-hour shifts, meaning 24-hour research on the 16-day mission, one of the longest in the shuttle program's history. ====================== > http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/4967388.htm > > NASA eyes nuclear-powered rocket Agency expected to seek funding to develop way to travel 3 times faster PETER PAE Los Angeles Times Hoping to pave the way for the human exploration of Mars within the next decade, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is expected to announce that developing a nuclear-powered rocket is its top research priority. The space agency is expected to request "significant resources and funding" to design a nuclear-powered propulsion system to triple the speed of current space travel, theoretically making it possible for humans to reach Mars in a two-month voyage. The Bush administration has signed off on the ambitious nuclear-rocket propulsion project, dubbed Project Prometheus -- though not specifically for the Mars landing -- and the president may officially launch the initiative during his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said. The initiative would greatly expand the nuclear propulsion plans that NASA quietly announced last year when the agency said it may spend $1 billion over the next five years to design a nuclear rocket. NASA and the Bush administration are keeping the lid on the details, including how much more it expects to request from Congress, but O'Keefe said the funding increase will be "very significant." --part1_1e3.9344a.2b60a33b_boundary-- From VM Thu Jan 23 12:05:30 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3121" "Wednesday" "22" "January" "2003" "19:23:34" "-0800" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" nil "48" "Fwd: starship-design: Electromagnetic Pulse Shockwaves As A result of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3121 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h0N3NZcj015174 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:23:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) id h0N3NZ7x015165 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:23:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from web13602.mail.yahoo.com (web13602.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.113]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.7/8.12.7) with SMTP id h0N3NYcj015127 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:23:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20030123032334.82115.qmail@web13602.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [206.148.92.177] by web13602.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:23:34 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-358606372-1043292214=:81244" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: Fwd: starship-design: Electromagnetic Pulse Shockwaves As A result of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:23:34 -0800 (PST) --0-358606372-1043292214=:81244 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hey, you've got to admire all the hard guesswork he put into it. Being charitable, though, I think that if someone would just gently steer this guy in the right direction, he could become a scientist, maybe a good one. His heart's in the right place, he just needs someone to show him that obtaining the actual facts is often almost as easy as making them up. Unless you've got an agenda. ;-) keep looking up, Curtis "L. Parker" wrote:From: "L. Parker" To: "Starship-Design List \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Electromagnetic Pulse Shockwaves As A result of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:26:42 -0600 This is an example of an article which should never have been published. It sounds like one of our younger members wrote it... "Electromagnetic Pulse Shockwaves As A result of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion" http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03a.html 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 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-358606372-1043292214=:81244 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Hey, you've got to admire all the hard guesswork he put into it. Being charitable, though, I think that if someone would just gently steer this guy in the right direction, he could become a scientist, maybe a good one. His heart's in the right place, he just needs someone to show him that obtaining the actual facts is often almost as easy as making them up.

Unless you've got an agenda.  ;-)

keep looking up,

Curtis

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

From: "L. Parker"
To: "Starship-Design List \(E-mail\)"
Subject: starship-design: Electromagnetic Pulse Shockwaves As A result of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:26:42 -0600

This is an example of an article which should never have been published. It
sounds like one of our younger members wrote it...

"Electromagnetic Pulse Shockwaves As A result of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion"

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03a.html




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


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now --0-358606372-1043292214=:81244-- From VM Mon Apr 28 12:20:22 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2397" "Monday" "28" "April" "2003" "13:45:37" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "52" "starship-design: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Computer_models_make_=22super-alloys=22?=" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2397 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3SIjl47023916 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:45:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h3SIjlmi023913 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:45:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3SIjk47023904 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:45:46 -0700 (PDT) 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 19ADdJ-0000rl-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:45:45 -0700 Message-ID: <002b01c30db6$5cce78b0$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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: starship-design: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Computer_models_make_=22super-alloys=22?= Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:45:37 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: L. Clayton Parker [mailto:lparker@cacaphony.net] Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 1:12 PM To: Starship-Design (E-mail) Subject: Computer models make “super-alloys” Useful in a re-entry vehicle perhaps? Computer models make “super-alloys” 22 April 2003 Researchers in Japan have created a new group of "super-alloys" with superior properties. Takashi Saito and colleagues at the Toyota Research and Development Laboratories and the University of Tokyo used a novel computational approach to make the materials. The alloys, whose properties include ultra-high strength and super-elasticity, could be used for high-precision instruments and medical equipment (T Saito et al. 2003 Science 300 464). Advances in metal alloying techniques are largely made by trial and error. Costly, time-consuming experiments result in only small improvements in physical and mechanical properties. Materials scientists rely on experimentally determined phase diagrams to design new alloys, but it takes millions of such diagrams to produce new multi-element structures- even for common metal combinations. Now, Saito and co-workers have used three electronic "magic numbers" to make a novel set of alloys. The numbers are: the electron-to-atom ratio; the "bond order", which represents the average bonding strength between atoms; and the d electron-orbital energy level, which represents the average electronegativity. The researchers produced alloys based on titanium that also contained tantalum, niobium, zirconium, vanadium and oxygen in a simple body-centred cubic structure. Superior properties were observed only when all three of the magic numbers had specific values - 4.24 for the electron-to-atom ratio for example. The alloys do not expand on heating and are very strong. Moreover, they are super-elastic and super-plastic because they can be stretched without being deformed. The team focused on the elastic modulus of the system - the ratio of the stress applied to the strain produced - and found a characteristic anisotropy in the metal crystals. "This anisotropy brings a new type of dislocation-free plastic deformation mechanism," Saito told PhysicsWeb. "The mechanism makes it possible for the alloy to accumulate large amounts of elastic strain energy, which leads to the exceptional properties observed." Author Belle Dumé is Science Writer at PhysicsWeb From VM Tue Apr 29 15:08:34 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10008" "Tuesday" "29" "April" "2003" "16:54:24" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "187" "starship-design: Sailing With Columbus Was Never Safe (Part 1)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 10008 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3TLsZ07005414 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h3TLsZ1t005412 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3TLsY07005367 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:54:34 -0700 (PDT) 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 19Ad3a-0007gl-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:54:34 -0700 Message-ID: <005f01c30e99$e6aa4710$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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Sailing With Columbus Was Never Safe (Part 1) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:54:24 -0500 Sailing With Columbus Was Never Safe by Bruce Moomaw Sacramento - Apr 23, 2003 The ability to resume building and operating the Space Station is absolutely crucial to the future of NASA writes Bruce Moomaw. For NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe this means the Agency must return the Shuttle to flight operations as quickly and safely as possible. And by following a baseline that involves making only minor risk-reduction measures it's possible that shuttle flights could resume by early next year. Former ASAP Chairman Richard Blomberg recommended the same thing in his testimony before the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, saying that installation of a crew escape system in the existing Shuttles -- if possible at all -- would likely take as much as a decade. He recommended instead that NASA simply continue flying Shuttles for as long as the Space Station is operated, considerably increase spending on the manned space program to further raise their safety as much as it can be raised (which, he emphasized, is not much), building one or two additional Shuttle Orbiters, "...and when those come on line, maybe retire the oldest of the current ones." Adding in observation that it might be possible to incorporate a crew escape system into these new Shuttles, built from scratch. "We're never going to have a perfectly safe vehicle...[The Shuttle] is a design... that the folks can manage well enough to keep the risk as low as is humanly possible for that environment. "I think that's all you can ask for when you're dealing with a dangerous situation...If you ask me would the country be better served by not having human space flight until a Shuttle replacement is produced, I would vehemently say no. "I mean that human space flight is important, we are learning a great deal from it, we are accomplishing things in space, and the Shuttle is fully capable of supporting that at an acceptable, albeit not perfect, level of risk. "Now, would we have been better if we [already] had Shuttle 2 now or some other vehicle. Probably. But we didn't make that decision. So right now we have to play the cards that we're dealt...The only human-rated vehicles that we know of on this planet are Soyuz and Shuttle, and Soyuz can't do the job. So it's going to be Shuttle." Blomberg elaborated on his belief that more Shuttle disasters are both inevitable and, on the whole, acceptable: "Whenever you have a human vehicle...[which] gets more and more complex, it is absolutely impossible to check out every interaction and every type of failure and every situation that the vehicle will encounter... "Unfortunately, part of our operational experience in any vehicle is accidents. We hope it never gets to that, but it is part of the reality of operating, particularly in a high-risk environment." Neither O'Keefe nor Blomberg have actually given any reason why manned spaceflight has such supposedly big benefits -- but they may very well get their wish anyway. As the Feb. 14 "Science" noted, "O'Keefe has powerful advocates on his side. Three of his former bosses are now in influential positions": Vice President Cheney, OMB Director Mitchell Daniels, and Senate Appropriations Commitee chairman Ted Stevens -- all of whom enthusiastically support a continued major manned spaceflight program "carried out by a new generation of brave explorers". And to underscore that 'commitment' the Bush Administration has announced its intention of actually increasing NASA's total spending level from $15 billion to $18 billion a year within three years. However, that plan for an increase in NASA's spending hinges upon the Administration's and Congress' continued willingness to blithely continue expanding the federal deficit indefinitely -- if that bubble bursts, NASA's spending is not only likely to be limited to its present level but may actually drop somewhat. Moreover, "Science" reports that Congress is already seriously skeptical about O'Keefe's desire to fund development of the Orbital Space Plane over the next decade at the same time that NASA continues to fund the Shuttle fleet: "The idea [of the OSP] has won little support from many aerospace contractors, who fear it could replace the Shuttles -- and their lucrative contracts -- or from legislators, who question its feasibility and its price tag... 'You won't get a multibillion-dollar appropriation for this', a House aide says. 'It's not going to happen.' NASA declines to estimate the [OSP's] cost, but one industry official says that development costs could exceed $35 billion." Thus, NASA may continue to fly Shuttles, four or five times per year, as America's only manned spacecraft through at least 2020 -- and simply accept as inevitable the destruction of one or two more Shuttles and their crews. Unless and until an OSP is funded, NASA will have to continue paying Russia to provide Soyuz' as emergency rescue vehicles -- and unless it is willing to maintain the Station crew at three, thus allowing virtually no useful scientific research to be done on the Station, it will have to pay Russia to keep not one but two Soyuz' attached to the Station at all times to allow a full 6-man crew to evacuate the Station in case of an emergency. This, of course, is assuming that we decide to retain the Station at all. During the same recent interview by "Space.com" in which he expressed his strong desire to start flying Shuttles again before the end of 2003, O'Keefe pooh-poohed the idea of aiming at any time in the near future for manned flights to the Moon or Mars: "There are only two or three things, the space agency head contends, that motivate big goals as a national imperative: national security, economics, or expressions of sovereignty. Nothing on the space horizon is apparent in this regard...that might foster a big destination goal. "So rather than sit, sweat, fret, and argue about which one of those destination objectives everybody could get around...focus all that attention, time and effort into all the enabling technologies that would make any of those goals feasible in the future. That's the logic.' " The irony is that the Station itself is totally unjustifiable on any of those grounds. I have already expressed my belief -- which is also the belief of a landslide majority of space scientists. -- that maintaining the Space Station is totally unjustified on any rational grounds, even now that it's been partially completed. Nothing I've seen since my last article on this subject has persuaded me otherwise. In March 1991, the National Research Council concluded that the Space Station "does not meet the basic research requirements of the two principal scientific disciplines for which it is intended: (1) life sciences research necessary to support the national objective of long-term human exploration of space, and (2) microgravity research and applications." Since then, its scientific usefulness has not grown one bit. With one exception, every type of scientific experiment it can possibly carry out can be done vastly more cheaply -- and in many cases more scientifically effectively as well -- on much smaller unmanned satellites (including recoverable ones). Any advantage from having a human technician immediately on hand near the orbiting experimental equipment is vastly outweighed by the fact that an experiment, if need be, can be rerun dozens of times on unmanned spacecraft for the cost of running it once on a manned mission, since the overwhelming share of the expense of any manned spaceflight is that of simply launching the crew safely into orbit, keeping them alive there, and returning them safely to Earth. And the scientific usefulness of microgravity experiments is highly limited in any case. Zero-G does not provide much additional knowledge about the biology of living things; and the demand for crystals and other materials manufactured in 0-G is extremely limited and perhaps nonexistent, since virtually all substances manufactured in weightlessness can now be manufactured more cheaply in other ways back on Earth. The only possible use for the Station is to study the health effects of prolonged weightlessness on humans themselves. But the only use for such information is for future long-duration deep-space manned flights. And -- thanks mostly to the Russians -- we already know with absolute certainty that prolonged 0-G has a multitude of seriously harmful effects, and that artificial gravity will be an absolute necessity for all manned deep-space flights. The Station can provide us with almost no additional useful information on this subject. As then-Senator Dale Bumpers bitterly remarked in 1998: "A vast majority of scientists know the Station will be the most expensive and least efficient scientific laboratory in history. Each hour of Space Station research will cost an astounding $155,000. "Instead of spending $1.3 billion a year to keep four U.S. astronauts in orbit, we could fund more than 5000 grants for research at universities and laboratories here on Earth." Since then, the yearly cost of the Station by itself has increased to $1.7 billion -- and the cost of the Shuttle program now devoted almost entirely to maintaining it (a cost Bumpers didn't include in his calculation) is another $4 billion. And the Station's crew, until its full crew rescue capability is available, has dropped from 6 or 7 to only three people -- reducing the number of man-hours per week currently devoted to American research down to only 11, at a staggering real cost of about $10 million per man-hour of research! Moreover, until the Shuttle resumes flights and the Station can be returned to a three-man crew from its current emergency two-man crew, the number of man-hours of American research per week will be only 6 hours. This is the sum total benefit we have gotten from a project which -- as the journal "The Scientist" points out -- has cost "almost 10 times as much as it would take to build the Panama Canal today." From VM Tue Apr 29 15:08:34 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7091" "Tuesday" "29" "April" "2003" "16:55:00" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "130" "starship-design: Sailing With Columbus Was Never Safe (Part 2)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7091 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3TLtA07006423 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:55:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h3TLtAc8006416 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:55:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3TLt907006382 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19Ad49-0000kC-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:55:09 -0700 Message-ID: <006001c30e99$fc007760$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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Sailing With Columbus Was Never Safe (Part 2) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:55:00 -0500 Sailing With Columbus Was Never Safe by Bruce Moomaw NASA's current argument is that, if the Station is abandoned at this point, the money already spent on it will have been "wasted". But this ignores the fact that only about $40 billion has been spent on it thus far -- and the cost of finishing it and running it for its projected 10-year operating lifetime will amount to about an additional $60 billion, for an utterly trivial gain in scientific and engineering knowledge. What's especially interesting is that NASA totally rejects this same "we should throw good money after bad" argument when it comes to its unmanned space projects. Over $580 million has already been spent over the last decade on the Gravity Probe B satellite to test Einstein's theory of general relativity. The satellite is virtually complete, and scheduled for launch later this year. But the satellite has now run into still another in a long series of technical problems, which will add another $36 million to its cost -- and NASA is now very seriously studying whether GP-B should be canceled, even at this very late date, simply because it now thinks that the science return from it may no longer be worth the remaining $104 million needed to complete and launch it. If it had used this same reasoning -- or anything remotely near it -- on its manned program, both the Station and the Shuttle would have been canceled long ago. What's keeping the Station and the Shuttle going at this point? Firstly, the value of the two programs as pure pork. To quote Sen. Bumpers: "What really keeps the Station alive is the politics and the deep pockets and influence of aerospace contractors on Capitol Hill. The Station represents a textbook case of corporate welfare. NASA and its contractors have torn a page from the Pentagon's play-book and scattered Station contracts across 46 states. That ploy increases costs, but it also increases the number of senators with a stake in keeping the project alive." And, as Glenn Easterbrook observed after Columbia's destruction: "Aerospace contractors love the fact that the Shuttle launches cost so much...Keeping prices up was a higher priority than having a sensible launch system... In return for failure [after the Challenger disaster], the Shuttle program got a big budget increase...'Reforms' were left up to the very old-boy network that had created the problem in the first place and that benefited from continuing high costs. Concerned foremost with budget politics, Congress too did its best to whitewash. Large manned spaceflight centers that depend on the Shuttle are in Texas, Ohio, Florida and Alabama. Congressional delegations from these states fought frantically against a [cheaper] Shuttle replacement. "The result was years of generous funding for constituents -- and now another tragedy. The tough questions that have gone unasked about the Shuttle have also gone unasked about the Station, which generates billions in budget allocations for California, Texas, Ohio, Florida and other states...So far as I can tell, to Congress the mission of the Shuttle is not to fly to orbit but to deliver pork to constituents. "That members of Congress aren't calling for cancellation of the program seems a kind of ultimate cynicism: Who cares if it blows up or accomplishes anything commensurate with cost? All we care about is getting the money," wrote Easterbrook. And the fates of the Shuttle and Station are now stuck together like Siamese twins: cancellation of either one means cancellation of the other -- and the instant and traumatic end of fully 40% of NASA's $15 billion annual funding make it much harder for Congress to cancel either one of them. However, a bigger factor at this point may be classic "political inertia" -- the simple fact that publicly confessing that you made an error of this magnitude is the kiss of death for any elected politician or appointed government bureaucrat. Quoting former Microsoft chief technology officer Nathan Myhrvold: "How can you change direction without at least an implicit mea culpa that the Shuttle was a bad idea? And once you go there, it is only a short distance from saying (or implying), 'Yup, that great crew did die in vain.' Now, that is one hell of a lot of crow to eat. What person -- whether in Congress, the White House, or elsewhere -- wants to stand up and say THAT to Congress and the American public?" Planetary geologist Jeffrey Bell of the University of Hawaii puts it more brutally: "Admitting that Shuttle [and Station] is a failure would discredit all the people who told the Big Lie." Finally, to quote former NASA historian Alex Roland: "In the same way that the Shuttle was [deliberately] intended to get so much cost in it that you couldn't cancel it, the Station has now reached that critical mass. And added to that, NASA intentionally added foreign partners, not only to share the cost, which was already over budget, but to make it politically invulnerable. That is, it would be difficult for Congress to cancel the Station because so many other foreign partners were involved in it." Those foreign partners in Europe and Japan are indeed now raising hell at any whisper of a suggestion that the Station should be canceled -- because such a cancellation would force them to admit to their own voters that they had made a serious mistake. Finally, it should be noted that -- after former Administrator Dan Goldin was forced to resign because he could no longer conceal the fact that his plan to reduce the Station's costs by involving Russia in the program had been a total failure -- the Bush Administration had tremendous trouble finding any replacement for him, to the point that they even tried to hire a headhunter for the purpose. Every candidate they approached who actually had any decent reputation for understanding science and technology hastily shied away from the post, precisely because they DID have such knowledge -- they regarded taking on the directorship of NASA at this point as the equivalent of parachuting onto the bridge of the Titanic. Thus Bush was finally forced to select as NASA's head O'Keefe -- an accountant who has virtually no scientific or technical background, and who can thus be easily led by the career NASA bureaucrats he relies on for scientific and engineering advice into swallowing their arguments in favor of continuing the manned space program (and other expensive new NASA initiatives, such as nuclear propulsion for deep space probes) even when those arguments include glaring factual errors. For all these reasons, to quote Roland: "For better or for worse, we probably are stuck with [the Station], and we'll have to find some way to make use of what we've done." But if we are so stuck, how can we possibly finish building and running the Station -- for whatever trickle of benefit we get out of it -- without continuing to fly the Shuttle despite its innate and uncorrectable dangers, and thus endangering future crews until that highly probable moment when we lose a third crew (and maybe a fourth one)? From VM Wed Apr 30 11:22:27 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["414" "Tuesday" "29" "April" "2003" "21:19:38" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: Sailing With Columbus Was Never Safe (Part 2)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 414 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3U1Js07018828 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h3U1JsDm018826 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3U1Jr07018695 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:19:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.22.) id 4.aa.1c24fd09 (4552); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:19:38 -0400 (EDT) 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: Sailing With Columbus Was Never Safe (Part 2) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:19:38 EDT This is a great explanation of the politics of shuttle and station -- and why wretched waste and cost overruns are why it keeps getting funding. And also why even failure to the degree of killing crews is acceptable intrade for keeping the budget monney rolling. Kelly In a message dated 4/29/03 5:56:28 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Sailing With Columbus Was Never Safe > > > >by Bruce Moomaw > > From VM Thu May 1 13:46:25 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3281" "Thursday" "1" "May" "2003" "15:11:37" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "92" "starship-design: Boeing Considers Ideas to Replace Shuttle Columbia" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3281 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h41KBm07002280 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 13:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h41KBmao002279 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 2003 13:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h41KBm07002264 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 13:11:48 -0700 (PDT) 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 19BKPD-0002PG-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 01 May 2003 13:11:47 -0700 Message-ID: <002501c3101d$dfd26730$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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Boeing Considers Ideas to Replace Shuttle Columbia Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:11:37 -0500 Boeing Considers Ideas to Replace Shuttle Columbia By Jim Banke Senior Producer, Cape Canaveral Bureau posted: 03:00 pm ET 30 April 2003 CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- NASA isn't likely to order another orbiter to replace shuttle Columbia but that isn't stopping Boeing engineers from thinking about how they might go about building a 21st century addition to the fleet. These somewhat conflicting views were presented here Wednesday by industry officials attending the 40th Space Congress. "The best value to the country is not to build another one," Michael Kostelnik, a senior spaceflight official in Washington, D.C., told SPACE.com during an exclusive interview. With a starting price of $2 billion, it doesn't make sense to manufacture a new shuttle just to wind up with a vehicle that still is basically a 30-year-old design, Kostelnik said. The former Air Force two-star general said it made better sense to invest in future technology and transportation hardware that can help keep the current fleet flying another decade or more, while developing new vehicles to augment the shuttle's capabilities and eventually replace it. "It wouldn't be pragmatic enough to build another shuttle," he said. Nevertheless, Boeing NASA Systems manager Mike Lounge told a packed Space Congress audience that engineers at his company were doing an internal exercise to determine the best way to construct a replacement spaceplane if needed. Lounge, a veteran astronaut with three spaceflights, presented two possible ideas: First, build a new shuttle based on the old blueprints but use modern, 21st century manufacturing techniques that wouldn't rely on the original factory equipment and workers, both of which in most cases are no longer available. Such a vehicle would essentially be a copy of Endeavour, Atlantis and Discovery, which are more like each other than Columbia, Challenger and even Enterprise. Lounge called such a vehicle "OV-106," as that would be the next addition in the numbering scheme for the current shuttle design. Endeavour, Atlantis and Discovery are better known by workers here as OV-105, OV-104 and OV-103, respectively. Columbia was OV-102, Enterprise was OV-101 and Challenger was OV-99. Second, Lounge suggested the shuttle program consider building what he called "OV-201," a modernized version of the shuttle that would look the same on the outside but on the inside sport every new system and gadget now being considered to keep the shuttle fleet safely flying through 2020. Those changes might include updated avionics with a vehicle health monitoring system, steering thrusters that don't use toxic propellants and replacement of the hydraulic system so wing flaps and engine nozzles would move with electric actuators. Lounge had no estimates yet on the cost or schedule demands for either idea. "We're still looking at what that would mean to do," Lounge said. Following the 1986 Challenger disaster, Congress approved building a replacement orbiter that became Endeavour. The shuttle cost about $1.8 billion -- considered then to be a bargain -- but it relied heavily on using major structural spare components that had already been built. Rockwell was the original shuttle contractor but they are now part of Boeing. From VM Mon May 12 10:37:42 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2670" "Sunday" "11" "May" "2003" "08:06:15" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "51" "starship-design: NASA Should Buy New Space Vehicles, Not Build Them" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2670 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4BD6Lgs015680 for ; Sun, 11 May 2003 06:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4BD6LfA015678 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 May 2003 06:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4BD6Kgs015673 for ; Sun, 11 May 2003 06:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19EqWy-00063w-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sun, 11 May 2003 06:06:20 -0700 Message-ID: <014101c317be$1bc200f0$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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: NASA Should Buy New Space Vehicles, Not Build Them Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 08:06:15 -0500 NASA Should Buy New Space Vehicles, Not Build Them Los Angeles - May 09, 2003 Challenging testimony by NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, the Space Frontier Foundation called on NASA to transform itself into a customer for private enterprise, rather than a competitor. O'Keefe told the Senate subcommittee overseeing NASA's budget, "We will pursue activities unique to our mission -- if NASA does not do them, they will not get done. If others are doing them, we should question why NASA is involved." Citing several recent announcements of privately financed space vehicles, the Foundation's Rick Tumlinson asked: "If private enterprise is developing this capability with its own money, why is NASA wasting billions to pay government contractors to design a spaceplane specifically for NASA? "NASA should transform itself into a customer for private spaceplanes, instead of a competitor. The agency should buy rather than build, when it comes to future transportation from the Earth to space." The Foundation pointed out that a number of new and innovative commercial firms are investing in developing vehicles to fly humans and payloads into sub-orbital space. Famed designer Burt Rutan recently rolled out his Space Ship One in Mojave, California. Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com has reportedly made a large investment in a suborbital spaceship. Elon Musk of PayPal fame is building a commercial rocket system, and the entrepreneurial firm XCOR recently flew their EZ-Rocket test bed live in front of hundreds of thousands of people at the Oshkosh air show. The Foundation believes that with NASA offering to be a customer for rides and payload delivery, these companies could continue all the way to orbit. "Giving NASA managers and government contractors who have failed over and over again billions of dollars to design and build a spaceplane specifically and only for NASA's use is the old way of doing things," Tumlinson said. "We don't need one Orbital Spaceplane, we need many spaceplanes. We shouldn't be laying off astronauts, we should be opening the space frontier for more Americans. If this is done right, NASA can get all the transportation it needs, save billions in taxpayer funds, kick start a huge new industry and along the way, the people will at last get a chance to go into space themselves." The Foundation is calling on Mr. O'Keefe to keep his promise to transform NASA and act "as only NASA can" to make real changes. Rather than competing with private enterprise, the Foundation urges NASA to replace government development contracts with launch service purchases, flight data purchases, and competitive prizes for spaceplane development. From VM Mon May 12 10:37:43 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["20330" "Sunday" "11" "May" "2003" "08:27:30" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "373" "starship-design: Explaining Thirty Years Of Fudge" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 20330 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4BDRbgs019702 for ; Sun, 11 May 2003 06:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4BDRbuA019701 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 11 May 2003 06:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4BDRags019695 for ; Sun, 11 May 2003 06:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19EqrX-0000Ja-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sun, 11 May 2003 06:27:35 -0700 Message-ID: <014201c317c1$13772c10$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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Explaining Thirty Years Of Fudge Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 08:27:30 -0500 Explaining Thirty Years Of Fudge by Bruce Moomaw Sacramento - May 02, 2003 While a great deal of the testimony before the Columbia Accident Investigation Board has been newsworthy to non-specialists -- and the Board has by now made it plain that it does not intend to serve as the blind puppets of NASA's officials -- nothing in it up until April 23 could be described as "explosive". But that is the only possible word that can be applied to the testimony on that day by Robert F. Thompson, the Shuttle program's manager during the crucial period from 1970 until just after the first Shuttle flight in 1981. Thompson delivered a whole series of bombshells on a wide variety of subjects, which can be roughly grouped into two categories. The first is his casual official confirmation of the astonishing degree of deliberate, flat-out dishonesty that went into NASA's tactics to persuade Congress to approve the Shuttle program in the first place -- plus his apparent revelation that, to some extent, President Richard Nixon himself collaborated in it. It has been known for some time that, in order to persuade a reluctant Congress to reject Sen. Walter Mondale's campaign against the Shuttle, NASA told outrageous distortions about the frequency with which it could be launched, and thus its cost-effectiveness. One anonymous former NASA official told a "Time" magazine reporter shortly after the Challenger disaster, "We hated to do it, but we were getting SO many votes." But no NASA official, past or present, ever openly admitted the fact -- until Thompson. CAIB member John Logsdon pointed out that in May 1971 the Office of Management and the Budget had placed a mandatory cap of $5.5 billion on the Shuttle's development cost -- and that NASA's "ultimate presentation, at least to the White House level, said you could do that" and fly the Shuttle "with an operating cost of $118 a pound (of payload). I'm curious where those numbers came from particularly the operating cost." Thompson's response was, first, to casually admit that NASA had lied to Congress about development costs -- apparently with the connivance of President Nixon and the OMB: "In December 1971, when [then NASA Administrator] Jim Fletcher and [then associate administrator] George Low went to San Clemente to present the final recommendation to President Nixon, we prepared a letter that George and Jim took with them... "That letter said that we felt we could build the Shuttle for a total cost of $5.15 billion [in 1971 dollars]... but that it would take another billion dollars of contingency funding over and above that to handle the contingencies that always develop in a program like this. "So you need to budget $6.15 billion...we could build it and fly it by 1979 if everything went perfectly, but that [another] $1 billion and 18 months ought to be planned in the program because that's probably what will really happen and we'll probably fly it in early 1981. That's in the document... "President Nixon approved it... Bill Lilly, who was comptroller of the agency [NASA] at that time, took that letter and started his negotiations with OMB. When he finally got around to getting it through the OMB cycle, they took the letter and said, 'We'll take the $5.15 billion, but we won't give you the [additional] $1 billion because we never budget contingencies. We'll hold you to the 1979 launch date...and we'll put it in the '73 budget at those numbers.'... "I went back and talked to Bill Lilly. He said, 'Shut up. You got your program. Go on about your business.' So we did... The Shuttle was picked as a program to be monitored by OMB, and they actually put five or six people from the OMB into my office level here at the Johnson Space Center...It's a pretty complex job to keep up with the true cost of a development program like the Shuttle. In fact, after three years, OMB quit and went home." In short, the president and his OMB both knew that the Shuttle's likely development cost would be a billion dollars more than what Congress was led to believe by the White House. Remarkably, Thompson revealed all this in the course of proudly telling the Columbia Board that the Shuttle, contrary to traditional belief, had not overrun its real (if secret) original cost estimate (taking inflation into account), and had not been delayed beyond its real (if secret) planned launch date. This, however, is a good deal less shocking than his next statement, on the origins of that $118-per-payload-pound operating cost estimate: "At the time that we were selling the program at the start of Phase B, the people in Washington got a company called Mathematica to come in and do an analysis of operating costs. Mathematica discovered that the more you flew, the cheaper it got per flight." "Fabulous… So they added as many flights as they could. They got up to 40 or 50 flights a year. Hell, anyone reasonable knew you weren't going to fly 50 times a year. "The most capability we EVER put in the program is when we built the facilities for the [External] Tank at Michoud -- we left growth capability to where you could get up to 24 flights a year by producing tanks, if you really wanted to get that high. We never thought you'd ever get above 10 or 12 flights a year. "So when you say, 'Could you fly it for X million dollars?', some of the charts of the document I sent you today look ridiculous in today's world...Those costs per flight were not the cost of ownership... We didn't try to throw the cost of ownership into that. It would have made it look much bigger. So that's where those very low cost-per-flight numbers came from. They were never real." In short, the Shuttle's program manager during that period has now told the CAIB that the figures on yearly cost frequency and cost per flight that NASA gave Congress -- which were crucial to the conclusion that the Shuttle program as a whole would be more cost-effective than unmanned expendable boosters -- were deliberate distortions. Thompson also said that President Nixon, at least, had decided to back the Shuttle for reasons other than its supposed economy as a launch vehicle -- but had kept his real reasons secret from Congress: "In 1969, driven by the fact that the government works on five-year budget plans, it was then incumbent on NASA to put some dollars into the out years for where they wanted to go post-Apollo...If something wasn't done, we were going to go out of the manned spaceflight business. That simple. "So the Vice President at the time, Spiro Agnew...chaired the Space Council and they worked for about six months...They looked at a manned Mars expedition, they looked at a follow-on lunar program, they looked at a low-Earth-orbital infrastructure program, and they looked at getting out of the business... "They made the decision to have a low Earth orbital infrastructure program...It never got announced like Kennedy announced the lunar program, but that decision was made by the President on the advice of the Space Council. "We then undertook obviously to build the Shuttle first, and then a modular, zero-gravity space station second...As the thing evolved, we started with the Shuttle, and the requirements for the Shuttle were driven 99 percent by what we wanted to do to support the space station. It also happened to give the Air Force the kind of payload volume and the kind of capability they wanted, although they really wanted to be at higher orbits for their work "So the Air Force came in and said, 'We will plan to use the Shuttle, and we will also take on the task of building the Interim Upper Stage, which was part of the low-Earth-orbital infrastructure. So NASA embarked on the Shuttle. It wasn't necessary to commit to a space station at that time because the Shuttle had to be built and operational before you commit to the space station, and the President at that time -- Nixon -- had other things on his mind. He didn't get up and make a great big speech about low-Earth-orbital infrastructure. "So now a lot of myths have grown up about how we stumbled between a space station and the [Shuttle] Orbiter, and how we wanted to do an Orbiter this way and then an orbiter that way. That's not the way it happened at all. It was pretty orderly planning. It was a decision to go to the low Earth orbital infrastructure -- let's have a shuttle, then let's have a modular zero-gravity space station... "When Nixon made the decision...there was no big national-level discussion of it or national-level announcement of it or national-level description of it. So a lot of attention was not drawn to it. "Part of the reason was that politically you were proposing to do something that was considerably less expensive, less effortful, less glamorous than the Apollo program. "So compared to what Kennedy did with the Apollo program, announcing a low earth orbital infrastructure wasn't that sexy, so to speak. Plus the personality of the man -- he wasn't that interested in space. So he didn't make a big to-do about it." But Nixon's failure to "make a big to-do" about his real plans for the Shuttle included never even telling Congress about his true reason for backing it -- and letting them endorse it entirely because of outrageously phony figures about its supposed economic efficiency as a reusable launcher, rather than on the basis of its real (but secret) purpose as the support vehicle for a space station that Congress had already made it clear it was very skeptical about backing. The second keg of dynamite exploded by Thompson at the hearing involved his flat-out announcement that it had never been designed -- and probably could never be designed -- to endure pieces of foam insulation regularly falling off its External Tank, and his repeatedly expressed outrage that the Shuttle's current program managers have tolerated this. Major Gen. John Barry of the Columbia Board asked Thompson, "Was the Space Shuttle designed to accept debris hits from foam, either at the RCC [wing-edge panels] or at the belly with the tiles?" Thompson relied, "No. The spec for the [External] Tank is that nothing would come off the Tank forward of the 2058 ring frame [low down on the Tank], and it [the Shuttle] was never designed to withstand a 2-pound mass hitting at 700 feet per second. That was never considered to be a design requirement." Aaron Cohen, the Shuttle Orbiter's project manager for 1972-1982, added: "In the first early flights, we were concerned about ice coming off the tank...because we knew ice would do very serious damage." But Thompson added: "But usually ice under the [foam] insulation was our principal concern -- where you would get a crack in the insulation, you had cryopumping under there, you'd get ice formed up under it, and a chunk of ice and insulation come off" "We must have had... 15 [meetings on this] -- we had so many meetings on trying to make sure we didn't have ice, we called them the Ice Follies meetings." Reminded that there is still a team that inspects the External Tank before launch for ice, Thompson replied, "I don't know what they're doing today...I was pretty sure we did ultrasonic testing on the tank foam insulation, looking for any voids. We carefully did visual inspection. We put together a very comprehensive ice team that walked up and down the vehicle just before liftoff...We even talked one time about building a great big building around the whole thing and environmentally controlling it, but we decided that probably wasn't necessary." Thomspon then revealed that the early Shuttle teams were far more concerned about ice or form fragments hitting the carbon RCC panels on the wings' leading edges -- exactly the thing thought to have been fatally damaged on Columbia -- than they were about impacts on the Shuttle's tiles: "We paid an awful lot of attention to making sure that nothing came off, because we knew that if we fractured the carbon-carbon on the leading edge of the orbiter, it was a lost day. "We could take a fair amount of damage on the silica tiles and still be all right, but it was a maintenance problem...People have gotten locked up on the fragile nature of the silica tiles. "The silica tiles are fragile to damage, but they're actually pretty forgiving. You can take a lot of damage right there. You cannot take any damage that knocks a hole in the carbon-carbon leading edges." George Jeffs, the Shuttle program manager before Thompson, interjected that the RCC panel designers had gone to some lengths to make them "as strong as possible...We really had a rugged RCC...They're taking a pretty good [strain] load up in that front end. So they're not wussies." Thompson: "They are strong, but they're still a ceramic. What you don't do is hit a ceramic with a real sharp, high-energy low-time blow. Anything going 700 feet per second -- even if it's a soft piece of insulation -- if you look at the force-time curve that we put onto that insulation, we didn't do a dead-chicken test [i.e., firing any significantly heavy objects at the RCC panels with a gas gun]. We knew well that you could knock it off if you hit it with enough kinetic energy." He seemed surprised that his successors had not been aware of this fact, and added: "There was never any thought that those [RCC] panels would withstand a 20,000 foot-pound kinetic energy strike [such as Columbia's foam fragment produced]. They were not designed for that. The whole intent was not to let it happen....I wouldn't know how to design the leading edge of that wing to take a 20,000 foot-pound kinetic energy strike." Milton Silveira, his deputy program manager, said, "Not many airplanes are designed that way." Thompson added, "I think we might have had to abandon the program, had that been a requirement." When asked whether the Shuttle had been designed to withstand hits from micrometeoroids or orbiting space garbage, Thompson replied, "We did not know enough about the orbital environment to practically say what kind of impacts you should take from orbit. So, frankly, we did not spend a lot of time trying to design the Orbiter to take hits from unidentified objects while on orbit." Cohen pointed out that the Shuttle was designed to have enough spare air for the crew to land before running out of oxygen if there was a half-inch hole in its cabin wall, and that the windows were designed to take very small impacts, but agreed that "I don't recall orbital debris being discussed very much." Thompson: "I don't think you would really know enough today to put a good spec on a system flying in low Earth orbit...It's going to have to be a judgment call for someone." He also said that the decision, after he resigned, to give up painting the foam on the External Tank -- which would probably have drastically reduced its ability to absorb either water or air which could then liquefy when the cryogenic fuels were pumped into the Tank -- had nothing to do with any weight problems: "The number that I remember was 700 pounds of paint on the tank. As far as I know, they quit painting the tank more to save money, and it wasn't really... that they were in any kind of critical weight bind." Owen Morris, the Shuttle's systems integration manager in the 1970s, confirmed this, saying that the decision was made that the paint was unnecessary after the tank manufacturers had decided to quit machining the foam after spraying it, which had been scraping off the hard natural "rind" on the foam. However, the complicatedly shaped areas around the "intertank" region -- and especially the bipod region from which Columbia's fatal fragment came -- are still machined, and their rind removed. Thompson's final verdict on his successors in the program was devastating: "You have to maintain the PRACA ["Problem Report and Corrective Action"] system...because that's a discipline that makes you look at anything that's off nominal, whether it's in the [chronically] worrisome [Shuttle Orbiter] engines or in the not-so-worrisome SRBs. You have to deal with it in a formalized way through a Flight Readiness Review, or whatever technique you want to use. You have to maintain those systems. "Then you have to maintain enough high-quality well-trained people to make good judgments with those decisions. Neither one of these accidents that we've had on the Shuttles require Ph.Ds in physics to understand. In fact, they barely exceed high-school physics to understand. "Erosion on an O-ring when there should be no erosion is an obvious thing. "Kinetic energies of a 2 1/2 or 3-pound hunk of foam when it's traveling 700 feet per second -- that's high school physics. "There should not be anyone in a key management position in the Shuttle program who doesn't understand those things in considerably more depth than it would take to make a good decision on them. "Why those things didn't happen is the kernel of your question. It appears to me that the agency needs to make sure that the procedures bring the PRACA to the right forum, and that the right people are dealing with them.... There may still be some actions that occur in the Shuttle that those systems don't catch, but that's certainly no excuse not to have those systems in place and have reasonably good people deal with them." Finally -- while this doesn't begin to match Thompson's other bombshells -- he and his fellow former program managers had a good deal to say about their skepticism regarding NASA's continuing habits in planning for its future. George Jeffs said: "These programs cost a lot of money; and therefore, when you start them, you better darn well make sure you've figured out what you want to do with them... "The other thing is that these programs are often paced not by money and talent, but by technology. So there's no point in taking off on a Single Stage To Orbit if you don't have an engine that can perform that kind of mission. So we go charging off and we get all together and say, 'Let's go Single Stage To Orbit' -- then say, 'But how do we get there? Oars?' "Therefore you've got to look at the technology base as it permits you to make decisions for the next generation...It seems like it's five years for Gemini; 10 or 15 on Apollo; 15, 20, maybe 25 on Shuttle. The next one is going to be larger than that. But it's going to [need] the technology behind it that enables you to commit that kind of funding and duration of lifetime of people to do it." Thompson added that he is skeptical about manned deep-space expeditions as NASA's next desirable goal, and that it should be thinking along Gerard O'Neill's lines instead: "There is plenty about what we're doing today and what we will do in the next 10 or 15 years that should excite a lot of capable people to work on it, even though it's not exploring Mars. "I frankly think it will be a long time before you can convince any Congress to spend the money to embark on a properly thought-out Mars exploration mission, because it's going to be extremely costly and there's going to be a hell of an argument about whether it's worth that cost... "So I think what is needed is a little more attention to explaining. For example, the Space Station, I think, is a very exciting program -- the thought, somewhere in the future, of direct solar conversion to electrical energy with a solar power station in orbit. The kinds of things you can do in a low earth orbit with shuttle and space station-type vehicles could be made into a very exciting program. "Part of the problem is that people want to throw that aside and go to Mars for some reason -- and we've got to put the defense in that, because I think where the nation's going to spend its money for the next several years in manned spaceflight is low Earth orbit, and we'd better start explaining the beauty of it. I don't think you'll be going to have any trouble getting plenty of people to work on it, good people, if you'll talk about it and explain it properly." Very few people had expected any session of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board to be as dramatic as the session on the morning of April 23. It will be much harder for NASA to continue sweeping its very serious problems with its manned space program -- and its scandalous penchant for dishonesty -- under the rug after Thompson's testimony. From VM Tue May 13 12:06:22 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["791" "Monday" "12" "May" "2003" "23:53:34" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: Explaining Thirty Years Of Fudge" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 791 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4D3rqgs027254 for ; Mon, 12 May 2003 20:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4D3rqPO027253 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 2003 20:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.102]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4D3rpgs027213 for ; Mon, 12 May 2003 20:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.22.) id 4.1dd.98a4286 (4539); Mon, 12 May 2003 23:53:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1dd.98a4286.2bf1c63e@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: Explaining Thirty Years Of Fudge Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 23:53:34 EDT Surprized this didn't at least make the news. Not that any of it is that surprizing. His handwaving about getting folks excited about flights to low earth orbit was very sad -- or whisteling in a grave yard. "Boldly going... to the frount yard to get the mail.." is not going to excite the masses. In a message dated 5/11/03 9:32:53 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >Explaining Thirty Years Of Fudge > > > > > >by Bruce Moomaw > >Sacramento - May 02, 2003 > >While a great deal of the testimony before the Columbia Accident > >Investigation Board has been newsworthy to non-specialists -- and the Board > >has by now made it plain that it does not intend to serve as the blind > >puppets of NASA's officials -- nothing in it up until April 23 could be > >described as "explosive". From VM Tue May 13 12:06:22 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3010" "Monday" "12" "May" "2003" "23:53:36" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "112" "Re: starship-design: NASA Should Buy New Space Vehicles, Not Build Them" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3010 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4D3rmgs027222 for ; Mon, 12 May 2003 20:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4D3rmo2027221 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 2003 20:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m02.mx.aol.com (imo-m02.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4D3rlgs027185 for ; Mon, 12 May 2003 20:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.22.) id 4.aa.1cd1c4ea (4539); Mon, 12 May 2003 23:53:36 -0400 (EDT) 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: NASA Should Buy New Space Vehicles, Not Build Them Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 23:53:36 EDT Damn this would be a fantastic boost for space -- assuming its not bull. I.e. NASA has talked this talk before. In a message dated 5/11/03 9:28:29 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >NASA Should Buy New Space Vehicles, Not Build Them > > > > > >Los Angeles - May 09, 2003 > >Challenging testimony by NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, the Space Frontier > >Foundation called on NASA to transform itself into a customer for private > >enterprise, rather than a competitor. > > > >O'Keefe told the Senate subcommittee overseeing NASA's budget, "We will > >pursue activities unique to our mission -- if NASA does not do them, they > >will not get done. If others are doing them, we should question why NASA >is > >involved." > > > >Citing several recent announcements of privately financed space vehicles, > >the Foundation's Rick Tumlinson asked: "If private enterprise is developing > >this capability with its own money, why is NASA wasting billions to pay > >government contractors to design a spaceplane specifically for NASA? > > > >"NASA should transform itself into a customer for private spaceplanes, > >instead of a competitor. The agency should buy rather than build, when >it > >comes to future transportation from the Earth to space." > > > >The Foundation pointed out that a number of new and innovative commercial > >firms are investing in developing vehicles to fly humans and payloads into > >sub-orbital space. Famed designer Burt Rutan recently rolled out his Space > >Ship One in Mojave, California. Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com has reportedly >made > >a large investment in a suborbital spaceship. > > > >Elon Musk of PayPal fame is building a commercial rocket system, and the > >entrepreneurial firm XCOR recently flew their EZ-Rocket test bed live in > >front of hundreds of thousands of people at the Oshkosh air show. The > >Foundation believes that with NASA offering to be a customer for rides >and > >payload delivery, these companies could continue all the way to orbit. > > > >"Giving NASA managers and government contractors who have failed over and > >over again billions of dollars to design and build a spaceplane specifically > >and only for NASA's use is the old way of doing things," Tumlinson said. > > > >"We don't need one Orbital Spaceplane, we need many spaceplanes. We > >shouldn't be laying off astronauts, we should be opening the space frontier > >for more Americans. If this is done right, NASA can get all the > >transportation it needs, save billions in taxpayer funds, kick start a >huge > >new industry and along the way, the people will at last get a chance to >go > >into space themselves." > > > >The Foundation is calling on Mr. O'Keefe to keep his promise to transform > >NASA and act "as only NASA can" to make real changes. Rather than competing > >with private enterprise, the Foundation urges NASA to replace government > >development contracts with launch service purchases, flight data purchases, > >and competitive prizes for spaceplane development. From VM Tue May 13 12:06:23 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1541" "Tuesday" "13" "May" "2003" "09:23:13" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: NASA Should Buy New Space Vehicles, Not Build Them" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1541 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4D7O4gs021908 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 00:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4D7O41E021907 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 2003 00:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4D7O1gs021726 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 00:24:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id JAA09594 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 13 May 2003 09:23:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200305130723.JAA09594@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: NASA Should Buy New Space Vehicles, Not Build Them Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:23:13 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue May 13 05:57:58 2003 > From: KellySt@aol.com > > Damn this would be a fantastic boost for space -- assuming its not bull. > I.e. NASA has talked this talk before. > Kelly, note that "this talk" is told not by NASA, but by Space Frontier Foundation's Rick Tumlinson, who were "Challenging testimony by NASA Administrator"... -- Zenon Kulpa > In a message dated 5/11/03 9:28:29 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > >NASA Should Buy New Space Vehicles, Not Build Them > > > > > >Los Angeles - May 09, 2003 > > > >Challenging testimony by NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, the > >Foundation called on NASA to transform itself into a customer for private > >enterprise, rather than a competitor. > > > >O'Keefe told the Senate subcommittee overseeing NASA's budget, "We will > >pursue activities unique to our mission -- if NASA does not do them, they > >will not get done. If others are doing them, we should question why NASA > >is involved." > > > >Citing several recent announcements of privately financed space vehicles, > >the Foundation's Rick Tumlinson asked: "If private enterprise is developing > >this capability with its own money, why is NASA wasting billions to pay > >government contractors to design a spaceplane specifically for NASA? > > > >"NASA should transform itself into a customer for private spaceplanes, > >instead of a competitor. The agency should buy rather than build, when > >it comes to future transportation from the Earth to space." > > [... etc. etc.] From VM Tue May 13 12:06:24 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["490" "Tuesday" "13" "May" "2003" "07:07:00" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "RE: starship-design: NASA Should Buy New Space Vehicles, Not Build Them" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 490 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4DC7Dgs015825 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 05:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4DC7DqB015822 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 2003 05:07:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4DC7Cgs015817 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 05:07:13 -0700 (PDT) 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 19FYYn-0000dY-00; Tue, 13 May 2003 05:07:09 -0700 Message-ID: <004101c31948$2a291120$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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: RE: starship-design: NASA Should Buy New Space Vehicles, Not Build Them Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 07:07:00 -0500 > -----Original Message----- > From: KellySt@aol.com [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 10:54 PM > To: lparker@cacaphony.net; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: NASA Should Buy New Space Vehicles, Not > Build Them > > > Damn this would be a fantastic boost for space -- assuming > its not bull. > I.e. NASA has talked this talk before. > It wasn't NASA talking this talk, it was the Space Frontier Foundation rebutting NASA's talk. Lee From VM Thu May 15 15:44:23 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8709" "Thursday" "15" "May" "2003" "17:01:46" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "161" "starship-design: Smells Like Teen Spirit" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 8709 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4FM1tDC013416 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 15:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4FM1tXP013415 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 May 2003 15:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4FM1sDC013394 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 15:01:54 -0700 (PDT) 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 19GQnQ-0001gh-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 15 May 2003 15:01:52 -0700 Message-ID: <00ae01c31b2d$94645ef0$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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Smells Like Teen Spirit Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 17:01:46 -0500 Smells Like Teen Spirit The Spacefaring Web 3.10 by John Carter McKnight Scottsdale - May 14, 2003 Before long, a private vehicle will make a successful suborbital flight. That flight will mark a passage from adolescence to adulthood for the space community, an achievement of independence from the stifling paternalism of stagnant government programs. The efforts of the entrepreneurial rocket companies have been reminiscent of the ritual that marks the passage to adulthood in our culture - not the Confirmation or Bar Mitzvah, but the drivers' license road test. Like driving, suborbital flight is no big deal to the adults at NASA and the Russian Space Agency, who mastered it a generation ago. Everyone else has been working towards that unglamorous rite of passage, not seeking to storm the heavens or revolutionize the world, but merely to re-create Alan Shepard's flight of forty years ago. To get the rest of the space community its drivers' license. While the small rocket companies prepare for that suborbital Department of Motor Vehicles exam, the X Prize, some still cling to adolescence, turning with cynicism from the real to their fantasies of the ideal. Cynicism and utopian idealism go hand in hand - both are rejections of the possible in favor of the ideal. The space cynic considers any constructive action by NASA not just unlikely but impossible, and treating with the space agency akin to dancing with the devil. The utopian rejects all current efforts as dangerous distractions from the "real work" of bringing about a spacefaring paradise. A recent press release by the Moon Society and Artemis Society provides a textbook example of that bipolar adolescent attitude in action. The organization rejects "other groups'" strategy of engaging audiences with a credible message. Rather, they implicitly favor preaching doctrinal purity even at the price of public incredulity, going on to reject the notion of establishing a consensus to build upon rather than pushing for "utopia now." Taking a pouty swipe at those engaging in the political "art of the possible," referring to the Space Settlement Summit effort ( The Spacefaring Web 3.07 , the Moon Society/Artemis Society writes that "several other space advocacy groups now say they are ready to publicly espouse the idea of space settlement after years of being afraid to do so very loudly for fear it sounded to 'way out'… but, as always, failed to support any plan directly targeted to promote space settlement." After wingeing that the grownups haven't given them their whole Christmas list, they go on to endorse "the most realistic and achievable method for encouraging private enterprise in outer space." A media program? Investor briefings? Low-cost rocketry? No - the "Space Settlement Initiative," a system for recognizing extraterrestrial real estate claims. Bear in mind that this press release was issued the day a crew departed for the International Space Station - by Soyuz. On a day when the United States had no means of sending humans into space, when humanity's entire stock of flightworthy spacecraft consisted of a few steel balls sitting in Russian warehouses. The level of wishful thinking, of willing disengagement from reality, is staggering. This is not to condemn Alan Wasser's Space Settlement Initiative on its philosophical merits. As a discussion point, a proposal to shape future efforts, the Initiative has much to recommend it, and is superior to many competing space property rights schemas in the literature. As a concept, the Initiative is excellent work. As a rallying point for political action today, its choice by the Moon Society/Artemis Society is a breathtaking rejection of adult engagement with reality as it stands today, reminiscent of the people who consider themselves "residents" of online gaming worlds rather than the disappointing land of meatware. It is Peter Pannishness of the worst sort, and an insult to the people getting their hands dirty in the Mojave in an attempt to earn the space community's way to adulthood. The Moon Society/Artemis Society is not alone in clinging to adolescence. For the Baby Boom generation, efforts to re-create an Apollo program for the Moon or Mars are an attempt to regain their Camelot, that high school team-spirit feeling of solidarity, enthusiasm and purpose. Those of us a bit younger felt that magical teen hormonal rush in the late 1990s, in the founding days and nights of the Mars Society and the Roton rollout. Recession and robotic failures dashed us with adult reality just as Vietnam and urban riots did our forebears. There's a difference between healthy idealism and manic-depressive teen obsession. It's an easy distinction to lose, especially in a community united around enthusiasm. The impulse towards space is driven by the majesty of the universe, by the sense of infinite possibility in our expansion into the cosmos. Heady stuff, and passionate engagement should arise from our grand visions. The mature attitude, though, charts a course between grandeur of vision and the boundedness of the possible, between the future we would create and the present we must create it from. Immaturity lies in living in our castles in the sky, in refusing to sully our dreams with reality. Religious conservatives refer to this adolescent fantasy as "immanentizing the eschaton," of trying to live in the transcendent moment rather than the mundane world. At the other end of the spectrum, Lenin called the socialist utopianism of leftist dreamers a "childhood disease," to be outgrown through engagement with "objective conditions." The Moon Society/Artemis Society press release, and much of the commentary on future space transportation, manifest that "childhood disease." They should be quarantined with "space mumps," the symptoms being an urge to move right into castles in the sky, coupled with a sullen resentment of unglamorous reality. Much of the space-education effort displays space mumps symptoms. "Getting kids excited about space" is pretty much a direct translation of "immanentizing the eschaton." It's a putting of the excitement cart before the reality horse. Space education programs fall flat because the genuine excitement of hands-on engagement with something uniquely, generationally new and timely is simply absent. Rather than remedy the problem by advancing space access, giving rise to genuine passion and interest, these programs attempt to generate enthusiasm in a way transparently phony to kids, who have a finely-honed nose for the foolishness of adults trying to act like teenagers, whether in trying to recapture their own youth by imitating the young or in trying to talk to them in their own language. There was little need in the last decade for programs, governmental or nonprofit, to get kids excited about computers. Why? They were exciting. The time was right, the technology was available, malleable, and eminently suited to creative play. Space technology isn't there, and all the wishful thinking, and "space is kewl" phoniness won't change that fact. The problem isn't youthful enthusiasm - it's the divorce of that enthusiasm from appropriate circumstances, like 20-somethings still hanging out at the high school football games. There will be a time when space property rights will top rational space advocacy agendas. But not today . There will be a time when most bright, imaginative kids will immerse themselves in the reality of space access. But not today. There will be a time when we unite for an exciting push out into the cosmos. But not today. Today we're confronted with workaday tasks of engineering, finance and marketing, with the long-neglected foundational work that must precede sustainable space development. Much of it is about as exciting as refinancing a mortgage - but just as necessary for our future. We have to get up in the morning and go about the workaday tasks of ensuring interest in space - in real space deliverables, not orbital sky castles or a Red Eschaton - and cheap, safe, routine access to Earth orbit. Wishful thinking and pouty utopianism can only keep us from our adult responsibilities. If we need to feel that teen rush again, well, there's always rock & roll. The Spacefaring Web is a biweekly column © 2002 by John Carter McKnight, an Advocate of the Space Frontier Foundation (http://www.space-frontier.org/Projects/Spacefaring ) Views expressed herein are strictly the author's and do not necessarily represent Foundation policy. Contact the author at kaseido@earthlink.net From VM Thu May 15 15:44:24 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5706" "Thursday" "15" "May" "2003" "17:06:42" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "111" "starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5706 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4FM6nDC018053 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 15:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4FM6nZM018052 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 May 2003 15:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4FM6mDC018045 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 15:06:48 -0700 (PDT) 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 19GQsC-0001k5-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 15 May 2003 15:06:48 -0700 Message-ID: <00af01c31b2e$44d71de0$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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 17:06:42 -0500 NASA As an Equity Partner by Kenneth Schweitzer Washington - May 13, 2003 NASA was embarking on a Space transportation system to replace the Space Shuttle before the Columbia disaster occurred. The current national Space transportation plan calls for the development of both near-term and long-term Space vehicle development programs. The government's near-term development program, designated the Orbital Space Plane (OSP), is intended to utilize existing technologies to develop a small human transportation vehicle to fulfill International Space Station (ISS) support needs, both for personnel transport to the ISS and rescue from the Station. Following the Columbia disaster there are calls to fully fund and even speed up this vehicle system, instead of trying to build a new Shuttle orbiter to replace Columbia as was done following the loss of Challenger. The OSP is to use currently available technology, something private industry can handle on its own. It is NASA's (aka the government's) duty to facilitate the commercial application of high-potential high-risk technologies by mitigating the risks through an extensive research and testing program too expensive and risky for private companies to pursue on their own. The Soyuz spacecraft is the most reliable and cost-effective human-rated spacecraft ever flown. It has repeatedly proven itself both for the ISS roles of transport and rescue. NASA can 'cheaply' and 'safely' satisfy its mission needs through the use of Soyuz vehicles for the rest of the decade. At the same time it ensures a primary role for the Russians, a key partner on the ISS. The recent commitment by the Russian government to provide the necessary support to keep the ISS program functioning and on track to completion demonstrates their willingness to be an equal partner if given the credit and recognition their proud Space industry deserves and demands from the world. This solves the OSP mission immediately and far less expensively than pouring billions of dollars into the OSP program. The reusable launch vehicle (RLV) start-ups that have come on the scene over the past decade are ready to bring a more modern OSP capability to NASA and commercial users. Capital in the form of money, not technical inability nor management incompetence, is the reason they have failed to date. Kistler Aerospace, a small start-up founded some ten years ago encompassing ex-NASA managers and engineers, had reportedly been able to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars for the development of their Two-Stage-To-Orbit (TSTO) vehicle, which is based on existing technologies. Northrop-Grumman, a contractor on their vehicle, became an equity partner, investing more than $30 million into their vehicle's development. Through the assistance of this 'large established aerospace contractor', the small rocket start-up nearly completed their first vehicle before funds ran out. Kistler's rocket services would have included ISS support flights such as Station re-supply. This is just one example of a multitude of capable start-ups that were able to find millions of dollars in private investment in the past few years. They were ready and capable to support NASA's needs but only lacked sufficient capital to complete their vehicle's developments. NASA needs to become an equity partner with two or three of today's most promising smaller launch start-ups to satisfy the ISS's needs, either through matching the privately raised funds or through investing a direct fixed amount. Not a competition between Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, but between the smaller 'new' players. Expending just 50% of the funds earmarked for the OSP program, NASA can easily support two or three of these start-ups through first flight. The remaining funds from the OSP program should be used to support and ensure the research and development activities of the 3rd-generation launch technology projects, such as the flight-testing of X-vehicles containing scramjet engine technologies and new materials, too risky and expensive for private industry to pursue on their own. There is no justification for the government to continue to waste funds on the OSP program when the agency's needs can be met more productively by 'investing' in the small launch start-ups. Not learning the lessons of the Shuttle program of putting all your eggs in one basket, NASA's OSP program as currently defined would select only one vehicle concept for development in 2004 from of the established 'big boys', where instead 2 or 3 promising start-ups can receive the capital support they require. With the adequate capital provided by NASA at least one of these firms would be able to prove themselves. By some chance they fail, a Russian government and Space industry that feels needed again can continue to develop their Soyuz craft or perhaps even China at that point can join the ISS program, supporting the ISS through their more modern Soyuz-based spacecraft. Either way everyone wins. By going with the current OSP program nobody wins. Under this new path, NASA is taken out of the RLV business for at least a generation, opening up a new playing field of smaller operators for the Shuttle follow-on system, one where NASA has an equitable interest in their success. By giving a chance to these new players today, the government will be helping to build a mature, competitive, and vibrant Space transportation industry, that in fifteen years will be able to utilize and bring to market the government's 3rd-generation technology research efforts. Kenneth Schweitzer is the author of MADE IN SPACE , now available through 1stBooks.com From VM Fri May 16 10:40:19 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7872" "Thursday" "15" "May" "2003" "22:05:31" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "280" "Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 7872 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4G25hDC029353 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 19:05:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4G25hWT029352 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 May 2003 19:05:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m03.mx.aol.com (imo-m03.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4G25gDC029338 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 19:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.22.) id 4.1c1.9b1733f (17377); Thu, 15 May 2003 22:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1c1.9b1733f.2bf5a16b@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 As an Equity Partner Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 22:05:31 EDT I shudder at any paper that writes: ====The Soyuz spacecraft is the most reliable and cost-effective human-rated == spacecraft ever flown. == == NASA can 'cheaply' and 'safely' satisfy its mission needs through the use == of Soyuz vehicles for the rest of the decade. At the same time it ensures == a primary role for the Russians, a key partner on the ISS. === First teh Russians have been ripping us off badly on anything in ISS they have ben involved with, and Soyuz isn't that safe!! Its rates are better tehn shuttle - but not a lot better, and the capacities are low, adn it usually beats up its crew. ISS is irrelevant, it really serves no purpose other then a token US Rusian cooperative deal. More critical is fielding a family of relyable launchers. I do strongly agree with the complaint that NASA is focused on coming up on one super launcher that can do everything. Politicaly thats where NASA is, but it makes no sence, and sets you up for more cripling is your single system is grounded for some reason. NASA should not bne a partner. They should be a customer. And they should have atleast three different RLV's. Sometrhing like a big BlackHorse for launching a couple people or a ton or two of stuff to LEO. And able to doi it on demand as a rescue craft. Some medium to big RLV. Maybe TSTO, maybe a big airbreather/combined cycle for heavy (by current def) lift, or god sized crew. Not the shuttes both at once, but something that can fill the bukl of the heavy loadds. And finally some modular BIG booster. Something that can be stacked up to lift up to hundreds of tons. Enough for a station, a deep space craft, etc. In a message dated 5/15/03 6:07:32 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >NASA As an Equity Partner > > > > > >by Kenneth Schweitzer > >Washington - May 13, 2003 > > > >NASA was embarking on a Space transportation system to replace the Space > >Shuttle before the Columbia disaster occurred. The current national Space > >transportation plan calls for the development of both near-term and > >long-term Space vehicle development programs. I shudder at any paper that says something like >The government's near-term development program, designated the Orbital >Space > >Plane (OSP), is intended to utilize existing technologies to develop a >small > >human transportation vehicle to fulfill International Space Station (ISS) > >support needs, both for personnel transport to the ISS and rescue from >the > >Station. > > > >Following the Columbia disaster there are calls to fully fund and even >speed > >up this vehicle system, instead of trying to build a new Shuttle orbiter >to > >replace Columbia as was done following the loss of Challenger. > > > >The OSP is to use currently available technology, something private industry > >can handle on its own. It is NASA's (aka the government's) duty to > >facilitate the commercial application of high-potential high-risk > >technologies by mitigating the risks through an extensive research and > >testing program too expensive and risky for private companies to pursue >on > >their own. > > > >The Soyuz spacecraft is the most reliable and cost-effective human-rated > >spacecraft ever flown. It has repeatedly proven itself both for the ISS > >roles of transport and rescue. > > > >NASA can 'cheaply' and 'safely' satisfy its mission needs through the use >of > >Soyuz vehicles for the rest of the decade. At the same time it ensures >a > >primary role for the Russians, a key partner on the ISS. > > > >The recent commitment by the Russian government to provide the necessary > >support to keep the ISS program functioning and on track to completion > >demonstrates their willingness to be an equal partner if given the credit > >and recognition their proud Space industry deserves and demands from the > >world. This solves the OSP mission immediately and far less expensively >than > >pouring billions of dollars into the OSP program. > > > >The reusable launch vehicle (RLV) start-ups that have come on the scene >over > >the past decade are ready to bring a more modern OSP capability to NASA >and > >commercial users. Capital in the form of money, not technical inability >nor > >management incompetence, is the reason they have failed to date. > > > >Kistler Aerospace, a small start-up founded some ten years ago encompassing > >ex-NASA managers and engineers, had reportedly been able to obtain hundreds > >of millions of dollars for the development of their Two-Stage-To-Orbit > >(TSTO) vehicle, which is based on existing technologies. > > > >Northrop-Grumman, a contractor on their vehicle, became an equity partner, > >investing more than $30 million into their vehicle's development. Through > >the assistance of this 'large established aerospace contractor', the small > >rocket start-up nearly completed their first vehicle before funds ran out. > >Kistler's rocket services would have included ISS support flights such >as > >Station re-supply. > > > >This is just one example of a multitude of capable start-ups that were >able > >to find millions of dollars in private investment in the past few years. > >They were ready and capable to support NASA's needs but only lacked > >sufficient capital to complete their vehicle's developments. > > > >NASA needs to become an equity partner with two or three of today's most > >promising smaller launch start-ups to satisfy the ISS's needs, either > >through matching the privately raised funds or through investing a direct > >fixed amount. > > > >Not a competition between Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, >but > >between the smaller 'new' players. > > > >Expending just 50% of the funds earmarked for the OSP program, NASA can > >easily support two or three of these start-ups through first flight. The > >remaining funds from the OSP program should be used to support and ensure > >the research and development activities of the 3rd-generation launch > >technology projects, such as the flight-testing of X-vehicles containing > >scramjet engine technologies and new materials, too risky and expensive >for > >private industry to pursue on their own. > > > >There is no justification for the government to continue to waste funds >on > >the OSP program when the agency's needs can be met more productively by > >'investing' in the small launch start-ups. > > > >Not learning the lessons of the Shuttle program of putting all your eggs >in > >one basket, NASA's OSP program as currently defined would select only one > >vehicle concept for development in 2004 from of the established 'big boys', > >where instead 2 or 3 promising start-ups can receive the capital support > >they require. > > > >With the adequate capital provided by NASA at least one of these firms >would > >be able to prove themselves. By some chance they fail, a Russian government > >and Space industry that feels needed again can continue to develop their > >Soyuz craft or perhaps even China at that point can join the ISS program, > >supporting the ISS through their more modern Soyuz-based spacecraft. Either > >way everyone wins. By going with the current OSP program nobody wins. > > > >Under this new path, NASA is taken out of the RLV business for at least >a > >generation, opening up a new playing field of smaller operators for the > >Shuttle follow-on system, one where NASA has an equitable interest in their > >success. > > > >By giving a chance to these new players today, the government will be > >helping to build a mature, competitive, and vibrant Space transportation > >industry, that in fifteen years will be able to utilize and bring to market > >the government's 3rd-generation technology research efforts. > > > >Kenneth Schweitzer is the author of MADE IN SPACE > >, now available through 1stBooks.com From VM Fri May 16 10:40:19 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1299" "Thursday" "15" "May" "2003" "22:05:32" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: Smells Like Teen Spirit" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1299 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4G25iDC029365 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 19:05:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4G25ilr029363 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 15 May 2003 19:05:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m06.mx.aol.com (imo-m06.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.161]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4G25hDC029339 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 19:05:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.22.) id 4.4d.2f7f30ca (17377); Thu, 15 May 2003 22:05:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4d.2f7f30ca.2bf5a16c@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: Smells Like Teen Spirit Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 22:05:32 EDT These two paragraphs clearly point out the bulk problem of all space advocacy groups. They think its the cheerleaders that make the crowd excited about the game. They forget that if nothings happening "on the field" i.e. in space inself, no one has anything to be excited about. In a message dated 5/15/03 6:03:51 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: > > > > >Space education programs fall flat because the genuine excitement of >hands-on engagement with something uniquely, generationally new and timely >is simply absent. Rather than remedy the problem by advancing space access, >giving rise to genuine passion and interest, these programs attempt to >generate enthusiasm in a way transparently phony to kids, who have a >finely-honed nose for the foolishness of adults trying to act like >teenagers, whether in trying to recapture their own youth by imitating >the young or in trying to talk to them in their own language. > >There was little need in the last decade for programs, governmental or >nonprofit, to get kids excited about computers. Why? They were exciting. >The time was right, the technology was available, malleable, and eminently >suited to creative play. Space technology isn't there, and all the wishful >thinking, and "space is kewl" phoniness won't change that fact. From VM Tue May 20 10:27:27 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1223" "Tuesday" "20" "May" "2003" "11:10:43" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl" nil "28" "Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1223 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4K9BeDC009131 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 02:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4K9BefK009130 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 20 May 2003 02:11:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4K9BaDC009104 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 02:11:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id LAA19256; Tue, 20 May 2003 11:10:43 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200305200910.LAA19256@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:10:43 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri May 16 04:05:44 2003 > From: KellySt@aol.com > > I shudder at any paper that writes: > > ====The Soyuz spacecraft is the most reliable and cost-effective human-rated > == spacecraft ever flown. > == NASA can 'cheaply' and 'safely' satisfy its mission needs through the > == use of Soyuz vehicles for the rest of the decade. At the same time it > > == ensures a primary role for the Russians, a key partner on the ISS. === > > First teh Russians have been ripping us off badly on anything in ISS they > have ben involved with, and Soyuz isn't that safe!! Its rates are better > tehn shuttle - but not a lot better, and the capacities are low, adn it > usually beats up its crew. > > ISS is irrelevant, it really serves no purpose other then a token US Rusian > cooperative deal. > True, but since ISS must at least for some time remain up there for political reasons, the author is about right saying - let it be serviced for a while by cheap Souyuz crafts, while we will engage in boosting our new launchers without the burden of reviving shuttle launches to ISS by all costs... It seems a good idea, or am I mistaken? -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Wed May 21 19:47:08 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2632" "Wednesday" "21" "May" "2003" "21:00:13" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "58" "starship-design: Backyard Astronomy: Study Uncovers 12 Nearby Stars" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2632 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4M20IUA001361 for ; Wed, 21 May 2003 19:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4M20HmW001360 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 2003 19:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4M20FUA001313 for ; Wed, 21 May 2003 19:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19IfNO-0002tQ-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 21 May 2003 19:00:14 -0700 Message-ID: <001901c32005$e2bfc5d0$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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Backyard Astronomy: Study Uncovers 12 Nearby Stars Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 21:00:13 -0500 Backyard Astronomy: Study Uncovers 12 Nearby Stars By Robert Roy Britt Senior Science Writer posted: 11:30 am ET 11 January 2002 WASHINGTON D.C. - With astronomers finding galaxies that are billions of light-years away and spotting stars thousands of light-years distant in our own galaxy, you'd think they'd know about all the stars in our backyard. Not so. Today, researchers announced a dozen newly found stars all within 33 light-years of Earth -- next-door neighbors by cosmic measures. All the stars were found in the southern sky, where surveys are less comprehensive than from the Northern Hemisphere. The discoveries were made by a team of researchers led by Todd Henry of Georgia State University. Henry and his colleagues are working to build a 3-D map of the local sky. The nearest known star is Proxima Centauri, which is 4.2 light-years away. The nearest of the newly discovered objects is 20 light-years away, putting it at 55th on the list of closest stars. The stars come in three configurations: Seven are alone in space; two orbit each other in what's called a binary star system; and the remaining three are in a rarer three-star system, all orbiting each other. All had gone unseen because they are thousands of times fainter than stars that can be seen with the naked eye. The nearest one is only about a third of the size of the Sun and emits less than 1 percent as much light. One of the stars is a white dwarf. The others are red dwarfs. Red dwarfs are sometimes counted as part of "dark matter," somewhat mysterious material that can't be seen but that researchers know must exist based on the amount of gravity at work in galaxies. White dwarf stars are typically about the size of Earth, but they can be as massive as the Sun. That makes them dense. A teaspoonful of a white dwarf weighs as much as an elephant. White dwarf stars are the end of the evolutionary road for smallish stars, ones that could not generate the spectacular explosions that mark the death of larger stars. Because of their proximity, the newly identified stars could prove useful as targets for planet hunters. "Each of the new stars provides a fresh target where we can look for planets, and ultimately, for life on those planets," Henry said here at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society. The stars were studied with two telescopes at the Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory in Chile. The research team included Georgia State's Wei-Chun Jao and John Subasavage; Phil Ianna of the University of Virginia; Rene Mendes of the European Southern Observatory; and Edgardo Costa of the Universidad de Chile. From VM Wed May 21 19:47:08 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2194" "Wednesday" "21" "May" "2003" "21:03:13" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "45" "starship-design: Star Search Finds Neighborly Red Dwarf" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2194 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4M23FUA004315 for ; Wed, 21 May 2003 19:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4M23FXc004313 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 2003 19:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4M23FUA004298 for ; Wed, 21 May 2003 19:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19IfQI-00078i-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 21 May 2003 19:03:14 -0700 Message-ID: <002001c32006$4dfdb0f0$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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Star Search Finds Neighborly Red Dwarf Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 21:03:13 -0500 Star Search Finds Neighborly Red Dwarf By SPACE.com Staff posted: 03:50 pm ET 20 May 2003 Astronomers have stumbled onto a previously unknown star in Earth's stellar neighborhood, a red dwarf that appears to be the third-closest star system to our own. "Our new stellar neighbor is a pleasant surprise, since we weren't looking for it," Bonnard Teegarden, an astrophysicist with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, said in a written statement. Teegarden, the lead author of the study, and his colleagues happened upon the star while searching for nearby white dwarfs, the remains of collapsed stars that quickly traverse the night sky. Astronomers track white dwarfs like they track planets and near earth objects, by tracking their change in position over time. The study of these dead stars can then help estimate the mass and ages of galaxies. "These and other stars make up the tapestry through which near earth asteroids travel, which is our main concern," said Steven Pravdo, who collaborated on the star search, during a telephone interview. Pravdo is the project director for NASA's Near-Earth Asteroid Tracking (NEAT) program, which supplied a database full of sky observations - originally meant to find objects that might impact Earth - for Teegarden to sift through. It was while going through the database that researchers discovered the dim red dwarf, which shines about 300,000 times fainter than the Sun. It's faintness has veiled it from astronomers until now, researchers said. NASA astronomers estimate the newly discovered star to sit about 7.8 light years from Earth towards the constellation Aries. The closest star to Earth is Alpha Centauri, which is actually a set of triplets burning brightly about four light years away. Barnard's Star, the next-nearest neighbor is a slightly further hop at about six light years form Earth. One light year is about six trillion miles (9.5 trillion kilometers). U.S. Naval Observatory is currently taking more observations of the star to pin down its exact distance from Earth. Teegarden's research on the red dwarf will appear in the publication Astrophysical Journal, although a final publication date has yet to be set. From VM Tue May 27 10:24:35 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2716" "Monday" "26" "May" "2003" "23:28:07" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "62" "Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil "starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2716 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4R3SsUA014237 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 20:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4R3SsM4014235 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 26 May 2003 20:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m04.mx.aol.com (imo-m04.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4R3SrUA014018 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 20:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36.3.) id 7.122.22be0c24 (4529); Mon, 26 May 2003 23:28:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <122.22be0c24.2c043547@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: zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 23:28:07 EDT In a message dated 5/26/03 10:00:36 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From KellySt@aol.com Sun May 25 08:26:25 2003 >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 02:26:56 EDT >> Subject: Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner >> To: zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl >> >Why not to the list, only privately? Opps, thought I replied to both. :( >[...] >> >True, but since ISS must at least for some time remain up there >> >for political reasons, the author is about right saying - let it be > >> >serviced for a while by cheap Souyuz crafts, while we will engage >> >in boosting our new launchers without the burden of reviving >> >shuttle launches to ISS by all costs... >> >It seems a good idea, or am I mistaken? >> > >> >-- Zenon Kulpa >> >> I'ld say your mistaken. The Soyuyor lack the capacity, the political needs >> would not be served. Politically Shuttle needs to be flown more then >> ISS needs to be manned. >> >Can you elaborate? Namely, concerning the politics >behind Shuttle/ISS? It is rather dark to me. > >-- Zenon Shuttle obviously failed to acheave what it was built for (cheap safe routine access to space). Shuttle is defended as being nessisary to build and service a station. That turned out not to be true. In fact designing the station to be lifted and assembled out of shuttle bay sized peaces uped the cost and complexity tremendously. A analysis in the mid '80s showed if it was built in one to two peaces, and a new class of booster developed to launch it. Even including the cost of the booster in the program - the station would be $1-4 billion cheaper and several years faster to build. But that option was rejected because it did not use Shuttle, nor much work by astrounauts, to assemble it. And station could as easily be serviced by a very differnt vehicle (though none currently are in operation). After astrounauts were killed in the shuttle, it became even more politically unacceptable to suggest shuttle was a failure in any sence. I.E. to suggest they died in vain. That the older Apollo Era boosters could have done as well or better. Station then was built to demonstrate the utility of shuttle. how it could be built by shuttle. But if station is shown to be a failure (and it is in most any sence since it has no real practical or scientific utility) that implies shuttle is a failure; and since shuttle and statino are the only maned space programs in NASA currently or in the planed future, canceling eather negates the other, which could trigger the shutdown of all US, or possibly Russian, manned space operations. So station and shuttle are wed. If one dies, both die - and possiobly maned space flight with them. From VM Tue May 27 10:24:42 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3232" "Tuesday" "27" "May" "2003" "16:16:24" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl" nil "70" "Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil "starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3232 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4REHOUA006547 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 07:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4REHOoh006546 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 2003 07:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4REHKUA006316 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 07:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA29696; Tue, 27 May 2003 16:16:24 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200305271416.QAA29696@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, KellySt@aol.com Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 16:16:24 +0200 (MET DST) > From KellySt@aol.com Tue May 27 05:27:59 2003 > > In a message dated 5/26/03 10:00:36 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes: > > >> From KellySt@aol.com Sun May 25 08:26:25 2003 > > >[...] > >> >True, but since ISS must at least for some time remain up there > >> >for political reasons, the author is about right saying - let it be > >> >serviced for a while by cheap Souyuz crafts, while we will engage > >> >in boosting our new launchers without the burden of reviving > >> >shuttle launches to ISS by all costs... > >> >It seems a good idea, or am I mistaken? > >> > > >> >-- Zenon Kulpa > >> > >> I'ld say your mistaken. The Soyuyor lack the capacity, > >> the political needs would not be served. Politically > >> Shuttle needs to be flown more then ISS needs to be manned. > >> > >Can you elaborate? Namely, concerning the politics > >behind Shuttle/ISS? It is rather dark to me. > > > >-- Zenon > > Shuttle obviously failed to acheave what it was built for > (cheap safe routine access to space). Shuttle is defended > as being nessisary to build and service a station. That turned > out not to be true. In fact designing the station > to be lifted and assembled out of shuttle bay sized peaces > uped the cost and complexity tremendously. A analysis > in the mid '80s showed if it was built in one to two peaces, > and a new class of booster developed to launch it. Even > including the cost of the booster in the program - the station > would be $1-4 billion cheaper and several years faster to build. > But that option was rejected because it did not use Shuttle, > nor much work by astrounauts, to assemble it. > And station could as easily be serviced by a very differnt > vehicle (though none currently are in operation). > After astrounauts were killed in the shuttle, it became even > more politically unacceptable to suggest shuttle was a failure > in any sence. I.E. to suggest they died in vain. That the older > Apollo Era boosters could have done as well or better. > > Station then was built to demonstrate the utility of shuttle. > How it could be built by shuttle. But if station is shown > to be a failure (and it is in most any sence since it has > no real practical or scientific utility) that implies > shuttle is a failure; > All this I know more or less. What I do not get clearly is why do you think that there is no exit from this vicious circle, e.g., by the trick proposed by the author of the article that started this discussion - namely, by using a break in shuttle launches for introducing by a side door some new launches waiting in the wings... > and since shuttle and statino are the only > maned space programs in NASA currently or in the planed future, > canceling eather negates the other, which could trigger > the shutdown of all US, or possibly Russian, manned space operations. > > So station and shuttle are wed. If one dies, both die - > and possiobly maned space flight with them. > There is only one exit I see here: inserting a new manned space program into NASA future - going to Mars and/or returning to the Moon. Without that we will indefinitely put billions into that black Shuttle/ISS hole just for nothing. -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Wed May 28 11:37:11 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4322" "Wednesday" "28" "May" "2003" "00:32:21" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "99" "Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4322 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4S4WbUA010574 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 21:32:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4S4Wbip010573 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 2003 21:32:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m02.mx.aol.com (imo-m02.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4S4WZUA010408 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 21:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36.3.) id z.49.2ec8b4f7 (17377) for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 00:32:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <49.2ec8b4f7.2c0595d5@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: NASA As an Equity Partner Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 00:32:21 EDT In a message dated 5/27/03 10:17:55 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes: >> >[...] >> >> >True, but since ISS must at least for some time remain up there >> >> >for political reasons, the author is about right saying - let it >be >> >> >serviced for a while by cheap Souyuz crafts, while we will engage > >> >> >in boosting our new launchers without the burden of reviving >> >> >shuttle launches to ISS by all costs... >> >> >It seems a good idea, or am I mistaken? >> >> > >> >> >-- Zenon Kulpa >> >> >> >> I'ld say your mistaken. The Soyuyor lack the capacity, >> >> the political needs would not be served. Politically >> >> Shuttle needs to be flown more then ISS needs to be manned. >> >> >> >Can you elaborate? Namely, concerning the politics >> >behind Shuttle/ISS? It is rather dark to me. >> > >> >-- Zenon >> >> Shuttle obviously failed to acheave what it was built for >> (cheap safe routine access to space). Shuttle is defended >> as being nessisary to build and service a station. That turned >> out not to be true. In fact designing the station >> to be lifted and assembled out of shuttle bay sized peaces >> uped the cost and complexity tremendously. A analysis >> in the mid '80s showed if it was built in one to two peaces, >> and a new class of booster developed to launch it. Even >> including the cost of the booster in the program - the station >> would be $1-4 billion cheaper and several years faster to build. >> But that option was rejected because it did not use Shuttle, >> nor much work by astrounauts, to assemble it. >> And station could as easily be serviced by a very differnt >> vehicle (though none currently are in operation). >> After astrounauts were killed in the shuttle, it became even >> more politically unacceptable to suggest shuttle was a failure >> in any sence. I.E. to suggest they died in vain. That the older >> Apollo Era boosters could have done as well or better. >> >> Station then was built to demonstrate the utility of shuttle. >> How it could be built by shuttle. But if station is shown >> to be a failure (and it is in most any sence since it has >> no real practical or scientific utility) that implies >> shuttle is a failure; >> >All this I know more or less. What I do not get clearly >is why do you think that there is no exit from this vicious circle, >e.g., by the trick proposed by the author of the article that started >this discussion - namely, by using a break in shuttle launches for >introducing by a side door some new launches waiting in the wings... Launches to do what? NASA has nothing to do. Its not like ISS has a purpose toward some long term goal. And again, it shows shuttle as a failure, which makes station useless. So launching flights to it with Soyouz serves no purpose. You might as well just shut it down. How does a new launcher help them? To NASA that would doom them. All new launcher designs proposed would need a tiny fraction of the number of ground support staff. I.E. it would gut the staff sizes of the big centers. And hence gut NASA political power and influence. >> and since shuttle and statino are the only >> maned space programs in NASA currently or in the planed future, >> canceling eather negates the other, which could trigger >> the shutdown of all US, or possibly Russian, manned space operations. >> >> So station and shuttle are wed. If one dies, both die - >> and possiobly maned space flight with them. >> >There is only one exit I see here: inserting a new manned space >program into NASA future - going to Mars and/or returning >to the Moon. Without that we will indefinitely put billions >into that black Shuttle/ISS hole just for nothing. > >-- Zenon Kulpa Thats a good idea, but NASA will fight hard to stop it, and neiather goal generates much public interest. Frankly I'm hoping for military or commercial interets to force the development of the new launchers which do gut NASA and invalidate Shuttle station and much of the rest. Thjat would shake up NASA to its roots. Perhaps it would be shut down and replaced, or refocused toward usefull goals for practical or exploration goals. Hell just shut down and gotten out of the way would help us toward space. Anyway, Soyuz doesn't really serve any purpose. Kelly From VM Wed May 28 11:37:14 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2706" "Wednesday" "28" "May" "2003" "14:39:03" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl" nil "67" "Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2706 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4SCe2UA021319 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 05:40:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4SCe2aQ021318 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 2003 05:40:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4SCdxUA021293 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 05:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA01146; Wed, 28 May 2003 14:39:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200305281239.OAA01146@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, KellySt@aol.com Subject: Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:39:03 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 28 06:42:41 2003 > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 5/27/03 10:17:55 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes: > [...] > >All this I know more or less. What I do not get clearly > >is why do you think that there is no exit from this vicious circle, > >e.g., by the trick proposed by the author of the article that started > >this discussion - namely, by using a break in shuttle launches for > >introducing by a side door some new launches waiting in the wings... > > Launches to do what? > Sorry, should be "launchers" in my text above. Fortunately, from the following it seems you have understood that properly. > NASA has nothing to do. Its not like ISS > has a purpose toward some long term goal. > > And again, it shows shuttle as a failure, which makes station useless. > So launching flights to it with Soyouz serves no purpose. > You might as well just shut it down. > > How does a new launcher help them? To NASA that would doom them. > All new launcher designs proposed would need a tiny fraction > of the number of ground support staff. I.E. it would gut > the staff sizes of the big centers. > And hence gut NASA political power and influence. > Quite true... > >> and since shuttle and statino are the only > >> maned space programs in NASA currently or in the planed future, > >> canceling eather negates the other, which could trigger > >> the shutdown of all US, or possibly Russian, manned space operations. > >> > >> So station and shuttle are wed. If one dies, both die - > >> and possiobly maned space flight with them. > >> > >There is only one exit I see here: inserting a new manned space > >program into NASA future - going to Mars and/or returning > >to the Moon. Without that we will indefinitely put billions > >into that black Shuttle/ISS hole just for nothing. > > > >-- Zenon Kulpa > > Thats a good idea, but NASA will fight hard to stop it, > and neiather goal generates much public interest. > If properly formulated, and by a popular and appropriately powerful political force (say, President of the U.S...) it may... > Frankly I'm hoping for military or commercial interets to force the > development of the new launchers which do gut NASA and invalidate > Shuttle station and much of the rest. Thjat would shake up NASA > to its roots. Perhaps it would be shut down and replaced, > or refocused toward usefull goals for practical or exploration goals. > Hell just shut down and gotten out of the way would help us toward space. > Probably true too. The promising route now seems to go through X-prize and subsequent space tourism market development. -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Wed May 28 11:37:20 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3298" "Wednesday" "28" "May" "2003" "14:25:13" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "96" "Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3298 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4SIPtUA020777 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:25:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4SIPtqk020775 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:25:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4SIPsUA020680 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 11:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36.3.) id 7.68.30ea9060 (4320); Wed, 28 May 2003 14:25:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <68.30ea9060.2c065909@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: zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:25:13 EDT In a message dated 5/28/03 8:40:09 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 28 06:42:41 2003 >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 5/27/03 10:17:55 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes: >> >[...] >> >All this I know more or less. What I do not get clearly >> >is why do you think that there is no exit from this vicious circle, >> >e.g., by the trick proposed by the author of the article that started >> >this discussion - namely, by using a break in shuttle launches for >> >introducing by a side door some new launches waiting in the wings... >> >> Launches to do what? >> >Sorry, should be "launchers" in my text above. >Fortunately, from the following it seems you have understood >that properly. Yeah, the issue is when the craft itself is the goal, replacing it is a failure. Nonsensical, but with no real goals of places to go - its understandable in government. >> NASA has nothing to do. Its not like ISS >> has a purpose toward some long term goal. >> >> And again, it shows shuttle as a failure, which makes station useless. > >> So launching flights to it with Soyouz serves no purpose. >> You might as well just shut it down. >> >> How does a new launcher help them? To NASA that would doom them. >> All new launcher designs proposed would need a tiny fraction >> of the number of ground support staff. I.E. it would gut >> the staff sizes of the big centers. >> And hence gut NASA political power and influence. >> >Quite true... > >> >> and since shuttle and statino are the only >> >> maned space programs in NASA currently or in the planed future, >> >> canceling eather negates the other, which could trigger >> >> the shutdown of all US, or possibly Russian, manned space operations. >> >> >> >> So station and shuttle are wed. If one dies, both die - >> >> and possiobly maned space flight with them. >> >> >> >There is only one exit I see here: inserting a new manned space >> >program into NASA future - going to Mars and/or returning >> >to the Moon. Without that we will indefinitely put billions >> >into that black Shuttle/ISS hole just for nothing. >> > >> >-- Zenon Kulpa >> >> Thats a good idea, but NASA will fight hard to stop it, >> and neiather goal generates much public interest. >> >If properly formulated, and by a popular and appropriately >powerful political force (say, President of the U.S...) >it may... not realy unless you can generate public interest. Popular presidents have tried, but no go or interest. Even the bulk of Kennedy's proposals for the future of space were ignored. Only Apollo, the race with the soviets, was picked up on. >> Frankly I'm hoping for military or commercial interets to force the >> development of the new launchers which do gut NASA and invalidate >> Shuttle station and much of the rest. Thjat would shake up NASA >> to its roots. Perhaps it would be shut down and replaced, >> or refocused toward usefull goals for practical or exploration goals. > >> Hell just shut down and gotten out of the way would help us toward space. >> >Probably true too. >The promising route now seems to go through X-prize >and subsequent space tourism market development. Thats a possibility. > >-- Zenon Kulpa Kelly From VM Mon Jun 2 13:32:31 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5784" "Monday" "2" "June" "2003" "13:53:47" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "127" "starship-design: Private Spaceship Undergoes Sky-High Test" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 5784 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h52IrrUA027510 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:53:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h52IrraI027508 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:53:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h52IrqUA027489 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 11:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19MuRL-0006aX-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 11:53:51 -0700 Message-ID: <001201c32938$4d136550$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 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design \(E-mail\)" Subject: starship-design: Private Spaceship Undergoes Sky-High Test Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:53:47 -0500 Private Spaceship Undergoes Sky-High Test By Leonard David Senior Space Writer posted: 09:50 pm ET 31 May 2003 Testing of a privately financed spaceship has moved into the air -- a step toward cashing in on a $10 million purse for building passenger-carrying suborbital rocketry. SpaceShipOne has been hauled skyward, carried by the White Knight -- a twin jet plane built to carry the rocket plane to altitude for launch. The reusable winged rocket and its mother ship are products of aerospace designer, Burt Rutan, head of Scaled Composites, based in Mojave, California. The first captive carry flight moves the project closer to future test glides, eventually leading to a suborbital hop to the edge of Earth's atmosphere. Safety is paramount…minimum cost is critical Scaled Composites divulged the existence of their commercial manned space program on April 18, unveiling the White Knight and SpaceShipOne. "Our flight safety approach of 'question, never defend' has allowed us to take courageous steps by safely flying new ideas and new performance envelopes," Rutan said at rollout ceremonies. Rutan said that, in looking toward the future, hopefully within ten years, ordinary people, for the cost of a luxury cruise, might be able experience a rocket flight into the black sky above the earth's atmosphere. In doing so, they can enjoy a few minutes of weightless excitement, "then feel the thunderous deceleration of the aerodynamic drag on entry." Two-ship stability Officials at Scaled Composites report that the first captive carry flight with a piloted White Knight and non-pilot carrying SpaceShipOne took place May 20, lasting nearly two hours. One major purpose of the flight was to determine two-ship stability and control. Handling of the combined vehicles proved excellent, clearing the way for future piloted captive carry and glide flights of SpaceShipOne. Next flight of the mated vehicles is likely to be a piloted captive carry in which all SpaceShipOne systems -- except rocket propulsion -- will be tested at altitudes up to 50,000 feet. If successful, glide flights will soon follow. Rutan has been eyeing private rocketship concepts dating back to April 1996. Design work and some limited testing was started over three years ago. The full development program began in May of 2001. The goal of what Rutan tags as his "Tier One" program is to rocket a crew upwards to 62 miles (100 kilometers) This altitude was established by the X Prize Foundation as a target to stimulate commercial interest in the technology to foster passenger space travel. A $10 million X Prize cash purse will be awarded to the first team to make the suborbital trek before January 1, 2005, when the offer -- in the form of an insurance policy -- expires. The rules call for any team vying for the prize must loft three people to the stipulated altitude, return them safely to Earth, and then repeat that feat with the same vehicle within two weeks. Rutan is not alone in seeking the X Prize. Teams from seven nations are working hard to win. Ground test program Part of SpaceShipOne's airworthiness campaign is certifying for flight the vehicle's "hybrid" rocket motor. It is called a hybrid because it is has characteristics that utilize features from both solid and liquid rocket motors. Two competing, independent rocket companies -- Environmental Aeroscience Corporation (eAc) of Miami, Florida, and SpaceDev of Poway, California -- are developing and testing the rocket motor and related hardware. An extensive ground evaluation program is underway to ready SpaceShipOne for trial runs prior to any attempt at snagging the X Prize money. Tests are slated or already underway to qualify the ship for glide testing, such as cabin pressure proof tests, some control system proof tests, additional landing gear functional tests and ground vibration testing. "I strongly feel that, if we are successful, our program will mark the beginning of a renaissance for manned space flight," Rutan said at the unveiling of SpaceShipOne and the White Knight air carrier. "This might even be similar to that wonderful time period between 1908 and 1912 when the world went from a total of ten airplane pilots to hundreds of airplane types and thousands of pilots in 39 countries." Flight plan for SpaceShipOne Filing a flight plan for SpaceShipOne reads like this: The three-place spaceship is initially attached to the turbojet launch aircraft. The White Knight cruises for an hour flying to 50,000 feet. That's above 85% of Earth's atmosphere. SpaceShipOne is then dropped into gliding flight and fires its hybrid rocket motor. The craft climbs steeply for more than a minute, reaching a speed of 2,500 mph. The ship coasts up to X Prize altitude, then falls back into the atmosphere. The coast and fall are under microgravity conditions that last more than three minutes. During weightless flight, the spaceship converts to a high-drag configuration -- done by flipping up the rudder/tail end of the craft -- to allow a safe, stable atmospheric entry. After the entry deceleration which takes more than a minute, the ship converts back to a conventional glider, allowing a leisurely 17 minute glide from 80,000 feet altitude down to a runway where a landing is made at light-plane speeds. "This milestone will be significant in that it will represent the making of the first non-government astronaut, and it will be flown on a system that shows the level of affordability needed for future space tourism," Rutan said. Affordable space travel is needed to inspire youth, Rutan added, "to let them know that they can experience their dreams, can set significant goals and be in a position to lead all of us to future progress in exploration, discovery and fun." From VM Mon Jul 7 10:43:07 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["19197" "Saturday" "5" "July" "2003" "04:29:18" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "440" "starship-design: Re: Starship outlook" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 19197 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h658TUDs015019 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 01:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h658TUiZ015017 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 01:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.103]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h658TSDs014997 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2003 01:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id r.7f.39ade428 (4230); Sat, 5 Jul 2003 04:29:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7f.39ade428.2c37e65e@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 h658TTDs015013 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: zsolt1124@yahoo.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Starship outlook Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 04:29:18 EDT Hi Glad you liked the site. And I forwarded this to the group list server. In a message dated 7/4/03 8:55:06 AM, zsolt1124@yahoo.com writes: >INTERSTELLAR PROGRAM CONCEPT >By Zsolt Bereczki > >Interstellar Program concept outline - preliminary probe-satellite exploration >of star systems, - followed if system suitable, by sail /fuel slow and >difficult pioneer mission, and follow on colonization missions in faster >sail/sail ships. > >Criteria for colonization of system: One Earth or at least Mars, or Titan >like planet with >moderate temperature, and radiation environment, tolerable weather system >(not like callysto), some atmosphere - prefrebly with useful gases from >wich Oxygen can be extracted, suitable gravity somewhere between that of >Earth or Mars. To launch a manned mission or colonization mission to a >system with only gas giants, or gas giants and some barren moons, venus >like nasty bakeries,or callisto like dark, difficult, nasty-atmosphered, >and nasty wet weather-system holes in space would not be worthvile. The question is why colionize? What usefull or practical porpose would it serve? Without that theres not going to be any colonies. > >In order for a manned mission to be launched to begin colonization process >a ‘jewel’, a target planet that can evetually be landed on (having set >up suitable space and low grav moon based infrastructure as preliminary >support for down to planet conveying system), and be lived on with some >degree of comfort - would have to be present. >Colonization mission would consist of 2-16 persons, augumented with frozen >genetic material for augumentative inverto pregnancies to maintain genetic >stability of the crew in transit if necessary, and generations of pioneer >personell in target system, and to support the gradual increase in population >eventually leading up to a healthy population of 10,000 none-related individuals >based community wich can be set up even without terran augumentation of >population by transtellar settlers. > >Manned pioneer mission would be launched if system was found to be suitable >on a 60-240 year journey basis, with minimal but suitable and to some degree, >but especially in critical areas redundant ship loadout, and therefore >minimal necessary mass - with the possibility of total demise of ship and >crew anticipated and accepted as a possible outcome. (just as it was with >the first gemini and russian space programs.) You really need to keep flight times to little more 20 years. Otherwise the ship sizes and complexity skyrocket, nd its far less likely to to get funded - or arive before later faster ships are launched.. > >New Ship concept - sail/starbreak - my idea is to use the target star itself, >its light, >magnetic field, parcticles, plasma, and in close-by passes it’s gravity >to slow the ship in >many passes Because of the high interstalar aproch speeds, you can't do mulltiple passes. If you don't slow down into the star systems orbital speed the first time, your through the starsystem out out the other side. Also the stars light, and as far as I can mag field, plasma, and the rest is far to weak to slow a ship at relativistic speeds. Your talking about speeds tens of thousands of times as fast as star system escape velocities.. >- similar to air breaking off target planets, and gravity breaking >using Jupiter’s gravity - implemented by satellites today. Even if this >could not slow the ship in itself enough, with a lighter, minimal ship >it could considerably reduce fuel needs, thus making interstellar flight >more feasible. > >Ship type would consist of a fuel/sail ship or sail/starbreake ship if >the electromagnetic >fields, plasma, light, and gravity of target star could smehow be harnessed >to slow the ship, or even partially slow the ship reducing break system >fuel needs. An anticapatable possibility with star breaking is many near >star passes over a period of decades to gradually dump speed and slow the >vessel, if so, this would be have to be accepted as a necessary part of >travel time. > >Purpose of first manned (and womanned too) mission is to set up preliminary >life support system and support resources for colonization, in-space or >moon/planetoid based construction of interstellar travel support systems, >and begin colonization process. The ultimate goal of first, pioneer group >would be to build on a moon or in space a laser, or a light focusing system, >or microwave projector (or several of these) massive and powerful enough >to slow incoming follow-on light sail/sail terran ships, making travel >to, and if desired from target system possible on regular basis. > >Alternative to sail/fuel or sail/starbrake ships would be the argosey - >tradewinds concept with a computerized detachable outer sail - wich would >be preferrable since initially this would aid in acceleration of the ship >and cut down travel time, or a pair of ships being launched at nearly the >same eventual speed with the first one being a disposable drone with a >huge reflector sail and not much else, or an unmanned star-breaked cargo >ship. Or all 3 concepts could be used in combination with an argosey detachable >sail for initial breaking, reduced fuel mass based main breaking, and several >years of star breaking, and finally fuel breaking again by melting the >sail itself. I'm not clear what you mean by "an argosey detachable sail"? > >MISSION 1 - >Preliminary probe - fuel/sail, sail/starbreak, sail/fuel/starbreak >Mission - basic rough extrasolar star system planetary environment and >resources exploration - ie planets, moons present, and their composition, >gravity, surface resources, atmosphere if any. Purpose is to ascertain >weather solar system is suitable for colonization. > >Mission profile of preliminary probe - main communications and observation >satellite slows using RAIR, (I like my steak rair), solar sails in reverse, >and starbreake - star light/ magnetism, and gravity breaking to enter outer >or medium distance orbit of system star, staying at speed that is both >manegeable, for observation and rapid but manegeable flybys of planetary >systems, allowing it to ascertain class, basic size, gravity, atmosphere, >and if has atmosphere surface conditions status, of planets and their moons, >possibly composition of stellar bodies based on weight and behavior, and >detect asteroid concentrations, but also a speed wich allows reasonably >short duration cruises around target solar system. (you don’t want to wait >50 years for a probe to arrive in the target system than wait a decade >for it to crawl every time from planet to planet, a fast enough speed >would have to be maintained to travel to any point in the star system in >a maximum of 18 months, say clear across > entire diameter of furthest orbit in 18 >months if necessary, but really a working intra system speed requiring >only months to flyby different planets) > >Satellites and microsatelites can be detached and slowed down with retro/ >exploration-scanning laser, giving them a large portion of the solar sail >- if still available to do so, for slower flybys, or two component satellites >with one part making a high speed impact vaporizing part of surface and >other ascertaining dust cloud, and size and mass of debree, cloud created >to estimate surface composition. > >Laser used for satellite breaking can be dually used to scan a larger swath >of territory >increasing probe sensor or ‘vision’ range and thus time to gather data >and data accuracy, >also highly useful in detecting smaller bodies like asteroid concentrations. >This would aid >the probe in gathering accurate data in spite of high flyby speed by planets. > > >Probe load out. 80 - 200 tonnes including instruments, power system, command >module (‘brain’), RAIR manuver/breake engine, shield generators, communications >dish, retro and exploration laser, repair and manegement bots (remote controlled >by central computer to repair sail or help take it, and grind it down), >additional load of 2,3 -7 maybe even 10 satellites, and microsatellites >including impact reckon satellites. Maximum load out of 10 satellites, >20 microsatellites. Observation satellites may come in light versions of >2-300 kg being capable of being slowed to speed for relatively slow flybyes >of planets, or heavy versions 1-2 tonnes that take more time to slow or >remain at faster speeds, micro satellites under 100 kg that can be significantly >slowed, and even air braked, or used for impacts on planets to test composition, >or for atmospheric probing, and even bounce landings on low grav moons, >or parachute landings on >mars-like planets. > >Satellite Loadout weight >6 heavyer satellites, at 2 tonnes each, 12 tonnes total, >4 lighter satellites at half tonne each, 2 tonnes total, >20 - 100 kg microsatellites - 2 tones total., 16 tonnes. > >Probe weight 220 tonnes dry weight max loaded. > >Assuming worse case scenario that probe can only operate in fuel/sail mode >and will grind down it’s laser or microwave sails (made of lithium) to >fuel a slow down to stellar orbit, and will cruise at 1/3 light speed to >target, and engines operate at a near-future realisticly achievable specific >impulse of 1,000,000, or cruises at 1/6 light speed at it will have to >carry at > >1/6 light - 147 to 1 fuel/mass ratio - 32,340 tonnes of fuel. >1/3 light - 22,000 to 1 fuel/mass ratio - 4,840,000 tonnes of fuel. > >a ship with 1,500,000 specific impulse and weighing more 520 tonnes for >more advanced engines > >1/6 light - 27:1 ratio - 14,040 tonnes of fuel - total weight 14,580 >tonnes >1/3 light - 785 : 1 ratio - 408,200 tonnes of fuel > >a ship with 2,000,000 specific impulse and weighing 920 tonnes with even >better engines > >1/6 - 12:1 - 11,040 tonnes of fuel - total weight 11,960 tonnes 12,000 >tonnes would take 500 earth launches to orbit at current estimated average >cargo rocket 24 tonne launch capibility. this would be the best option >within the realistically achievable, but in the near furture somewhat unlikely >standard of achiveable engine design. > >1/3 - 148:1 -136,160 tonnes of fuel - > > > >MISSION 2 >VERY MINIMAL MANNED MISSION OUTLOOK > >Very basic 2 person generational manned colonization mission requirements This is really untenable. The ships would need a VERY large crew to support the ships, and to manage any usefull missions in the starsystems. I think at least you need hundreds of folks. Think of the hundreds of thousands of folks needed for the Apollo or Gemini missions. Scaling that to a handfull is rather impractical so soon. So I'm pretty soon you need a FAR larger craft. We went into this in detail in the grups past corespondence. >: >A ship with 2,000,000 specific impulse break engine and weighing 7,500 >tonnes - >Breakdown - 1,700 tonnes 85 / 20 tonne modules for life support and mission >critical equipment, 50 modules for life support and 35 for landers and >very basic equipment - ie most complex systems of a chemical refinery, >minimal small scale dual use asteroid/planetoid mining equipment (think >15-16 heavy hand tools and a couple larger drill machines), small scale >refinery refining materials in 50-70 kg size or cubic meter size loads, >providing suitable refined raw materials for building machines, and a good >and redundantly supplyed machine shop for building additional manufacturing >resources and ship spare parts. And an optimistic 5,800 tonnes for break >engines and support structure. > >1/6 - 12:1 - 90,000 tonnes of fuel - total weight 97,500 tonnes 100,000 >tonnes would take 5000 earth launches at current circa 20 tonne launch >capibility, and 50 years to orbit it all with a hereto unachieved, and >sustained 100 heavy rocket launches or 2-300 reusable orbital vehicle launches >per year for 50 years employing a guesstimated work force of 10,000,000 >people to gather raw materials, manufacture parts, rocket fuel, maintain >lauch facilities, and build rockets, or maintain and continuallz revamp >reusable launch vehicles and ship systems sustained, this not factoring >in the support system and the lunar work force needed to build a huge lunar, >and possibly several near-sun laser or microwawe facilityes at the ready >to initiate acceleration. The lunar launch facilityes, would, with earth >support infrastructure, to maintain minimum critical supply, and life support >cargo drops for lunar, and space based personell, - the work force creating >laser or microwave > facilityes/systems, minimg raw materials,refining them and machining necessary >equipment, parts, and space and lunar support personell feeding work force, >maintaining support systems, ferrying cargo, parts, raw materials, and >maintaining transport systems, - would require an additional 10 million, >to 15 million people. >It would take a dedicated work force of 25 million people to achieve this >over a 50 - 80 year period, and since these busy dedicated workers would >have to be fed, clothed, payed, housed billions of people to support them. Its not clear that it would require anything like this much to do such a mission, but if it did the mission is flatly impossible. Its virtualy impossible to think of any reason that could justify such a expence, or interest any nation or group to do such a project. [ Note internation cooperation actually makes the projects less affordable for the individual nations then doint the mission alone.] > > >The budgetary and support cost of such a project would consume an estimated >full 1/4 of the total gross national income of the US, Russia, China, India, >the European Union, Japan, Malasya and other larger states from Oceania, >Austarlia, and more advanced South American nations, combined - this assuming >that the US and the EU would fix, and spin up the economies and industry >of China, Russia, India, some larger South American, and Polynesian states >to operate at near first-world industrial and technological capacity, as >a preliminary to even embarking on the project. >It can be estimated that nearly every fourth person on planet earth would >be either directly or indirectly involved in supporting and realising this >project, - the militaries of Russia, the US,China, and India would largely >have to be scrapped or reduced to a police force. All this to get2 persons >to the nearest star system (and forget about the return trip) - to begin >it’s colonization. It CAN be done (especially if you people go out there >and elect me secretary general of the UN) but would need a period of 120 >years - just to get going. With future space launch systems the burdens >would be reduced to 1/3, but such reductions would not be drastic since >some jobs like space mining, ship construction, launch vehicle maintenance, >space life support jobs can not be eliminated, it would still employ millions >of people, and billions of people supporting them. Obviously such a project would never be done. Less obviously is that it wouldn't cost anything like this much. I'm assuming you're not serious. > >Somewhat lighter but less realistic project would involve - > >A lighter ship with 20 life support canisters, 30 for landers at 50 modules >at 20 tonnes, thus 1,000 tonnes and a very optimistic 3,000 tonne engine, >4,000 tonnes total would >take 48,000 tonnes of fuel, and a total weight of 52,000 tonnes 2,000 earth >launches, 30 years, with lunar facilityes at the ready. > >UNLESS STAR BREAKING WERE MADE A FEASIBLE REALITY - than a 10,000 or with >sail 15,000 tonne sail vessel could take off with no fuel, and lesser lunar >facilityes. > > > >MISSION 2 >STANDARD MISSION OUTLOOK > >Load out16 crew members and genetic material storage for genetically healthy >population sustainment. No known or theorized technology could do this. > >2 dual purpose heavy shuttles for light atmosphere and vacuum > >2 dual purpose light shuttles for light atmosphere and vacuum > >2 medium remote pilot-capable rovers capable of transporting exploratory >drilling equipment to find suitable mining sites on moons or low-grav Mars >like planets > >? satellites > >Exploratory drill equipment. > >Asteroid mining equipment - grinders. > >Moon and light grav planet surface mining equipment (like tunneling machines >only lighter, tougher, and smaller) > >Chemical, and water and air refinery - chemical processing factory. > >Full machine shop factory on ship and deployable, with spares of critical >equipment in case shuttle crashes. > >Deployable foundry. > >Deployable hab construction equipment > >On board or compact buildable Microchip construction lab - or a large supply >of chips (not the kind you eat with dip). > >Deployable energy facilityes - unless shuttle engines could be used > >(and sandwiches) > >Haven’t even bothered to estimate weight of load out, ship, and fuel - >but you can bet your derrier this would break the bank on old terra. > > >MISSION PRIORITYES FOR PIONEER MISSION > >Mine minerals, additional fuel, and water/oxygen from asteroids if possible, >and if not minerals than definitely at least water, and it would be important >to gather aditional fuel if possible, if manufacturing metals can not be >found > >If not possible land on a moon or light grav planetoid to mine. > >Build additional: > >machine shop equipment, (it would suck if the machines that make the spare >parts break down, with no replacement for them, or the shuttle crashed >with the replacements right than) > >basic habs and expanded facilityes - reinforce presence > >rovers and shuttles if on moon, > >additional manufacturing, mining and foundry equipment > >power supply > >buildings - habs and life support, and facilityes for manufacture > >more construction and manufacturing equipment, > >more shuttles if on moon > >2-3 medium intrasystem ships > >microwave breake system and acceleration system for incoming ships. > >additional ships and space facilityes > >landers for heavyer grav. planets/moons with atmosphere. > > >Ps. - >Kel, are you out to invade the Klingon homeworld? > >... Heavy rovers travel in packs and can act as a mobile base. Each heavy >rover or rover >trailer are about the size of a short, very wide greyhound bus. Can float >and self propel >in normal water. (they can also run over Klingons) They look like a very >large Armored personnel carrier. (and are armored and carry a crew of 5 >heavily armed security teams and solenoid cannons) Self protection armament >of two independent self targeting 30mm solenoid gun turrets.... More worried about finding big preditors. Explorers always go heavily armed -- at least the ones that make it back do. ;) > >(I knew it - something was fishy about the battlecruiser explorer) > >And Pps - I'm delighted to see I'm not the only one who flunked spelling >in the 5th :) (J/K) (you'r spelling is as bad as mine.) ;) > >And ppps how does one join your group ? I'm afraid the group pretty much died a couple years back. Folks ran out of ideas. From VM Thu Jul 31 18:52:04 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11571" "Thursday" "31" "July" "2003" "18:09:21" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "231" "starship-design: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined" "^From:" nil nil "7" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 11571 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6VNBNmZ011978 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6VNBNrp011977 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6VNBMmZ011970 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=cacaphony.net) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19iMZu-0001bD-00; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:11:22 -0700 Message-ID: <3F29A1A1.9070000@cacaphony.net> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:09:21 -0500 TECH SPACE Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined dreaming of cloud nine is maybe not so impossible after all by Richard Perry Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003 Space elevators have an image problem, mainly due to two prominent science fiction novels. They appear either ungainly impossible, or so potentially dangerous to the planet itself you would never dream of building one. With the science now indicating that they are potentially near-term transport systems, it's time to review the fiction in relation to the possible reality. Three publications by Pearson in 1975/6/7 and work done by Moravec and published in the Journal of the Astronautical Sciences in 1977 were enough to prompt Arthur C Clarke to write "The Fountains of Paradise" and Charles Sheffield "The Web Between the Worlds" - both published in 1979. Clarke wrote of a world developed to a point where the weather systems could be controlled to produce designer-sunsets. A lone architect designs a 40,000km elevator consisting of four tubes. With a pair each for up and down travel, and regenerative breaking used to minimize the power losses. The first attempt to lower a wire to Earth fails when it gets entangled, and the design is changed to that of an inverted square tower. A small iron asteroid is moved into Earth orbit to act as a counterweight. The four sides of the track will feature superconducting cables backed by fusion power generators. Ultimately, the tower stands for 1500yrs, growing to be 500m on a side with a city built at the 1500km level. Half a billion people eventually settle in orbit for a zero-g lifestyle. In a later printing, Clarke claims his inspiration came from much earlier articles from 1966, but the resurgence of interest and writing prior to 1979 was timely. He also says that he may have been too conservative, and that the tower may be a 21st century achievement. The latest research proposes 'early' 21st century. Red Mars The next great opinion-forming novel was "Red Mars", by Kim Stanley Robinson in 1992. A captured asteroid is mined using nanotechnology to extend a graphite cable 37,000km down to the surface. Elevator cars take several days to make the journey, and are thirty stories high. But the main image from this incarnation is when the cable is brought down by revolutionary action. It twists around the planet at 21,000km per hour, with horrific consequences. "Red Mars" was part of a trilogy. In "Green Mars", a replacement cable is made using Carbon Nanotubes from another captured asteroid. Cars travel up and down the cable at the same time to minimize energy losses. It's no coincidence that both these cables are called 'Clarke'. The "The Fountains of Paradise" elevator is used to promote the concept that many people would wish to travel to, and even live-in, low Earth orbit. In "Red Mars", the cable is the main transport system, and seen as an essential 'umbilical cord' for the new colony. Tower of Babel Space tethers have been discussed in international workshops annually since 1983, and by the time that "Red Mars" was written had identified the issues of material strength and production. However, even as late as 1999, these workshops were becoming confused in their own clouds of science and fiction. The Advanced Space Infrastructure Workshop on Geostationary Orbiting Tether "Space Elevator" Concepts, held in June 1999 at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, for instance. The history section of the conference report tries to claim that the origins of space elevators could be traced back to Genesis 11.3 and references to the Tower of Babel. They also concentrated on the non-fixed tethers, which do not go all the way to the Earth's surface and consequently require mach 16 aircraft vehicles to reach them. Even more worryingly, they considered the idea of building tall towers - up to 50km in height. The significant point here is that as late as 1999, the materials issue had been acknowledged, but the thought processes had been allowed to dream back into 1950's style fiction. Basic desk research shows that the Tower of Babylon dates back to the time of King Nebuchadnezzar II who lived from 605-562 BC and rebuilt it to stand 295 feet high. It was nothing more then a ziggurat, honoring the god Marduk. Clearly, the scientific thinking on space elevators had broken down and a more rational appraisal of the technology was long overdue. Tapes and Lifters The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) commissioned Dr Bradley C Edwards to study all aspects of the construction and operation of a space elevator, and Phase I of the report was published in late 2002. The report very specifically addresses design and operations, which had until then escaped close scrutiny. Firstly, the elevator would not be a cable. It starts as a 1-micron thick piece of tape 91,000km long, tapering from 5cm wide at the Earth's surface to 11.5cm wide near the middle. This tape would be taken up by shuttle together with some booster rockets. It would then be 'flown-down' to the surface whilst the booster rockets provide the required counterbalance beyond geosynchronous orbit. Centripetal force throws the higher part of the tape away from the Earth, whilst the effect of gravity on the lower mass of the tape keeps it in tension. This first link is capable of supporting 1238kg before breaking. That's enough to allow more 'lifters' to add additional tapes to increase the strength of the elevator to a useful amount. This takes a total of 207 lifters and nearly two and a half years to complete. In its final form, each new lifter is capable of carrying 13,000kg and then adding their own mass to that of the counterweight when their job is done. Production Issues Carbon NanoTubes are proposed to be the main material for the tape. These were first produced in 1991 (the year before "Red Mars" was published), with 3cm ropes being produced by 1998. The strength of these laboratory-produced NaanoTubes confirmed people's predictions that this material would have the strength that a space elevator would require. Moving asteroids around the solar system is not a requirement for a space elevator, you can 'build' the counterweight using your own construction equipment. By flying the tape all the way down to the ground you do not need tall towers and fast aircraft to connect to your orbital transport system. A main concern is how to produce 91,000km long tapes, when the present capability is only a few centimeters. The tapes they have defined in this study are Carbon NanoTube/expoxy composites. Standard composites use these in a 60/40 ration, but this design proposes only a 98/2 ratio to minimize the mass of epoxy required - the rest would be bare Nanotubes, required to be at least a centimeter in length. This reduces the design issues to the high-volume production of NanoTubes and how to operate the elevator itself. Destruction The study highlights most of the risks that can be identified. Meteor strikes, hurricanes, terrorist attack, even to the falling of the ribbon itself. In "Red Mars", the falling cable causes destruction, but with this design all you get is thousands of miles of carbon-based tape fluttering to the ground at the speed of a sheet of newspaper. Hurricanes are avoided by careful selection of the ground site, which also addresses the lighting strike risk. A damaged cable ribbon is intended to be capable of in-situ repair, whereas a broken one only causes inconvenience until a replacement length can be flown down. If lifters become detached from the ribbon then parachutes or re-entry vehicle solutions are required. Power Systems For powering the elevator, Clarke had to bring in nuclear fusion and superconductors. This NIAC study proposes that power requirements for the initial deployment of the tape would be minimal and met by solar arrays or batteries. The deployment itself would actually generate excess power. The report mentions the very problems that affected the Clarke cable - those of a tangled cable as it is deployed at the rate of 200km per hour, and identifies the need for appropriate mechanical control of the tension. The lifters that climb the tape to add new strands are powered by beaming power onto their solar panels. With this and additional power coming from the locomotive system beyond geosynchronous orbit, getting rid of excess power is actually more of an issue. This technology is under development by several companies. So no exotic power systems are required for the construction or operation of the cable, and much of the technologies required either already exist or are being worked on as near-term objectives. Such a system is highly scaleable. Once in place, a space elevator can be used to build another, thereby increasing capacity in a predictable manner. One of the aspects of the elevator in "Red Mars" is that it had to oscillate to avoid hitting the moon Phobos. This design identifies a similar need to avoid low Earth orbit satellites and space debris. The solution is to ensure that there is adequate warning to move the elevator, and using a sea-based anchor station to do this. Real World Numbers Taking the design process to the ultimate stage, that of time and cost, reveals some real-world numbers. The first cable would cost around $40billion (50% of that being contingency), whilst a second cable would cost only $14billion. The construction time for the first elevator is scheduled to take 10 years, with another ten elevators built in the following decade. However, there have been lots of changes since the report was written. A current program is $7-10B, with a 15-year cycle to build. That assumes 2 years of research into the material sciences, with some additional testing and research on other aspects. After 3 years of design and engineering, the actual "cutting metal" and building of parts for the system will begin. That will take another 7 years, and then 3 years for launching, on orbit assembly, and final integration. They take the opportunity to propose how to make use of this space asset, with a large space station capable of housing hundreds of people, and the construction of a Martian elevator on Earth. It would be lifted into Earth orbit and then thrown onward to Mars itself to allow for unmanned and later manned exploration. No great detail, simply a possible roadmap for the use to which tethers can be put for the next fifty years. The space elevator has been a concept ahead of its time for too long and the implications of mass access to Earth orbit and beyond need to be considered. The remaining work of the report's writers is to further refine their studies, whilst existing commercial industry works on the production related issues. In terms of funding, an elevator is not outside the realms of commercial business, although the business case for it needs to be confirmed. At present, this may be simply put - whoever owns the first space elevator will control economic access to space for a long time to come. Already the commercial development of space elevators has begun. LiftPort is a new group of companies that has sprung into being as a direct result of this study. The rest as they say, is future. Richard Perry is a director of Transorbital Inc Member of the Moon Society and the National Space Society -- L. Parker chief cook, bottle washer and sometime sysadmin cacaphony.net From VM Mon Aug 4 11:52:39 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["12903" "Friday" "1" "August" "2003" "20:03:33" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "268" "Re: starship-design: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 12903 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7203imZ014783 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:03:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7203ivw014781 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:03:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.103]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7203gmZ014753 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:03:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id 4.ae.4516dde5 (4584); Fri, 1 Aug 2003 20:03:33 -0400 (EDT) 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, daymoon@shaw.ca, rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com, kathan_1@yahoo.com, Kath2go@yahoo.com, ben@b2foundation.com Subject: Re: starship-design: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 20:03:33 EDT A couple things that always bothered me about space elevators. 1 - they have to hang through the high radiation van allen belts - and high radiation tends to break down long chain molecules like those in nanotubes. 2 - I never saw a good cost estimate for if these would be that competative with future launchers. I mean it must be pricy to build these things? I did some calculations with Kevlar and found you'ld need cubic miles of it to make a skyhook. No Idea what that would cost - if you first built facilities that could make that much - but nanofiliments are likly more expensive still. And your talking about thousands of miles of cable. With the added cost of transporting equipment to the equator, would it be that much cheaper then just directly flying to orbit with a good launcher? 3 - terrorist issues with a cable that if cut would do a crack the whip around the world. And has to be at the equator - where the unstable countries are. 4 - how long would it last before erosion with impacts adn atomic oxigen impacts chew it apart? In a message dated 7/31/03 4:12:36 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >TECH SPACE >Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined > >dreaming of cloud nine is maybe not so impossible after all > >by Richard Perry > >Los Angeles - Jul 22, 2003 >Space elevators have an image problem, mainly due to two prominent >science fiction novels. They appear either ungainly impossible, or so >potentially dangerous to the planet itself you would never dream of >building one. With the science now indicating that they are potentially > >near-term transport systems, it's time to review the fiction in relation > >to the possible reality. > >Three publications by Pearson in 1975/6/7 and work done by Moravec and > >published in the Journal of the Astronautical Sciences in 1977 were >enough to prompt Arthur C Clarke to write "The Fountains of Paradise" >and Charles Sheffield "The Web Between the Worlds" - both published in >1979. > >Clarke wrote of a world developed to a point where the weather systems >could be controlled to produce designer-sunsets. A lone architect >designs a 40,000km elevator consisting of four tubes. With a pair each >for up and down travel, and regenerative breaking used to minimize the >power losses. > >The first attempt to lower a wire to Earth fails when it gets entangled, >and the design is changed to that of an inverted square tower. A small >iron asteroid is moved into Earth orbit to act as a counterweight. The >four sides of the track will feature superconducting cables backed by >fusion power generators. > >Ultimately, the tower stands for 1500yrs, growing to be 500m on a side >with a city built at the 1500km level. Half a billion people eventually >settle in orbit for a zero-g lifestyle. > >In a later printing, Clarke claims his inspiration came from much >earlier articles from 1966, but the resurgence of interest and writing >prior to 1979 was timely. He also says that he may have been too >conservative, and that the tower may be a 21st century achievement. The >latest research proposes 'early' 21st century. > >Red Mars >The next great opinion-forming novel was "Red Mars", by Kim Stanley >Robinson in 1992. A captured asteroid is mined using nanotechnology to >extend a graphite cable 37,000km down to the surface. > >Elevator cars take several days to make the journey, and are thirty >stories high. But the main image from this incarnation is when the cable >is brought down by revolutionary action. It twists around the planet at >21,000km per hour, with horrific consequences. > >"Red Mars" was part of a trilogy. In "Green Mars", a replacement cable >is made using Carbon Nanotubes from another captured asteroid. Cars >travel up and down the cable at the same time to minimize energy losses. > >It's no coincidence that both these cables are called 'Clarke'. > >The "The Fountains of Paradise" elevator is used to promote the concept >that many people would wish to travel to, and even live-in, low Earth >orbit. In "Red Mars", the cable is the main transport system, and seen >as an essential 'umbilical cord' for the new colony. > >Tower of Babel >Space tethers have been discussed in international workshops annually >since 1983, and by the time that "Red Mars" was written had identified >the issues of material strength and production. > >However, even as late as 1999, these workshops were becoming confused in >their own clouds of science and fiction. The Advanced Space >Infrastructure Workshop on Geostationary Orbiting Tether "Space >Elevator" Concepts, held in June 1999 at the NASA Marshall Space Flight >Center, for instance. The history section of the conference report tries >to claim that the origins of space elevators could be traced back to >Genesis 11.3 and references to the Tower of Babel. > >They also concentrated on the non-fixed tethers, which do not go all the >way to the Earth's surface and consequently require mach 16 aircraft >vehicles to reach them. Even more worryingly, they considered the idea >of building tall towers - up to 50km in height. > >The significant point here is that as late as 1999, the materials issue >had been acknowledged, but the thought processes had been allowed to >dream back into 1950's style fiction. Basic desk research shows that the >Tower of Babylon dates back to the time of King Nebuchadnezzar II who >lived from 605-562 BC and rebuilt it to stand 295 feet high. It was >nothing more then a ziggurat, honoring the god Marduk. > >Clearly, the scientific thinking on space elevators had broken down and >a more rational appraisal of the technology was long overdue. > >Tapes and Lifters >The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) commissioned Dr Bradley >C Edwards to study all aspects of the construction and operation of a >space elevator, and Phase I of the report was published in late 2002. > >The report very specifically addresses design and operations, which had >until then escaped close scrutiny. > >Firstly, the elevator would not be a cable. It starts as a 1-micron >thick piece of tape 91,000km long, tapering from 5cm wide at the Earth's >surface to 11.5cm wide near the middle. This tape would be taken up by >shuttle together with some booster rockets. It would then be >'flown-down' to the surface whilst the booster rockets provide the >required counterbalance beyond geosynchronous orbit. > >Centripetal force throws the higher part of the tape away from the >Earth, whilst the effect of gravity on the lower mass of the tape keeps >it in tension. This first link is capable of supporting 1238kg before >breaking. > >That's enough to allow more 'lifters' to add additional tapes to >increase the strength of the elevator to a useful amount. This takes a >total of 207 lifters and nearly two and a half years to complete. In its >final form, each new lifter is capable of carrying 13,000kg and then >adding their own mass to that of the counterweight when their job is done. > >Production Issues >Carbon NanoTubes are proposed to be the main material for the tape. >These were first produced in 1991 (the year before "Red Mars" was >published), with 3cm ropes being produced by 1998. The strength of these >laboratory-produced NaanoTubes confirmed people's predictions that this >material would have the strength that a space elevator would require. > >Moving asteroids around the solar system is not a requirement for a >space elevator, you can 'build' the counterweight using your own >construction equipment. By flying the tape all the way down to the >ground you do not need tall towers and fast aircraft to connect to your >orbital transport system. > >A main concern is how to produce 91,000km long tapes, when the present >capability is only a few centimeters. The tapes they have defined in >this study are Carbon NanoTube/expoxy composites. Standard composites >use these in a 60/40 ration, but this design proposes only a 98/2 ratio >to minimize the mass of epoxy required - the rest would be bare >Nanotubes, required to be at least a centimeter in length. This reduces >the design issues to the high-volume production of NanoTubes and how to >operate the elevator itself. > >Destruction >The study highlights most of the risks that can be identified. Meteor >strikes, hurricanes, terrorist attack, even to the falling of the ribbon >itself. > >In "Red Mars", the falling cable causes destruction, but with this >design all you get is thousands of miles of carbon-based tape fluttering >to the ground at the speed of a sheet of newspaper. Hurricanes are >avoided by careful selection of the ground site, which also addresses >the lighting strike risk. > >A damaged cable ribbon is intended to be capable of in-situ repair, >whereas a broken one only causes inconvenience until a replacement >length can be flown down. If lifters become detached from the ribbon >then parachutes or re-entry vehicle solutions are required. > >Power Systems >For powering the elevator, Clarke had to bring in nuclear fusion and >superconductors. This NIAC study proposes that power requirements for >the initial deployment of the tape would be minimal and met by solar >arrays or batteries. The deployment itself would actually generate >excess power. > >The report mentions the very problems that affected the Clarke cable - >those of a tangled cable as it is deployed at the rate of 200km per >hour, and identifies the need for appropriate mechanical control of the >tension. > >The lifters that climb the tape to add new strands are powered by >beaming power onto their solar panels. With this and additional power >coming from the locomotive system beyond geosynchronous orbit, getting >rid of excess power is actually more of an issue. This technology is >under development by several companies. > >So no exotic power systems are required for the construction or >operation of the cable, and much of the technologies required either >already exist or are being worked on as near-term objectives. Such a >system is highly scaleable. Once in place, a space elevator can be used >to build another, thereby increasing capacity in a predictable manner. > >One of the aspects of the elevator in "Red Mars" is that it had to >oscillate to avoid hitting the moon Phobos. This design identifies a >similar need to avoid low Earth orbit satellites and space debris. The >solution is to ensure that there is adequate warning to move the >elevator, and using a sea-based anchor station to do this. > >Real World Numbers >Taking the design process to the ultimate stage, that of time and cost, >reveals some real-world numbers. The first cable would cost around >$40billion (50% of that being contingency), whilst a second cable would >cost only $14billion. The construction time for the first elevator is >scheduled to take 10 years, with another ten elevators built in the >following decade. > >However, there have been lots of changes since the report was written. >A current program is $7-10B, with a 15-year cycle to build. That assumes >2 years of research into the material sciences, with some additional >testing and research on other aspects. After 3 years of design and >engineering, the actual "cutting metal" and building of parts for the >system will begin. That will take another 7 years, and then 3 years for >launching, on orbit assembly, and final integration. > >They take the opportunity to propose how to make use of this space >asset, with a large space station capable of housing hundreds of people, > >and the construction of a Martian elevator on Earth. It would be lifted > >into Earth orbit and then thrown onward to Mars itself to allow for >unmanned and later manned exploration. No great detail, simply a >possible roadmap for the use to which tethers can be put for the next >fifty years. > >The space elevator has been a concept ahead of its time for too long and > >the implications of mass access to Earth orbit and beyond need to be >considered. The remaining work of the report's writers is to further >refine their studies, whilst existing commercial industry works on the > >production related issues. > >In terms of funding, an elevator is not outside the realms of commercial > >business, although the business case for it needs to be confirmed. At >present, this may be simply put - whoever owns the first space elevator > >will control economic access to space for a long time to come. > >Already the commercial development of space elevators has begun. >LiftPort is a new group of companies that has sprung into being as a >direct result of this study. The rest as they say, is future. > >Richard Perry is a director of Transorbital Inc Member of the Moon >Society and the National Space Society > > >-- >L. Parker >chief cook, bottle washer and sometime sysadmin >cacaphony.net From VM Mon Aug 4 11:52:39 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2851" "" "1" "August" "2003" "19:19:21" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "87" "[Fwd: Re: starship-design: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined]" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2851 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h720LOmZ019982 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h720LOxb019981 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grouse.mail.pas.earthlink.net (grouse.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.116]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h720LNmZ019972 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=[192.168.1.2]) by grouse.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19ik9D-0001BB-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:21:23 -0700 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-yFlyG1WJ6T4rPlp6x2wX" Organization: Message-Id: <1059783560.3024.10.camel@broadsword.cacaphony.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design listserve Subject: [Fwd: Re: starship-design: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined] Date: 01 Aug 2003 19:19:21 -0500 --=-yFlyG1WJ6T4rPlp6x2wX Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-leCIF/lUARztycvNPHT3" --=-leCIF/lUARztycvNPHT3 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Forwarded Message----- > From: L. Clayton Parker > To: KellySt@aol.com > Subject: Re: starship-design: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined > Date: 01 Aug 2003 19:16:33 -0500 >=20 On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 19:03, KellySt@aol.com wrote:=20 > A couple things that always bothered me about space elevators. [clip] The author addressed all most of those concerns in the article. Whether it was enve practical or not was the primary issue until now, followed by cost. Apparently, a lot has changed in the last ten years. They now seem to be eminently practical and getting cheaper every day. If they can be built at all, they are a sure thing to be cheaper and safer than ANY current launch system. Short of the invention of anti-gravity that is... Lee --=-leCIF/lUARztycvNPHT3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Forwarded Message-----
> From: L. Clayton Parker <lparker@cac= aphony.net>
> To: KellySt@aol.com
> Subject: Re: starship-design: Space Ele= vators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined
> Date: 01 Aug 2003 19:16:33 -0500
>
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 19:03, KellySt@aol.com wrote:=20 
A couple things that always both=
ered me about space elevators.
[clip]

The author addressed all most of those concerns in the article. Whether it = was enve practical or not was the primary issue until now, followed by cost= . Apparently, a lot has changed in the last ten years. They now seem to be = eminently practical and getting cheaper every day.

If they can be built at all, they are a sure thing to be cheaper and safer = than ANY current launch system. Short of the invention of anti-gravity that= is...

Lee --=-leCIF/lUARztycvNPHT3-- --=-yFlyG1WJ6T4rPlp6x2wX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/KwOIufjhQ0Dw00cRAsKdAJ9JfcNNDxSTVOnvTg7UL3WxgPVa7ACaAyeN 3iuNjjeEFouq54pDQ44gUzc= =GBns -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-yFlyG1WJ6T4rPlp6x2wX-- From VM Mon Aug 4 11:52:40 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1104" "Friday" "1" "August" "2003" "21:21:13" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1104 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h721LMmZ006786 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 18:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h721LMA3006785 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 18:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.101]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h721LLmZ006771 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 18:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id 4.129.2efe0ae7 (3980); Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:21:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <129.2efe0ae7.2c5c6c09@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: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:21:13 EDT In a message dated 8/1/03 5:18:44 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 19:03, KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> A couple things that always bothered me about space elevators. >> > >[clip] > >The author addressed all most of those concerns in the article. Whether >it was enve practical or not was the primary issue until now, followed >by cost. Apparently, a lot has changed in the last ten years. They now >seem to be eminently practical and getting cheaper every day. > >If they can be built at all, they are a sure thing to be cheaper and >safer than ANY current launch system. Short of the invention of >anti-gravity that is... > >Lee Hard to say. Current tech with a large market could drop costs to $s per pound of cargo to orbit. A teather might be cheaper -- or might be more expensive. A teathers overhead and maint expenses could well be far more. Teather advocates love to quote the stats that "energy costs" to orbit would only be pennies per pound of cargo. But the energy costs of conventional launchers is little more -- and a trivial fraction of actual costs. From VM Mon Aug 4 11:52:40 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2890" "" "1" "August" "2003" "20:32:32" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "84" "Re: starship-design: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2890 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h721YamZ009717 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 18:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h721YaMX009716 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 18:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h721YZmZ009711 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 18:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=[192.168.1.2]) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19ilI2-0007Ey-00; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:34:34 -0700 In-Reply-To: <129.2efe0ae7.2c5c6c09@aol.com> References: <129.2efe0ae7.2c5c6c09@aol.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-WpNLLXqKOAF7XWrtM/oI" Organization: Message-Id: <1059787951.3024.17.camel@broadsword.cacaphony.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design listserve Subject: Re: starship-design: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined Date: 01 Aug 2003 20:32:32 -0500 --=-WpNLLXqKOAF7XWrtM/oI Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-pCfPWSq7PHh8f4Zz015Q" --=-pCfPWSq7PHh8f4Zz015Q Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 20:21, KellySt@aol.com wrote: > Hard to say. Current tech with a large market could drop costs to $s per= =20 > pound of cargo to orbit. A teather might be cheaper -- or might be more=20 > expensive. A teathers overhead and maint expenses could well be far more= . >=20 > Teather advocates love to quote the stats that "energy costs" to orbit wo= uld=20 > only be pennies per pound of cargo. But the energy costs of conventional= =20 > launchers is little more -- and a trivial fraction of actual costs. Actually, dumping energy seemed to be a bigger deal than energy cost to orbit. Perhaps they could anchor it somewhere like the middle of Africa which REALLY could use cheap energy and sell the energy surplust to defray operating costs. Better, of course, would be to do the same thing somewhere in the developed world where they could get more money for the same energy. Lee --=-pCfPWSq7PHh8f4Zz015Q Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 20:21, KellySt@aol.com wrote: 
Hard to say.  Current tech with =
a large market could drop costs to $s per=20
pound of cargo to orbit.  A teather might be cheaper -- or might be more=20
expensive.  A teathers overhead and maint expenses could well be far more.

Teather advocates love to quote the stats that "energy costs" to =
orbit would=20
only be pennies per pound of cargo.  But the energy costs of conventional=20
launchers is little more -- and a trivial fraction of actual costs.
Actually, dumping energy seemed to be a bigger deal than e= nergy cost to orbit. Perhaps they could anchor it somewhere like the middle= of Africa which REALLY could use cheap energy and sell the energy surplust= to defray operating costs.

Better, of course, would be to do the same thing somewhere in the developed= world where they could get more money for the same energy.

Lee --=-pCfPWSq7PHh8f4Zz015Q-- --=-WpNLLXqKOAF7XWrtM/oI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/KxSvufjhQ0Dw00cRAjjMAJ0YcTgJtxy4TIQMGtwgSm8BKIJk4wCdGgpc gU7OuK2gUGDtVq/5K0Y4Y18= =YKSn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-WpNLLXqKOAF7XWrtM/oI-- From VM Mon Aug 4 11:52:40 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1019" "Friday" "1" "August" "2003" "22:00:41" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1019 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7220rmZ017164 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:00:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7220rJq017163 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:00:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7220pmZ017151 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.104.33ad6406 (3980) for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 22:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <104.33ad6406.2c5c7549@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: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 22:00:41 EDT In a message dated 8/1/03 6:34:56 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> Hard to say. Current tech with a large market could drop costs to $s per >> pound of cargo to orbit. A teather might be cheaper -- or might be more >> expensive. A teathers overhead and maint expenses could well be far >>more. >> >> Teather advocates love to quote the stats that "energy costs" to orbit >>would >> only be pennies per pound of cargo. But the energy costs of conventional >> launchers is little more -- and a trivial fraction of actual costs. > >Actually, dumping energy seemed to be a bigger deal than energy cost to >orbit. Perhaps they could anchor it somewhere like the middle of Africa >which REALLY could use cheap energy and sell the energy surplust to >defray operating costs. > >Better, of course, would be to do the same thing somewhere in the >developed world where they could get more money for the same energy. > >Lee The power would be worth more. Wonder how they generate it without degrading their orbit? From VM Mon Aug 4 11:52:41 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1728" "" "1" "August" "2003" "21:22:44" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "63" "Re: starship-design: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1728 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h722OqmZ022457 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h722Oq7q022456 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h722OpmZ022450 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=[192.168.1.2]) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19im4c-0006xu-00; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:24:47 -0700 In-Reply-To: <104.33ad6406.2c5c7549@aol.com> References: <104.33ad6406.2c5c7549@aol.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-mUUEjoBsx2LFAufeVNBD" Organization: Message-Id: <1059790964.3024.20.camel@broadsword.cacaphony.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design listserve Subject: Re: starship-design: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined Date: 01 Aug 2003 21:22:44 -0500 --=-mUUEjoBsx2LFAufeVNBD Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-z3Q/NGPMbeMBsZWZw4JD" --=-z3Q/NGPMbeMBsZWZw4JD Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 21:00, KellySt@aol.com wrote: > The power would be worth more. >=20 > Wonder how they generate it without degrading their orbit? Funny, but I don't think the article specified where the extra energy came from. Perhaps it is like the Space Power tether experiments that the Shuttle did a few years ago. Lee --=-z3Q/NGPMbeMBsZWZw4JD Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 21:00, KellySt@aol.com wrote: 
The power would be worth more.

Wonder how they generate it without degrading their orbit?

Funny, but I don't think the article specified where the extra energy came = from. Perhaps it is like the Space Power tether experiments that the Shuttl= e did a few years ago.

Lee --=-z3Q/NGPMbeMBsZWZw4JD-- --=-mUUEjoBsx2LFAufeVNBD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/KyB0ufjhQ0Dw00cRAt/bAJ9C7V8GR3rkuhCr20iNBLN2XsO/bQCfbxbu v6PhUYTDSQ2E6ZrPV4U/71U= =nrex -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-mUUEjoBsx2LFAufeVNBD-- From VM Mon Aug 4 11:52:42 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["654" "Saturday" "2" "August" "2003" "20:37:24" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 654 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h730bbmZ015189 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h730bbiM015188 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.104]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h730bamZ015175 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:37:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.1e3.e58ed1e (4539) for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 20:37:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1e3.e58ed1e.2c5db344@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: Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 20:37:24 EDT In a message dated 8/1/03 7:25:05 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 21:00, KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >> The power would be worth more. >> >> Wonder how they generate it without degrading their orbit? > > >Funny, but I don't think the article specified where the extra energy >came from. Perhaps it is like the Space Power tether experiments that >the Shuttle did a few years ago. > >Lee In those the shutles kinetic energy is converted to power. Effectivly the teather acts like a generator wire moving through the earths magnetic fields. Do that with this and you'ld drag the teather back and down. That would be bad. ;) From VM Wed Aug 20 16:21:35 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["13687" "Wednesday" "20" "August" "2003" "17:47:55" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "281" "starship-design: Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space?" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 13687 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7KMoWaB011014 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7KMoWjS011012 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7KMoVaB010994 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:50:31 -0700 (PDT) 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 19pbmg-0003VL-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:50:30 -0700 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space? Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:47:55 -0500 Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space? by Publius Rex Los Angeles - Aug 20, 2003 In the Profile section of the July 14, 2003 issue of Space News was the very telling interview with Gen. John P. Jumper ("Space As A Means - Not An End In Itself.") No wonder our spaceflight prospects are as poor as they are what with Blue-Suits like him running everything. I can't believe this man had the gall to say that his pro-space critics "should worry more about winning wars and less about protecting 'pet' projects." Isn't that what the Navy said to Billy Mitchell, when he used (then new) air power to sink a battleship? I guess that $36 billion F-22 couldn't be a pet project too, now could it? Or how about that $200 billion Joint Strike Fighter or the $10 billion dollar Crusader (a self-propelled howitzer!) Or the OSPrey heliplane/ air-a-copter, helicopter/airplane contraption that only knows how to kill Marine pilots? Despite Jumper's challenge to debate anyone on his obvious bias against space - his bad attitude is all too apparent. For him to say that space hasn't been neglected is beyond belief. Our space-flight infrastructure is hurting because of both him and the very Air Force he serves under - and I can prove it. But first, a little history is in order... Before NASA, NACA and Air Force could build decent rockets, we had the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) that was under the fine leadership of General J.B. Medaris, whose book Countdown For Decision should be required reading for anyone in the military. I will say more on this in Part Two - A Leader Out of Time Speaks: The Legacy of General J.B. Medaris. It was the ABMA that gave us the Redstone that launched our first, small satellite and Alan B. Shepard Jr. To space. It and the Jupiter bodies became the propellant tankage of the Saturn IB's first stage cluster (like Proton) while the Navy was blowing up Vanguards and McNamara was trying to kill the Apollo Program. Outside of the Titans, which have become more expensive to launch than the Shuttle, the Air Force has been no friend to large liquid-fueled rockets. Their penchant for shrinking warheads to ride atop small, easily siloed solids - which give a fast but harsh ride unsuitable for all but the most hardened payloads - has come back to bite us all. Though the Soviets bankrupted themselves with the development of too many ICBMs - their very largest missiles, though failures in a military sense, have become their bread-and-butter commercially. Early Soviet warheads were unsophisticated and very large. This allowed their Chief Designer Korolov a chance to make a space-booster from the get-go. Though many howled in his country, finding the R-7 too large even for their heavy nuclear devices, calmer heads prevailed and the R-7 went on to launch Sputnik, Vostok, Voskhod, the Zenit spy-sat (still being built as automated Vostoks), Soyuz (Dennis Tito) and Progress re-supply ships to ISS (International Space Station) - saving our butts after Columbia's loss. The future of the R-7 is still bright, as proved by the new plans to build a pad for it in Kourou. It can now carry around seven-to-eight tons to LEO. In 2007, the R-7 turns 50. The Soviets fielded an even larger rocket called Proton, which started out as a Super-ICBM that was to launch the huge, 25-ton RDS-220 warhead - a 150-megaton bomb-that would have rivalled the 1883 eruption/explosion of Krakatoa in the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra. Thankfully, the UR-500 Proton never carried a warhead as far as we know. But Proton went on to launch 20 metric ton payloads to Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO), like the DOS core-blocks for their Almaz/Salyut, Mir and Zvezda (ISS), and like the equally large TKS ferries/FGB tugs that are service blocks and station modules in their own right. These are plugged into the DOS core blocks (Kvant on Mir, Zarya on ISS, etc.) Proton is now the workhorse for the Russians who use it commercially (thanks to ILS with Lockheed-Martin as a partner of sorts), while the kerosene strap-on boosters for the Soviet Space Shuttle Energia-Buran are being sold independently as the first stage of the Zenit booster (not the spysat) that is being used in Boeing's SeaLaunch venture. The Zenit’s single, four-nozzle engine is the RD-170, and has more thrust than the single chamber Saturn V F-1 engine. When 'chopped in half,' the RD-170 becomes the RD-180, now the main engine for Lockheed's brand new Atlas V EELV (Evolved Expendable launch Vehicle.) So now both Boeing and Lockheed-Martin are using Soviet Space Shuttle engines for their commercial satellite business. Zenit (the booster) is between R-7 and Proton in capability, and the single nozzle RD-191 will be used in the new Russian EELV, Angara, and perhaps in the Baikal and Zvityaz winged boosters. Commercially speaking, the Russians are still winning the space-race, even if they lost their biggest battle to go for the moon. Practical Army men knew that it was better to build bigger rockets than to over-shrink payloads which would be far more costly and complicated. Some Navy men knew this too, like Bob Truax. Where Russian army men, who were deferential to their chief designers, made big, capable rockets from the start, we had to play catch-up - fighting Air Force antagonism toward liquid-fueled rocket development coming from the top down. By the time brave EELV-backer General Moorman dragged the rest of the Air Force (kicking and screaming I might add) to build the first big non-ICBM rocket launcher in our history (save for our Shuttle and the Saturns), it was too late. The market fell out, and demand for com-sat rides diminished, due in part to a glut of big Russian launchers already saturating the market. They and the Europeans dominate 2/3 of all launches now. You can thank the Air Force for this sorry state of affairs. Because of them, our aerospace giants are doing poorly and are wasting money fighting each other with lawyers over a vanishing com-sat market, while both still have to use Russian Space Shuttle engines to service it. For the Air Force to blame the 'space people' as Gen. Jumper calls us for their failures of foresight - when it was their obstructionism that kept us from having big rockets all along, is beyond gall. By the time the EELVs were brought to market it was already too late. With the growing gigantism of space assets, the EELVs are already on the verge of being obsolete. Only China, passing us while standing still, has a medium-heavy lift system in development large enough - and capable of growth—that will compete with Proton upgrades. We wouldn't even have a threat from their Long March to space were it not for the ugly way their chief designer Tsien Hsue-Shen was treated in this country, even after meeting Von Braun and helping our Army. Even Ariane 5, first thought too large (made primarily to launch Hermes) has, as a reason for its most recent failure, an upgrade program to keep it competitive. The reason behind ever-growing space assets may shock you. It is the miniaturization of electronics. Thinking money could be saved, the Air Force (and others) neglected rocket development in favor of over-complicated electronic gadgetry. Early on, this worked well enough, what with older, but larger and more numerous computers on the ground sizing up evenly with newer, faster tech aboard spacecraft. But things worsened with time, when computers were put in the hands of consumers. Russians placed whatever electronics were available inside simple, rugged spacecraft with an internally pressurized climate-controlled environment safe for any electronics at hand. This allowed cheap but rugged design. The (R-7 launched) Vostok/Voskhod type spacecraft became a spy-sat for many years. Our solids were rather rough on craft, and our liquid-fueled launch capability was behind the Russian R-7 from the start. We could not encase our assets in heavy pressurized spheres for our launchers had no margin. So we had to shrink, toughen and space-rate our satellites - make them rad-hardened and vacuum-proof and heat resistant and... After many years of work, the latest computer we have in space is a.....486 - now already obsolete by the throngs of much newer, much faster and much more numerous computers and Tvs, and Satellite Dishes and On*Stars that all want to communicate with that poor, little 486 now. This scenario can only get worse. The only thing for it is to launch larger spacecraft with more power and more antennas and... The shrinking of computers made our assets ever larger, like the monster MILSTAR. The poor old Atlas' and Deltas and even Titans were stretched beyond sense...the Delta III being an abortion from the start. By the time the EELVs came on the horizon, they were already in danger of being maxed out with Project Prometheus. What is needed now is true heavy lift (80-100 tons to LEO) that can serve both NASA and Military interests for years to come - with plenty of growing room seeing as we ask more and more of space on a daily basis. Liquid-fueled rockets have had the Air Force for an enemy for far too long. When launch vehicle developments are delayed the space people are unfairly blamed when Air Force obstructionists like Gen. John Jumper are the true cause of our problems and continue to make things worse. When General Jumper was asked by Space News " Does the Pentagon need a separate space force?" He said that he saw "no reason for it." Naturally he would say that, because the Air Force would no longer have space under its massive heel as has been the case ever since the blue-suiters and their buddies robbed the ABMA. This way, they can neglect space and indulge their fighter-jock fantasies at taxpayer expense. MIGs are not the enemy now. As of 9/11 our new enemy is the 757, 767, 727, etc. Jumper said "'space people' just like fighter people and bomber people and ground people and naval people need to worry first about winning the war." It is very easy for him to say that, seeing how Navy and Air Force people already enjoy huge defense budgets they don't need to fight for every day of their lives - with some weapons programs larger than NASA's yearly budget! These titans already have too much their own way. When space advocates proposed their own branch, naturally the other services, who agreed on little else, ganged up on them - or else they might not have another super-carrier this, or a $200 billion Joint-Strike-Fighter that. Space people NEED a much bigger budget, but get the least money and are railed at for failures that come from under-funding. When Billy Mitchell shocked the old Navy brass with his "stunt," he got in trouble instead. I wonder how many admirals told him: "You up-start airplane people need to quit being parochial in begging for funding. We need to worry about 'winning the war!' So we will be putting our finest battleships out in Pearl Harbor. Enough with your airplane projects!" Imagine if the 'plane people' had to answer to folks like Jumper in the early 1900s. We wouldn't be flying at all now. We do have good people in the Air Force, but they are not in power. So shouldn't we listen to rocket and space enthusiasts now? Not if Air Force men like Gen. Jumper have their way. Not when the man currently inhabiting the White House wants to play President of the World instead of the U.S. - blowing money here and there-while saying there is no money for space. Even after Columbia, all NASA got was a $470 million boost (small compared to most expenditures) that was to have come anyway - though it was almost cut. NASA's real buying power has in fact been on the decrease. If I told the President to only spend 470 million more dollars than what the military already gets for the War in Iraq, I'm sure he would ask; "How do you expect us to win a war with $470 million?" How does he and the blue-suiters expect us to have a good space program for that same paltry sum? It is not his job to blow my hard-earned taxpayer dollar on $10 billion AIDS programs overseas when wealthy, knowledgeable people in this country still contract it with risky behavior themselves. While money is needed for equipment and uncommon genius, it doesn't help with common sense. No wonder our space program is, quite literally crumbling! Visit some of out facilities for proof of that. It is not in fact, the primary job of Congress, the President, or the Air Force to waste my tax-money dropping munitions among other things atop someone else's buildings. Their job is to make sure that no threats from the sky come down on any of our buildings. So far, they have done a poor job of that, what with skyscraper, airliner, and Shuttle debris having rained down upon us the Nation over. If anything, Congress is now considering a cut-back on anti-asteroid research spending, which is foolish, seeing that it is nature's ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction. It is also the only disaster we can avoid - with space spending. The way things are going now, we can't blow them up, shoot rogue airliners down, or destroy incoming missiles - not when we have SAC-happy B-52 "Buff"-drivers and fighter jocks running the show doing what they do best - being elitist snobs all the while soaking up Defense dollars better spent elsewhere. We in the Space Advocacy movement should no longer have to ask "Mother, may I?" It is time for us 'space people' to demand our leaders in Washington and have them give the Air Force a 'Jump-off.' Fire General Jumper! Neither General Jumper, nor this Administration, is a friend of space. So what to do? I will answer that question in Part Two... From VM Wed Aug 20 16:21:35 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["14422" "Wednesday" "20" "August" "2003" "17:57:32" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "301" "starship-design: A Leader Out Of Time Speaks:" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 14422 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7KN08aB018874 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:00:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7KN08Pm018869 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:00:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7KN07aB018860 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:00:07 -0700 (PDT) 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 19pbvy-0002t6-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:00:07 -0700 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: A Leader Out Of Time Speaks: Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:57:32 -0500 A Leader Out Of Time Speaks: The Legacy Of J. B. Medaris by Publius Rex Los Angeles - Aug 20, 2003 In my previous article, I asked the important question, "Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space?" Now, having answered that question in the affirmative, I will go on to talk about a man who was, in my opinion, the real father of Apollo, and of Zeus as well (as in Nike-Zeus). Most of what can be known about General Medaris can be found in a book I will quote from frequently here - a book whose Epilogue was written exactly 43 years ago this month. This book is none other than Countdown For Decision. Like Korolov and other Chief Soviet Designers, General Medaris was forced to use tricks on occasion in order to, quite literally, lay the foundation for future projects: "One of the prime necessities is a test tower on which a big missile can be mounted and held down for thorough static testing...The Army had no mission beyond the Redstone...Yet if anything significant were to be done in the future, the construction of such a complex would have to start right away." He had no choice but to use production money: "Finally, we cooked up a plausible story of needing the test tower and other test facilities in order to carry on the required quality control and inspection testing that would be needed when the Redstone missile went into production...It is interesting to note that had not this project been rammed through and approved when it was not really justified by either ground rules or the needs of the moment, there would have been nothing available to make possible the rapid development of the Jupiter missile or the test work that made the satellites possible." (Page 63-64, Countdown For Decision). What was to be the Saturn IB was tested here. Even with this hand won, the General was only playing catch-up with the huge R-7. The General lamented our lack of large, liquid-fueled rockets, while giving due credit to the Soviets: "They (the Russians) began with no fear of size, as such, and were quite willing to build big missiles...Thus was laid the foundation for adequate capability in large, powerful motors. The development of smaller, lighter atomic warheads permitted the exploitation of these big motors in terms of added range...and heavier weight carrying abilities in space-work. This in turn permitted faster progress since a margin of power was available to cover minor error. We have never had this margin for error, and we still don't." (Page 45, Countdown For Decision.) These words are true even today, as Boeing's SeaLaunch (Zenit) and Lockheed's Atlas V launch comsats with Soviet space shuttle strap-on engines like the RD-170 and the RD-180, respectively. The need of heavy-lift is a running theme in the General's book, Countdown For Decision. On page 202, he tells us that he could not put "any guidance above the Redstone's first stage." This was "one of the penalties we were paying for not having a big enough booster." On page 229, the second satellite launch is described as a failure, the cause of which could not be determined because they could not put enough instruments aboard - "one of the worst penalties of not having big boosters to work with." Later in the book (page 242) Medaris talks about Dr. Abe Silverstein who had been deputy director of the NACA laboratory in Cleveland, who was later appointed to head Space Operations for NASA; "Few people know, as we did, that only a few months before Sputnik, Dr. Silverstein had been chairman of a committee appointed by the Secretary Of Defense to determine future requirements for large rocket engines. After considerable deliberation, the committee came out, over Dr. Silverstein's signature, with the pontifical declaration that 'there appears to be no foreseeable need for any rocket engines of thrust greater than that now being developed for ICBM'." This thinking has hardly changed and any consideration for heavy-lift development has now been put off with the OSP and other programs usurping funds. The General sums up his thoughts on heavy-lift saying that many launch vehicle failures can "be charged directly to the fact that vital equipment aboard cannot be made sufficiently dependable, or duplicated as it should to provide dependability because the project is constantly fighting weight." The Shuttle-derived ALS/NLS heavy-lift launch system was to have dealt with these issues and given us engine-out capabilities current EELVs still lack. But we still have many detractors like General Jumper, Dr. Silverstein, Dr. Herbert York, and others who wanted nothing more than the Titans (p 263). It got to the point where the General had to give up his team of scientists to NASA for their adequate funding (p.266). The General had been fighting the Air Force for quite some time. A document known as the Wilson Memorandum robbed the Army of missile development and gave most everything to the Air Force. While the Air Force had authority for ICBMs like the early Atlas under the Air Force Ballistic Missile Division (AFBMD), their Thor IRBM was far behind the Army's Jupiter program. General Medaris even went so far as to question the wisdom of the separation of the Air Force from the Army, saying that it was: "fundamentally unwise to set up a whole new branch of the Armed Forces on the basis of an instrument (the manned aircraft) rather than a mission to be accomplished." If, say, Air Force Chief of Staff Jumper thinks there is no call for a separate Space Force, well then, there were those who could say the same about the very existence of the Air Force, which came into being at the same time Congress passed the National Security Act which in 1947, set up the DoD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (page 54-55). Nothing has been the same since, and inter-Service rivalry has only increased. Sadly, such parochialism may be the only way a true Space Force posture can be formed and defended. Only when a Space Force can grow as quickly and as strong as the Air Force's ascent to power will Space have a chance. If (as General Jumper would no doubt hold) the Air Force is sufficiently different from the Army to warrant its own Branch of the Service, the same must certainly also now be said of a Space Force. The hostility towards space is not without precedent. In talking about the formation of the Air Force, the General admits that he: sometimes feels that the seeds for all this trouble were sown by the refusal of old-line Navy and Army officers to accept the manned aircraft as an effective instrument of war in a period when it actually was a powerful and effective weapon. This put the proponents of manned aircraft in the position of martyrdom." and led to the backlash that spawned the Air Force (page 60). This Air Force "cost the American taxpayer untold millions of dollars in fighter planes, fighter bases, and detection devices designed to nullify a threat (Soviet Bombers) that never became a full scale menace." (Page 54). To this day, the Russians still have no real equivalent to the B-52. The great expense came from Air Force assuming that the Soviets were also placing their lot in Air Power, when nothing could be further from the truth. Space was, and still is, their business. General Medaris laid down some of his concerns in his "Dagger Report" and was embarrassed when a man under him by the name of Nickerson wrote an even sharper piece called "Considerations On The Wilson Memorandum" that was sent to Washington reporter Jack Anderson who was then handling Drew Pearson's column. This incident almost killed Army rocket development, but later the General himself had to fight the Air Force even more fervently to get anything done at all (Page 129). The General also expressed opinions on the types of people who make the best civilian leaders. He came to the startling conclusion that lawyers, at home in red-tape, and used to arguing a point home, were better fighters than businessmen who, used to having their own way - often look for a way out when swamped. A lawyer can also "take a leave of absence and his law partners go right on working for him" where the businessman is hurt when he switches over to government pay and is expected to dump stock if he is expected to, say, get a Senate confirmation (pp. 152-153). The business model has only led to a situation where the number of "accountants and bookkeepers have been multiplied four-fold, replacing leaders, strategists, and tacticians, and not one dime of the taxpayers' money has been saved" (p. 271). The General tells us that the "root of the evil is this. More and more the balance shifts from civilian policy control of the military to bureaucratic dominance and day-to-day operation of the Armed Forces by professional civil servants" who have their own "personal empires" (p. 270). What has changed over these past four decades since these words were first written? The General wraps up his thoughts on how the Army was given no credit for its moon-plans (page 298, plans on page 187), and how the Nike-Zeus ABM system was stymied, even when the similar Nike-Hercules, in defeating a Corporal, proved "that a bullet can hit a bullet" (p. 301). In the last chapter of his book, Medaris is concerned with the money spent on offensive systems at the expense of defensive systems designed to protect our cities from attack. He even thought Saturn vital, as it could have eliminated the costly development of the Titan vehicles, which, like the Saturn V, cost almost a billion dollars a shot with the Titan IV, but with only 1/5 the payload. If you recall, the early Saturns were built with Jupiter and Redstone tankage. In the very last paragraph, we are left with these words: "Vital military needs in space...clamor for attention while we overspend on mass destruction. There is little apparent relationship between our foreign policy and our military posture, yet the whole military establishment is primarily the handmaiden of foreign policy and the base of support in the field of international relations" (page 303). In short, we have spent too much on a third World-War when what we now face are many Third-World wars. The Cold War, and poor decisions, is costing us all, and our space infrastructure is suffering the most. To quote a man who left BMDO due to having his own pro-space concerns ignored - like General Medaris: "We forgot all about our headache (lack of space funding) when a wrench was dropped on our foot (9/11)." The wrench, by-and-large, has been removed. And we have all been left with a mighty headache. While DARPA has heady thoughts about hypersonics and other fanciful systems, those now at BMDO are left with systems less effective than Nike-Zeus. Where DARPA is pie-in-the-sky, the BMDO heads are bumps on a log. We must plot a middle course. We have forgotten what gave us a foothold in space in the first place. The development of large rockets. Only when we buckled down and built the Saturns did we begin to have a launcher as powerful as what the Soviets had all along. But we forgot our lessons, threw away our capability, and by accepting the crutch of OSP, we are now on the road to kill the Shuttle - which is the only vehicle that a true Heavy-lifter can be derived from. As it stands now, the 39-series pads look to rust to oblivion. In my earlier article "On Wings Of..." I call for a shuttle-derived heavy-lift capability of a modular sort (Marshall calls it Architecture 5) that will, however, also allow for the Astronauts at Johnson (JSC) to retain their simulators while also giving us the ability to place automated 100-ton cargoes in space in but a single launch. Both mini-spaceplanes and capsules must throw away their trans-stage/retro-packages before re-entry is safely possible, and capsules have had separation problems with these packages in the past. With a Buran-style Shuttle II, all maneuver capabilities reside in the orbiter's aft boat-tail that remains attached since it is part of the airframe, where it can be retained, returned, and refueled. Its airfoils will not need a controlled explosion to deploy, as in the case with capsules' complexly folded parachutes. Each capsule return is, by necessity, a ditching at best, and all require the same para-rescue jumpers we saw in The Perfect Storm. A large launch vehicle like Energia cost no more than did the proposed Ariane 5/Hermes spaceplane combo', but could carry far more. Wings may be considered by some useless, but so are an airplane's wings when it is on the ground. We should have this capability in any event due to the greater cross-range of winged craft. If I place three RS-68 hydrogen engines underneath an External Tank, I can launch unmanned 100-ton payload pods in space or large Buran-style orbiters with 20-30 tons of interior cargo in its own payload bay - and retain that orbiter's integral trans/retro-stage intact. Any OSP is likely to throw away all its main engine(s) and its trans/retro-stage as well. The cost difference is marginal at best. With such a side-mount philosophy, I can place large hypersonic boilerplates in space, allowing them to separate in a true vacuum (unlike the failed X-43) to better test future Air Force vehicles that need large-scale tests in any event, if it is to reduce dependence on costly forward bases set up the world over during the Cold War. The goals of NASA and the Air Force are now one. With space assets growing ever larger, and the number of allies friendly to our cause ever smaller, the Air Force is either going to sulk at my own "Dagger report" here, or buckle down and start building big rockets. They must build large, heavy-lift rockets at some point in time. They simply have no choice. I leave you now with a quote from another great space book - Challenge To Apollo. Some of the same travails that beset General Medaris were handled by the Soviet Chief Designers in much the same way, but on a greater level, what with Khrushchev's direct intervention like what we must have from the current Administration today if anything is to be done. The quote is from Lyndon Johnson: "There is something more important than the Ultimate Weapon. That being the Ultimate Position." If Space is indeed that ultimate position then "it should be the goal of all free men to keep and hold that position." I'm sure General J.B. Medaris would agree. From VM Wed Aug 20 18:45:18 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1366" "Wednesday" "20" "August" "2003" "21:13:12" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "48" "Re: starship-design: Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space?" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1366 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7L1DTaB013189 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7L1DTtL013188 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com (imo-m05.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7L1DSaB013158 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:13:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id 4.166.249b882b (16484); Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <166.249b882b.2c7576a8@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: Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space? Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:13:12 EDT >No wonder our spaceflight prospects are as poor as they are what with >Blue-Suits like him running everything. I can't believe this man had the >gall to say that his pro-space critics "should worry more about winning >wars and less about protecting 'pet' projects." Ironic giving everything in the Airforce, or most all the military, is maintained only as folks pet projects. The SR-71s were grounded because the generals it was "the pet project of" finaly retired. /:[ >Early Soviet warheads were unsophisticated and very large. This allowed >their Chief Designer Korolov a chance to make a space-booster from the >get-go. Though many howled in his country, finding the R-7 too large even >for their heavy nuclear devices, calmer heads prevailed and the R-7 went >on to launch Sputnik, Vostok, Voskhod, the Zenit spy-sat (still being built >as automated Vostoks), Soyuz (Dennis Tito) and Progress re-supply ships to >ISS Ironic that lots of our space launch capacity is due to sdloppy warhead designs, or the lack of. >When General Jumper was asked by Space News " Does the Pentagon need a > >separate space force?" He said that he saw "no reason for it." Give up control?! You think the Army generals thought spining off the Army Air corps into the Airforce made sence? Hell the Airforce is reabsorbing space command back into SCA. :( From VM Wed Aug 20 18:45:19 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["138" "Wednesday" "20" "August" "2003" "20:21:43" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "6" "RE: starship-design: Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space?" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 138 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7L1OKaB019636 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7L1OJOt019632 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.48]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7L1OJaB019612 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:24:19 -0700 (PDT) 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 19peBU-0005CD-00; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:24:17 -0700 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <166.249b882b.2c7576a8@aol.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , Subject: RE: starship-design: Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space? Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:21:43 -0500 > Hell the Airforce is reabsorbing space command back into SCA. SAC no longer has a viable mission, ergo, absorb someone else's... Lee From VM Thu Aug 21 16:00:02 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["396" "Thursday" "21" "August" "2003" "18:45:41" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "16" "Re: starship-design: Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space?" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 396 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7LMkK7I008337 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:46:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7LMkKBo008336 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:46:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.102]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7LMkJ7I008274 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id 4.12b.301b1b5e (4206); Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:45:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <12b.301b1b5e.2c76a595@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: Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space? Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:45:41 EDT In a message dated 8/20/03 6:24:32 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >> Hell the Airforce is reabsorbing space command back into SCA. > >SAC no longer has a viable mission, ergo, absorb someone else's... > >Lee No mission, but they got a lot of clout!! I hope they don't squelch space dev efforts the way they squelched the SR-71's, just because it wasn't something their group needed. :{ From VM Sun Aug 24 20:06:21 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["1755" "Sunday" "24" "August" "2003" "18:50:56" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" "<127.2fb8826b.2c7a9b50@aol.com>" "64" "Fwd: starship-design: Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space?" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1755 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7OMp7LR020759 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7OMp7Ps020758 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7OMp6LR020745 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 15:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.127.2fb8826b (4214) for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:50:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <127.2fb8826b.2c7a9b50@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_127.2fb8826b.2c7a9b50_boundary" 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: Fwd: starship-design: Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space? Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:50:56 EDT --part1_127.2fb8826b.2c7a9b50_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anyone still handeling this sort of thing? In a message dated 8/24/03 1:23:57 PM, Stravonski writes: >Kelly, > > I am closing my AOL account and now using MSN. Would you please >update the newsletters to go to Stravonski@msn.com from now on? > >Thank you very much, >Mike Pfeifer --part1_127.2fb8826b.2c7a9b50_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: From: Stravonski@aol.com Full-name: Stravonski Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:23:57 EDT Subject: Re: starship-design: Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space? To: KellySt@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part2_127.2fb8826b.2c7a78dd_boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6011 --part2_127.2fb8826b.2c7a78dd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kelly, I am closing my AOL account and now using MSN. Would you please update the newsletters to go to Stravonski@msn.com from now on? Thank you very much, Mike Pfeifer --part2_127.2fb8826b.2c7a78dd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kelly,

       I am closing my AOL account and now usi= ng MSN.  Would you please update the newsletters to go to Stravonski@ms= n.com from now on?

Thank you very much,
Mike Pfeifer --part2_127.2fb8826b.2c7a78dd_boundary-- --part1_127.2fb8826b.2c7a9b50_boundary-- From VM Sun Aug 24 22:55:28 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["817" "Sunday" "24" "August" "2003" "20:06:04" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "26" "Fwd: starship-design: Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space?" "^From:" nil nil "8" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 817 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7P37HLR023221 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7P37HOH023220 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (stevev@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7P364LR023045; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7P364kY023042; Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:06:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16201.32028.48706.452452@darkwing.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <127.2fb8826b.2c7a9b50@aol.com> References: <127.2fb8826b.2c7a9b50@aol.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 13) "Rational FORTRAN" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Fwd: starship-design: Is The Air Force The Enemy Of Space? Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:06:04 -0700 KellySt@aol.com writes: > Anyone still handeling this sort of thing? It's an automated mailing list, Kelly. The software used is Majordomo, so people can subscribe and unsubscribe themselves. The same info message everyone got when they subscribed is also available at: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~stevev/sd-archive in case you didn't save a copy of it. If you have trouble subscribing or unsubscribing from the mailing list using the automated interface, contact owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu and I'll do what I can to help. > In a message dated 8/24/03 1:23:57 PM, Stravonski writes: > > >Kelly, > > > > I am closing my AOL account and now using MSN. Would you please > >update the newsletters to go to Stravonski@msn.com from now on? > > > >Thank you very much, > >Mike Pfeifer From VM Thu Sep 11 10:16:31 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["363" "Wednesday" "10" "September" "2003" "21:09:33" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "starship-design: Space Elevators" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 363 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8B2CLHD005753 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8B2CLpg005752 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8B2CLHD005715 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19xGwW-0003N4-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:12:20 -0700 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: Space Elevators Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:09:33 -0500 The upcoming conference sparked a little research. I found a great introduction to them. This is from a NASA site: http://flightprojects.msfc.nasa.gov/pdf_files/elevator.pdf 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... From VM Thu Sep 11 17:58:16 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["303" "Thursday" "11" "September" "2003" "20:55:38" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: Space Elevators" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 303 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8C0tne6024093 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8C0tnP2024090 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m07.mx.aol.com (imo-m07.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.162]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8C0tme6024079 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:55:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id 4.175.1fcc5c57 (16484); Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:55:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <175.1fcc5c57.2c92738a@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: Space Elevators Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:55:38 EDT Cool, thanks for the heads up! In a message dated 9/10/03 7:13:29 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >The upcoming conference sparked a little research. I found a great > >introduction to them. This is > >from a NASA site: > > > >http://flightprojects.msfc.nasa.gov/pdf_files/elevator.pdf > > > >Lee From VM Thu Sep 18 18:31:39 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11080" "Wednesday" "17" "September" "2003" "20:19:11" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "211" "starship-design: Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be (Sequel to come)" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 11080 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8I1M6e6021472 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:22:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8I1M6f8021471 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:22:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8I1M5e6021431 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:22:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19znUi-00022T-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:22:04 -0700 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be (Sequel to come) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:19:11 -0500 OPINION SPACE Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be The Spacefaring Web 3.17 by John Carter McKnight Scottsdale - Sep 17, 2003 This gripe began as ironic nostalgia when 21st Century reality paled in comparison to the projections of the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Lately that claim has devolved into a favored lament of grumpy old men in the space community, whose stubborn refusal to acknowledge society's priorities threatens any real effort to advance our presence in space. A full-bore cranky-geezer rant was delivered recently by science fiction writer Spider (not to be confused with Kim Stanley) Robinson at the World Science Fiction Convention, and adapted as an op-ed article in the Toronto Globe and Mail The article gives voice to those in the space community who long for a future that never was. Whether in fiction or in policy, many are selling the unwanted solutions of a failed past. They find themselves baffled by their loss of market share, but rather than identifying society's concerns and offering credible solutions, they blame us for our crass refusal to buy their old whine in new bottles. Robinson argues that science fiction is in a critical and financial decline because "[i]ncredibly, young people no longer find the real future exciting. They no longer find science admirable. They no longer instinctively lust to go to space…. SF's central metaphor and brightest vision, lovingly polished and presented as entertainingly as we know how to make it, has been largely rejected by the world we meant to save." He is indisputably right about our rejection of the mid-20th Century view of the future. Contemporary culture cannot be understood without a firm grasp of this key truth. But by no means does it follow that a rejection of 1950s "conquest of space" visions means a rejection of science fiction, or a closing of the door to space. Science fiction has long been what the Western once was: adventures idealizing the values and technologies at the forefront of the newest, most interesting realms. In the Fifties, that meant space, and engineering, and the customs of the technocrat and megaproject engineer. What typical Cold War-era sci fi produced was a linear extrapolation of technological development while assuming culture as a constant. For all its intentional silliness, the epitome of this view was the cartoon series The Jetsons, with its 1950s nuclear family living in a world of flying cars and talking robots. That was what the world was supposed to be: mid-century middle-class America reproducing itself endlessly, just with better gadgets. The destruction of that vision, the rejection of that future, is what Robinson laments. The future we chose, while keeping us planetbound longer than anticipated, has been much more complex. Technology branched into unexpected directions, stifling heavy engineering while innovating in communications at lightspeed. And, most profoundly, culture itself transformed just as rapidly. Even as a visitor from 1903 would be baffled by the gadgetry of 1953, 1953's citizen would find the customs and values of 2003 much more alien than the prospect of little green men (as milked wonderfully for laughs in the movie Back To The Future). Those unexpected changes in culture and technology shaped each other. The end of the 1960s saw a rejection of technocracy, for many valid reasons. Industrial-age organizational methods - standardization, hierarchy, bureaucracy, mass movements - were rejected as dehumanizing and immoral. They were supplanted by better methods - networks, customization, niche marketing - made practicable by technological revolutions in communications and production. Industrial age attitudes - seeing the environment as a storehouse of resources rather than as our home, nature as a thing to be conquered rather than protected, body-count approaches to warfare - were rejected as well. Industrial age politics - governmental control of industry, the choice of state-glorifying megaprojects over the health and welfare of the country's citizens - also met with rejection. Nuclear testing near civilian areas ended. Construction projects that poisoned the air and water were successfully opposed. And space projects with no real goal other than the glorification of the state came to a similar end. Thus, von Braun's state-dominated, heavy engineering dominated future never came to pass. Would anyone be surprised that stories glorifying these rejected technologies, these rejected politics, these rejected values, declined dramatically in market share? Yet science fiction has not withered into irrelevant yarns about a long-lost frontier the way the Western did. As technology and culture changed, science fiction transformed along with it. When human spaceflight stopped being the newest, most interesting realm, science fiction stopped telling so many stories about it. When computer science and communications technology became the new frontier, science fiction developed a new sub-genre, cyberpunk, that took its information technology as seriously as space opera ever took thrust-to-weight ratios. When cultural change became at least as interesting as technological change, science fiction discovered that engineering and physics weren't the only disciplines about which stories could be told: sociology, psychology and political science found a home in the literature. Robinson couldn't be farther from the mark in condemning science fiction readers for rejecting the "real future." The "real future" of the Jetsons era died a generation ago, along with Camelot and the Baby Boomers' lost youth. Even the cyberpunk "real future" is now our present, and its great authors are showing gray in their goatees. Yet there's no Next Big Thing, no hot trend in science fiction, no vision of the future spreading like a virus through the zeitgeist. And what else would anyone expect? We're finding it hard enough to comprehend our present. Real change is outpacing our imaginations. We haven't really begun to live in the post- 9/11 world. Our future is changing between the morning news and the late-night roundup. Who can envision the technologies and values of twenty years out when we don't even understand what's going on right now? But the popular imagination has in fact found stories answering its concerns. What is selling, and speaking to contemporary audiences in a way that science fiction is not, is epic fantasy. Rather than speculating on a technological future, fantasy often imagines a preindustrial past, with technology replaced by magic as the means of effecting change. People who have never read a science fiction novel avidly devour the Harry Potter books and line up for the Lord Of The Rings movies. For Robinson, this turn to fantasy, besides being a rejection of the values of his youth, is a sign of civilization's collapse, of anti-intellectualism, of contempt for reason. While there are shadings of those views in contemporary culture, the truth lies elsewhere. The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Buffy The Vampire Slayer touch a cultural nerve that little science fiction of late has managed to do. All three are about individual power and responsibility: in each, small, seemingly ordinary people find themselves not just with the power to change their worlds, but with accountability for their actions in doing so. We long for that sense that we can make a difference, that we are not just mere ants in the hill, that we, rather than the impersonal forces of terrorism, globalism and recession, can shape our lives. We long for responsibility, both in ourselves and in others. If science fiction has declined in popularity, it's not because authors are only writing tripe, as Robinson alleges. Nor is it because we in the audience are a bunch of superstitious savages. It is because no storyteller has convinced us that our pressing problems have a near-term echnological solution. Most open-minded storytellers and advocates who can read the needs of the audience and respond with fresh solutions are, in fact, talking about something other than a near-term, large-scale movement into space. Many are looking backward, yes. "Where did we go wrong?" Is a much more honest response right now than "here's my military-industrial technological panacea." Few are preaching the old-time space religion, either in fiction or in advocacy, right now. There are some in both media still writing for the tiny niche market of believers, but we're not drawing crowds because we're not making a widely convincing case. Some argue that a robust American space program will demonstrate our strength in the world and 'show them dang terrorists.' Show them precisely what is unclear. Robinson himself says that "inconceivable wealth and limitless energy lie right over our heads, within easy reach, and we're too dumb to get them." Yes: legions of engineers at NASA and entrepreneurial rocket companies are simply "too dumb" to get launch costs down to the point where mining an asteroid is cheaper than mining Kentucky. Kids these days and their liberal educations, no doubt. Space does provide answers to many social challenges. Just not to the ones at the top of the list. This is why, despite everybody's call for Presidential leadership of the faltering NASA human space program, the White House has issued only bland generalities, and is unlikely ever to do otherwise. Space simply isn't the priority of anyone today other than a tiny hardcore of true believers. Likewise, space fiction's market share is miniscule, and the Star Trek television franchise, long a touchstone of cultural concerns, is now every bit as lost as the Shuttle program. Let's just be deeply thankful that nobody at JSC has thought to solve the problem with a little orbital T&A. For those who believe that space is a viable solution to contemporary problems, what can we do? The answer's very simple: prove it. For engineers, prove it: build affordable civilian space transportation. However small a start, however humble an effort, prove the concept. For advocates, prove it: make the case without assuming we're all suddenly transported back to the Fifties, or supplied with zillion-dollar budgets or barrels of unobtanium. Leaders don't whine about how lame their troops are: they train them, educate them, inspire them, and lead. For storytellers, Spider Robinson included, prove it: if nobody else is writing space fiction that that reaches us where we are, write some. Tell a better story than the fantasists are doing. Show us how a movement into space can give us back our liberty, individuality and power. Make us believe space is the answer. Or just take your rocking chair out onto the porch and complain there. The rest of us have work to do. The Spacefaring Web is a biweekly column © 2003 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 Thu Sep 18 18:31:39 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["28887" "Wednesday" "17" "September" "2003" "20:29:08" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "679" "starship-design: Spider Robinson" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 28887 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8I1W2e6027638 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8I1W2Mj027637 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8I1W1e6027631 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19zneK-0001jI-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:32:00 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on darkwing See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html for details. $Revision: 1.139 $Date: 2003-09-07 10:14:23-07 X-Security: The postmaster has not enabled quarantine of poisoned messages. Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004B_01C37D5A.58AE1C40" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: Spider Robinson Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:29:08 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C37D5A.58AE1C40 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_004C_01C37D5A.58B08D40" ------=_NextPart_001_004C_01C37D5A.58B08D40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nature Courtesy of Mark Oakley, Thieves and Kings: So. . . Spider Robinson is depressed about the state of Science Fiction. He cites dropping sales and no new authors replacing the old, as well as a mass defection of readers to 'Tolkienesque' fantasy. You can read his article/rant here. I can understand where he's coming from. Heck, I've heard his lament on the lips of numerous other Sci-Fi writers. To be part of a fading industry isn't exactly inspiring, seeing fellow creators slip from view, watching the dizzying excitement of a once lunatic market place die down to something which actually makes sense. . . (Well, I don't know if the paperback book market could ever really be described as 'lunatic' in quite the same way comics were for a while. . . Nobody I knew ever sealed away paperbacks in vinyl bags for posterity!) In any case, I do feel for Mr. Robinson. Moreover, though, it got me wondering. . . And, ohhh, but this is a can of worms like none other! I'll start off small. First of all, I should explain that I have always felt Science Fiction, from the day it first began to materialize, has had an expiry date stamped across its forehead. I'm not just reiterating the tried and true, "Sci-Fi will be pointless when when there really are people walking around in space suits and zipping back and forth between the stars." No, no. It's much simpler than that. See, I think stories have only two basic purposes and that everything else is just turkey trimming. Ahem. . . "I believe that stories exist for no other reason than to explore and share ideas." It works like this; when people become curious about a subject, there is a desire to examine and to consider that subject. When desire grows enough, somebody will inevitably sit down at a keyboard and hammer out a book about it. Ideas flow, you see, whether we want them to or not, and they must be contained! Recorded. Sifted through. Shared. --And if the subject is fascinating enough, why then a lot of somebodies will hammer out a whole lot of books! Look at teen romance novels for instance; because there are always young women clamoring to know everything they can about love and relationships, there is a more or less permanent market for 150 page paperback novels with sappy covers about dating and first love and all that. --When young women grow up, then we see the far more prolific 'grown up' romance novels for slightly different reasons, but still driven by the desire to spin around and absorb certain sets of ideas. So long as there are heroines, (and hormones), there will be romance novels. Not so with Science Fiction. No hormones there. (Well, actually, there were quite a lot, but that wasn't Science Fiction's reason for being.) No. Science Fiction came into existence because the millions of minds living through the first two thirds of the twentieth century were besieged with the growing awareness that technology and industry could, and very likely would achieve terrifying and spectacular wonders! --The kinds of wonders which would change the very shape of humanity itself into something new! But crikey, if people had only the dimmest clue of what that something would be. . . Indeed, people had only the most vague notions, but with Hydroelectric dams being built, telescopes probing ever more deeply into space, rockets being erected, new materials being developed, and all manner of new technological powers being discovered. . , people quickly began to realize that whatever the change was going to be, it was going to be Big with a capital 'B' --and that they'd better start thinking about it right smart quick! But no fear; the trusty human mind has ways to deal with this kind of scenario. Why, the human mind when faced with sudden shocking possibilities, will Think About Them A Lot, thank you very much. --The mind will swim in new ideas and jump around with great excitement, examining the problem from every angle as though it were a new toy, a dangerous animal, a tempting delight, tasting, poking and turning it in the light, and chattering about it incessantly until at last it understands! And so the story-tellers went into overdrive, fighting to wrest this new beast into some kind of manageable shape. Trying to tame it so that when the countless hoarde finally came upon us, we would be ready. --Indeed, so that we might even be able to direct its power towards better ends while avoiding the pitfalls in the road. And all the while, this new reality swarmed into being all around us. (Though, for many a flashlight-under-the-covers 10 year-old, not nearly fast enough!) Well, folks, I hope we all like how things are turning out, because it is rather too late to change a great deal at this point. The steam engine is now thundering along and only the most minor course corrections, (if even those), will be tolerated. That is to say, here we all are, arriving in the Future! Bet you didn't realize that, did you? But, no, look around. Re-check the road map, (the digital one in your car with satelite positioning), make a cell-phone call to your friend who is expecting you, or hop on the internet to compare travel notes. --Spend as much time as you need to make sure. Sip on some re-mineralized bottled water, or perhaps a tetra-packed beverage, and be sure to apply some SPF-40 sunscreen while you're out there scouting around. In the end you'll be forced to agree that This Is It. You're here. That'll be $29.95 please, (plus ten cents a minute on week days.) You can access your wealth from one of many convenient computerized dispensers located on any number of walls around the city. Try not to drink the city water unless you filter it first. You are welcome to enjoy the wide variety of tasty Genetically Modified foods which are discreetly used in almost every item on every menu. Don't worry; it has all been fortified with a vast list of synthetic ingredients created by the most powerful of pharmaceutical agencies on the planet. --And do please smile for the million or so video cameras you will encounter during your stay. Yes indeed! Welcome to the Future! And no, I'm sorry, but we didn't end up with those flying cars in every garage, nor do we get to live in splendid moon colonies. Energy isn't free, and neither is food. Of course, we could arguably have all of those things if we really wanted them; Unlike back in the heyday of Asimov, Bradbury and Clark, the technology for a utopian world is no longer the stuff of dreams. It's here. Right now. All of it. But sorry, no, it really doesn't look like the average Joe and Josephine will find themselves wearing jet-packs on distant worlds while engaged in daring ray gun battles with galactic smugglers. --But then, to be fair, when dealing with billions of possibilities, you really can't have everything; flying cars and ray guns for the people were only a couple of the countless futures envisioned by the many hundreds of story tellers. Unfortunately, so was Orwell's "1984". But I digress. . . The point of the matter is that the open-ended future of a billion possibilities built upon the new and wonderful promise of science and industry is no longer open-ended. Heck, if you were to ask the average person on the street, I suspect you would probably receive a fairly detailed account of where all this new stuff will take us over the next few years. As such. . . The need for stories examining all the possibilities of science and technology isn't really there anymore either. Everybody is fairly well tuned in now. Future vision is no longer a kaleidoscope of science dreaming. Not the way it once was. Sorry, Spider. The job is just about done, and the workers are rolling up the drop cloth and heading for the van. The wild flights of speculation, the story-telling party of the century, is over. Or perhaps I should say, the party has moved into the kitchen. (After all, there's always work of some sort which needs doing somewhere around the ramshackle house of humanity!) --People's minds are traveling over different terrain these days. And while some might look at the Orwellian vision and sink in their chairs with growing despair, I see a great deal more than just the backwards, corrputed, polluted and violent dystopia we were all warned about time and again. There are new and spectacular things afoot in the world! And all the millions of minds are seeking answers to these new kinds of problems. New possibilities! What possibilities? Oh, but that part is easy! Just look at popular fiction. Peer into your own headspace at the questions you find yourself asking. Or perhaps. . , the questions you are avoiding. --Remember, Science Fiction was also, for many years, a most shunned area of literature. A large number of people have a strong tendency to not want to look too closely at things which promise to change their lives in Big (with a capital 'B'), ways. How did Bilbo Baggins put it. . ? 'We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner! I can't think what anybody sees in them,' Ha ha! But that doesn't ever stop the forward thinking and the eager from jumping right in, pulling up new ideas, examining them with passion. And slowly the rest of the world, as always, will warm to the expanding pool of thought even as the new reality begins to dawn all around them. Escapism? But of course! It's all about escapism! They said the same thing about Science Fiction, and they were right! However, the question nobody ever asks is, "Escaping to where?" --Think carefully, because the stories we read today are but kaleidoscope shadows of the places we'll be living in tomorrow. Our subconsciouses are generally much smarter than we are, after all. They speak to us through the stories they make us want to read. And what stories do we find ourselves drawn to? Why, we have Tolkien summoned up in full strength and bright, fresh armor on thousands of theater screens and millions of television monitors around the world. We have Babylon 5 and Buffy, both now on DVD making the rounds. We have The Matrix, (silly as the most recent installment was). Heck, even the latest Star Wars travesties tell a similar story; examining political upheaval and universal change. Oh, and magic. Don't forget the magic. Yes, we also have young Mr. Potter, don't we? There are new winds stirring in the world today. . . Surely you have felt them by now. ------=_NextPart_001_004C_01C37D5A.58B08D40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nature

Courtesy of Mark Oakley, Thieves and = Kings:

 

So. . .=20

 

Spider Robinson is depressed about the state of Science Fiction.=20

 

He cites dropping sales and no new authors replacing the old, as well = as a=20 mass defection of readers to 'Tolkienesque' fantasy.=20

 

You can read his article/rant here.=20

 

I can understand where he's coming from. Heck, I've heard his lament = on the=20 lips of numerous other Sci-Fi writers. To be part of a fading industry = isn't=20 exactly inspiring, seeing fellow creators slip from view, watching the = dizzying=20 excitement of a once lunatic market place die down to something which = actually=20 makes sense. . . (Well, I don't know if the paperback book market could = ever=20 really be described as 'lunatic' in quite the same way comics were for a = while.=20 . . Nobody I knew ever sealed away paperbacks in vinyl bags for = posterity!) In=20 any case, I do feel for Mr. Robinson.=20

 

Moreover, though, it got me wondering. . .=20

 

And, ohhh, but this is a can of worms like none other!=20

 

I'll start off small. First of all, I should explain that I have = always felt=20 Science Fiction, from the day it first began to materialize, has had an = expiry=20 date stamped across its forehead. I'm not just reiterating the tried and = true,=20 "Sci-Fi will be pointless when when there really are people = walking=20 around in space suits and zipping back and forth between the stars."=20

 

No, no. It's much simpler than that.=20

 

See, I think stories have only two basic purposes and that everything = else is=20 just turkey trimming. Ahem. . .=20

 

"I believe that stories exist for no other reason than to explore = and=20 share ideas."=20

 

It works like this; when people become curious about a subject, there = is a=20 desire to examine and to consider that subject. When desire grows = enough,=20 somebody will inevitably sit down at a keyboard and hammer out a book = about it.=20 Ideas flow, you see, whether we want them to or not, and they must be = contained!=20 Recorded. Sifted through. Shared. --And if the subject is fascinating = enough,=20 why then a lot of somebodies will hammer out a whole lot of books!=20

 

Look at teen romance novels for instance; because there are always = young=20 women clamoring to know everything they can about love and = relationships, there=20 is a more or less permanent market for 150 page paperback novels with = sappy=20 covers about dating and first love and all that. --When young women grow = up,=20 then we see the far more prolific 'grown up' romance novels for slightly = different reasons, but still driven by the desire to spin around and = absorb=20 certain sets of ideas. So long as there are heroines, (and hormones), = there will=20 be romance novels.=20

 

Not so with Science Fiction. No hormones there. (Well, actually, = there were=20 quite a lot, but that wasn't Science Fiction's reason for being.) No. = Science=20 Fiction came into existence because the millions of minds living through = the=20 first two thirds of the twentieth century were besieged with the growing = awareness that technology and industry could, and very likely = would=20 achieve terrifying and spectacular wonders! --The kinds of wonders which = would=20 change the very shape of humanity itself into something new!=20

 

But crikey, if people had only the dimmest clue of what that = something would=20 be. . .=20

 

Indeed, people had only the most vague notions, but with = Hydroelectric dams=20 being built, telescopes probing ever more deeply into space, rockets = being=20 erected, new materials being developed, and all manner of new = technological=20 powers being discovered. . , people quickly began to realize that = whatever the=20 change was going to be, it was going to be Big with a capital 'B' --and = that=20 they'd better start thinking about it right smart quick!=20

 

But no fear; the trusty human mind has ways to deal with this kind of = scenario. Why, the human mind when faced with sudden shocking = possibilities,=20 will Think About Them A Lot, thank you very much. --The mind will = swim in=20 new ideas and jump around with great excitement, examining the problem = from=20 every angle as though it were a new toy, a dangerous animal, a tempting = delight,=20 tasting, poking and turning it in the light, and chattering about it = incessantly=20 until at last it understands! And so the story-tellers went into=20 overdrive, fighting to wrest this new beast into some kind of manageable = shape.=20 Trying to tame it so that when the countless hoarde finally came upon = us, we=20 would be ready. --Indeed, so that we might even be able to direct its = power=20 towards better ends while avoiding the pitfalls in the road. And all the = while,=20 this new reality swarmed into being all around us. (Though, for many a=20 flashlight-under-the-covers 10 year-old, not nearly fast enough!)=20

 

Well, folks, I hope we all like how things are turning out, because = it is=20 rather too late to change a great deal at this point. The steam engine = is now=20 thundering along and only the most minor course corrections, (if even = those),=20 will be tolerated. That is to say, here we all are, arriving in the = Future!=20

 

Bet you didn't realize that, did you? But, no, look around. Re-check = the road=20 map, (the digital one in your car with satelite positioning), make a = cell-phone=20 call to your friend who is expecting you, or hop on the internet to = compare=20 travel notes. --Spend as much time as you need to make sure. Sip on some = re-mineralized bottled water, or perhaps a tetra-packed beverage, and be = sure to=20 apply some SPF-40 sunscreen while you're out there scouting around.=20

 

In the end you'll be forced to agree that This Is It. You're here. = That'll be=20 $29.95 please, (plus ten cents a minute on week days.) You can access = your=20 wealth from one of many convenient computerized dispensers located on = any number=20 of walls around the city. Try not to drink the city water unless you = filter it=20 first. You are welcome to enjoy the wide variety of tasty Genetically = Modified=20 foods which are discreetly used in almost every item on every menu. = Don't worry;=20 it has all been fortified with a vast list of synthetic ingredients = created by=20 the most powerful of pharmaceutical agencies on the planet. --And do = please=20 smile for the million or so video cameras you will encounter during your = stay.=20 Yes indeed! Welcome to the Future!=20

 

And no, I'm sorry, but we didn't end up with those flying cars in = every=20 garage, nor do we get to live in splendid moon colonies. Energy isn't = free, and=20 neither is food. Of course, we could arguably have all of those things = if we=20 really wanted them; Unlike back in the heyday of Asimov, Bradbury = and=20 Clark, the technology for a utopian world is no longer the stuff of = dreams. It's=20 here. Right now. All of it. But sorry, no, it really doesn't look = like=20 the average Joe and Josephine will find themselves wearing jet-packs on = distant=20 worlds while engaged in daring ray gun battles with galactic smugglers. = --But=20 then, to be fair, when dealing with billions of possibilities, you = really=20 can't have everything; flying cars and ray guns for the people = were only=20 a couple of the countless futures envisioned by the many hundreds of = story=20 tellers. Unfortunately, so was Orwell's "1984". But I digress. . .=20

 

The point of the matter is that the open-ended future of a billion=20 possibilities built upon the new and wonderful promise of science and = industry=20 is no longer open-ended. Heck, if you were to ask the average person on = the=20 street, I suspect you would probably receive a fairly detailed account = of where=20 all this new stuff will take us over the next few years.=20

 

As such. . .=20

 

The need for stories examining all the possibilities of science and=20 technology isn't really there anymore either. Everybody is fairly well = tuned in=20 now. Future vision is no longer a kaleidoscope of science dreaming. Not = the way=20 it once was. Sorry, Spider. The job is just about done, and the workers = are=20 rolling up the drop cloth and heading for the van. The wild flights of=20 speculation, the story-telling party of the century, is over.=20

 

Or perhaps I should say, the party has moved into the kitchen. (After = all,=20 there's always work of some sort which needs doing somewhere = around the=20 ramshackle house of humanity!) --People's minds are traveling over = different=20 terrain these days. And while some might look at the Orwellian vision = and sink=20 in their chairs with growing despair, I see a great deal more than just = the=20 backwards, corrputed, polluted and violent dystopia we were all warned = about=20 time and again. There are new and spectacular things afoot in the world! = And all=20 the millions of minds are seeking answers to these new kinds of = problems. New=20 possibilities!=20

 

What possibilities?=20

 

Oh, but that part is easy! Just look at popular fiction. Peer into = your own=20 headspace at the questions you find yourself asking. Or perhaps. . , the = questions you are avoiding. --Remember, Science Fiction was also, = for=20 many years, a most shunned area of literature. A large number of people = have a=20 strong tendency to not want to look too closely at things which promise = to=20 change their lives in Big (with a capital 'B'), ways. How did Bilbo = Baggins put=20 it. . ?=20

 

'We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. = Nasty=20 disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner! I can't = think what=20 anybody sees in them,'
 

Ha ha!

 

But that doesn't ever stop the forward thinking and the eager from = jumping=20 right in, pulling up new ideas, examining them with passion. And slowly = the rest=20 of the world, as always, will warm to the expanding pool of thought even = as the=20 new reality begins to dawn all around them. Escapism? But of course! = It's=20 all about escapism! They said the same thing about Science = Fiction, and=20 they were right! However, the question nobody ever asks is, "Escaping to = where?" --Think carefully, because the stories we read today are = but=20 kaleidoscope shadows of the places we'll be living in tomorrow. Our=20 subconsciouses are generally much smarter than we are, after all. They = speak to=20 us through the stories they make us want to read.=20

 

And what stories do we find ourselves drawn to?=20

 

Why, we have Tolkien summoned up in full strength and bright, fresh = armor on=20 thousands of theater screens and millions of television monitors = around=20 the world. We have Babylon 5 and Buffy, both now on DVD making the = rounds. We=20 have The Matrix, (silly as the most recent installment was). Heck, even = the=20 latest Star Wars travesties tell a similar story; examining political = upheaval=20 and universal change. Oh, and magic. Don't forget the magic. Yes, we = also have=20 young Mr. Potter, don't we?=20

 

There are new winds stirring in the world today. . .=20

 

Surely you have felt them by now.

 

------=_NextPart_001_004C_01C37D5A.58B08D40-- ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C37D5A.58AE1C40 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="Nature Bkgrd.jpg" Content-ID: <734512401@18092003-20de> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgEAYABgAAD/7QY8UGhvdG9zaG9wIDMuMAA4QklNA+0AAAAAABAAYAAAAAEA AQBgAAAAAQABOEJJTQPzAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAA4QklNBAoAAAAAAAEAADhCSU0nEAAAAAAACgAB AAAAAAAAAAI4QklNA/UAAAAAAEgAL2ZmAAEAbGZmAAYAAAAAAAEAL2ZmAAEAoZmaAAYAAAAAAAEA MgAAAAEAWgAAAAYAAAAAAAEANQAAAAEALQAAAAYAAAAAAAE4QklNA/gAAAAAAHAAAP////////// //////////////////8D6AAAAAD/////////////////////////////A+gAAAAA//////////// /////////////////wPoAAAAAP////////////////////////////8D6AAAOEJJTQQIAAAAAAAQ AAAAAQAAAkAAAAJAAAAAADhCSU0ECQAAAAAEywAAAAEAAACAAAAAYAAAAYAAAJAAAAAErwAYAAH/ 2P/gABBKRklGAAECAQBIAEgAAP/+ACdGaWxlIHdyaXR0ZW4gYnkgQWRvYmUgUGhvdG9zaG9wqCA0 LjAA/+4ADkFkb2JlAGSAAAAAAf/bAIQADAgICAkIDAkJDBELCgsRFQ8MDA8VGBMTFRMTGBEMDAwM DAwRDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAENCwsNDg0QDg4QFA4ODhQUDg4ODhQRDAwM DAwREQwMDAwMDBEMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM/8AAEQgAYACAAwEiAAIRAQMR Af/dAAQACP/EAT8AAAEFAQEBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAMAAQIEBQYHCAkKCwEAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAA AQACAwQFBgcICQoLEAABBAEDAgQCBQcGCAUDDDMBAAIRAwQhEjEFQVFhEyJxgTIGFJGhsUIjJBVS wWIzNHKC0UMHJZJT8OHxY3M1FqKygyZEk1RkRcKjdDYX0lXiZfKzhMPTdePzRieUpIW0lcTU5PSl tcXV5fVWZnaGlqa2xtbm9jdHV2d3h5ent8fX5/cRAAICAQIEBAMEBQYHBwYFNQEAAhEDITESBEFR YXEiEwUygZEUobFCI8FS0fAzJGLhcoKSQ1MVY3M08SUGFqKygwcmNcLSRJNUoxdkRVU2dGXi8rOE w9N14/NGlKSFtJXE1OT0pbXF1eX1VmZ2hpamtsbW5vYnN0dXZ3eHl6e3x//aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8A 9LDTMd04rKK3lThG1ggEQrUw2FIkDlRNjfiha6gF0kg4FOkpiUx1TkhMSEUMDWPgo+l5qcpSkjRT WhuimIQ5SlJVpZCYuChKSVJtdxJQy1ymkkgi3//Q9RbyFMmBKYDVJ/0SkgbI3OLgZ+5RT9lEnukg lcOgyp7pEhBJTtcI1KKLZkpKJeAobjJg6FJFpEkOToe4Sk8+PKSrSJ0MSNEi5wiSkpInUWuMweOJ U2w4SEkrJKUJQkqn/9H1SEjqIPCSg7yMFJCN2hhQJ0T2l0a/IhAc5x0OiKwlkXjsma4nTkKHPCky ZSWs04SHwUg0FJKwHgpAJwD8U8SkuAWjxUXjgKeoTP1A7eSCqRifgiMsgweCdVDjX705GqSmyIcJ HBTwgUvgweOwVhJcH//S9UPCC46yjO4KrkyiFslnQeUNwjQ6qadFjQFnhonY1wdCnsIGpTgcd0FU oAqQBTgJSgvpUlKQmJKb4pKtnu+aZ4BHwUdFKDGhhJVsPxCQ4+CbX4ppI18EFJK/pI9ZPHggVlsn XngI1fJRXB//0/U7DDVXHKsPEhV+CiFk91OEFIIgAcIKXpoo4VgFL0+/CdohSQXAIUxRHubED8EF 8/moIKimUHbhzKbc4d0lqQFSBKg1wPx7hTCSQs9p5HzUIJRgkGNnjVJcxqrDwQR8PgrDWhogJNaA 0acKSSX/1PUHvgIRdKcukFQTgxSKRhRQZQGorUCuiWai5v7v3KSSS5CmPwRXNB17oTgRyEFpYOAJ 118lAt00MnwRCmKKGLGO3jjzKIAYB8eEqmncTMfBGCSQGAYdR4aojGRqU4ToLlEpiUxKG5yKCX// 2QA4QklNBAYAAAAAAAcABAEBAAEBAP/+ACdGaWxlIHdyaXR0ZW4gYnkgQWRvYmUgUGhvdG9zaG9w qCA0LjAA/+4AIUFkb2JlAGQAAAAAAQMAEAMCAwYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD/2wCEAAYEBAQFBAYFBQYJ BgUGCQsIBgYICwwKCgsKCgwQDAwMDAwMEAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwBBwcH DQwNGBAQGBQODg4UFA4ODg4UEQwMDAwMEREMDAwMDAwRDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM DAwMDP/CABEIAJYAyAMBEQACEQEDEQH/xACOAAADAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAgMABAgBAQEBAQEA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAgMEEAACAgEEAgICAgMAAAAAAAAAARECAxAgIRIwMUATUDJBImAjBBEAAQMD AwQCAQUBAAAAAAAAAQARIRAxQSBRYTCBkQJxEkChscEiQtESAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAID/2gAM AwEBAhEDEQAAAPTXk0aw+pTR9xqIAAgSzicihL2tY+hrCwmLPKeFNq7EOowawDAhYEuBACY1ENCB GACG0puNWFEkMr1gQsCBKARjGjUQBCasYr0hqcQkBisri5ogQDGMYJjGohMatVdzVzZgBCxotNaB ACAFYIQ1ghNWMNqU0U5pBCwIXNpK4hNBGogDWFK1a1qJjJTQ0pzZiQM2eSwQmMGsNRNWs54dKW9e q5jU1YWI5QyTKMJmGrLqNNTGsNGsQkFEc7daeiYERyllzYShJANXRa1NWprGt1mNUMzGAVru1omp co86sc2ZGEgIa6bW0Nj0awawKhmY1Y0dm7e3E8I8qsLEhEAidG61ho0DRqI1TkmCmMdVtrXqPOx5 BACRNYafUbTAgQpg1qUkhBVi9t7Xrn42eCxghoaCw6hoQIWNKA2GjUEUUpV7ezVY5eFTNaxMiPo+ x1ERRYXISgBhrDopFAX1e/VY0cvGzxbdIIENo+pTRScQzIZCFGKWtYdGoGOvVcwIli8/JTau41AJ qQjmLCRDJYBSr6Gm0aqF7cAnix5kzTZbopqGiIQkELAhJVSUNXRa2o9NV7cCBEedlirDFOkruNox hCGYkCFBKBq67TqPRrAhMlzY8yyiGqm5TZ9xjAEiGZOBKDFavqvY1atCQmLPL//aAAgBAgABBQAg gVRIXjS2tjYxnUVSCCCCPFJJJI3sjRbJJ8E+RaTskkkn4C3ST8JD2ST8CNr0nWSfBHjZOk+GNkb2 MbHtWkEEeFbGNj+Itbb4+AtLvfAvKtFpcW2CN86LatWWENaoSI8y2WWiHUgSFsZJO+CBbLaLSCNZ 0ZGxeGRskTF4HpBHhkkeiExbX4ELY2To9EIW571sYxn/2gAIAQMAAQUA/Lz/AIzOyfyE/KX45+Bf JX45fBn8pHyV8leH/9oACAEBAAEFAOSBVYqFalULYx+rY0y2Kx9dxYbMrTqkhaSh2LWLNjHjU1xq FjQqI6IhEDWrWzjTsdjudx21hDrXSi40+yo86K5pckkobRKG1pJJPip+pfKk8jbspRJiyMdh2Gyd y2LZBX9buK+3bljJ5raat6SplCsm3dJ2vWr7VhOsKyekbYF6y/oN82fMppsx2Sq7cfbUtZu02G2x t2EpF7hxVyVyW7dl2gggggXq6mr4H6bJL3itMqa7WQ+SHECbIhxDiT+Oa2V7J1yKa2rZwQQQNpKU ZqjZayVb3Y7NlVVuEcoTQkQdWhQJDTiynR+8Wa+N4r96QRoy9ObXypXbq73dlEqGirt2TFB1FUTa FDTqcolMaizUOJr/ABgs65K2VlpdwO3LZejQ8VWOtqtMo1KgSQuBEECtoyzsmnKrwyst47dXM6ZR +2y1VYvVKzrI8VWfX/sVRVOqOqOTtY7iskTJlSmJOzQ2UT7GFvoZXy2SSJF63tZ1shptKBEjbHZn 9mQQQZO6Xax2TVbQ8Ks7sw/oZnyh+9Eh4m7dWhLV7UWTdWmhtDhmP7bPHkva2OrrV+sjl193rxpV CR9aZkpWr4HA3y2Ns5E2cnJkx9jk6s/5Kt2pjrXRmSvK915VsYqNCRVCOlZzKbZGq1eSzbvc+26K 5ZIJFo8VWLDRGPHRU0bMik9OlhMhHU9H2Um+VjaZasn10Mi/tAzFkbEhCQjFRWZJI7F8nLtJVlWJ 6IyU7JpobY5JP61Hiq30s74sWT7lSzuqtuuNu1cTZWta6NjsOxf9hFGLZeisWq6nJEjSGkODA79k lNKpCSQhjY2OxyP2IqIWy8dbKmj04P8AniUL1raRyW7H/9oACAECAgY/AG3/AP/aAAgBAwIGPwBt /wD/2gAIAQEBBj8A6myhWoAOjFvyLafZ4+t1AUwo/DFGElOc3U0Y+SfwwiafIU3FIQLvzVsrlEZC AOcoPlO8J3UY6ARh6fon81n27J1KJGLeEPZ3K+2U5ui/hciafUmclAmwjsh65M6yAtmoFFCGk5Ra n7qFNt06dfsmynGVKfIKYF863HwaOYZEdlvwntzTdSuKR4TWKZRfC23C5CBRID/KBNzpJ9SyYh1/ XwuAuQnGUG7KRWLqax4KYwVxlPR0CMfynGpzI3UQuHZM10AZ41QmPmnKLymTYNkQgBlcG+qUwEMt 2WyAxzS2mQoMUcBlyp7FP5TDe9J1kgfCYmRdWnFLK1bst6RCgxtS3ZN/kpxAFz8L5TtfoEjKY9Jh +tOVEFA+rgi7f8Te3q3NkxvocaXKYKehdPlNQvDsx8p876WUaXIlDAUXUYV7K78pjd4pFGyuVuvU NselZwmdf180bFG5T+VOF9T2NI81L2GltfOiygJ3RDMB/pACwMlfUSUwuvr57L24UZv1XacJjpuo 9fs3akJ9/wAAvZFjGBOk79H/2Q== ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C37D5A.58AE1C40-- From VM Thu Sep 18 18:31:39 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10462" "Wednesday" "17" "September" "2003" "20:29:42" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "193" "starship-design: FW: Spider Robinson" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 10462 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8I1Wae6027781 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8I1Wafu027780 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8I1WZe6027772 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:32:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19znes-0002e7-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:32:34 -0700 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: FW: Spider Robinson Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:29:42 -0500 Courtesy of Mark Oakley, Thieves and Kings: So. . . Spider Robinson is depressed about the state of Science Fiction. He cites dropping sales and no new authors replacing the old, as well as a mass defection of readers to 'Tolkienesque' fantasy. You can read his article/rant here. I can understand where he's coming from. Heck, I've heard his lament on the lips of numerous other Sci-Fi writers. To be part of a fading industry isn't exactly inspiring, seeing fellow creators slip from view, watching the dizzying excitement of a once lunatic market place die down to something which actually makes sense. . . (Well, I don't know if the paperback book market could ever really be described as 'lunatic' in quite the same way comics were for a while. . . Nobody I knew ever sealed away paperbacks in vinyl bags for posterity!) In any case, I do feel for Mr. Robinson. Moreover, though, it got me wondering. . . And, ohhh, but this is a can of worms like none other! I'll start off small. First of all, I should explain that I have always felt Science Fiction, from the day it first began to materialize, has had an expiry date stamped across its forehead. I'm not just reiterating the tried and true, "Sci-Fi will be pointless when when there really are people walking around in space suits and zipping back and forth between the stars." No, no. It's much simpler than that. See, I think stories have only two basic purposes and that everything else is just turkey trimming. Ahem. . . "I believe that stories exist for no other reason than to explore and share ideas." It works like this; when people become curious about a subject, there is a desire to examine and to consider that subject. When desire grows enough, somebody will inevitably sit down at a keyboard and hammer out a book about it. Ideas flow, you see, whether we want them to or not, and they must be contained! Recorded. Sifted through. Shared. --And if the subject is fascinating enough, why then a lot of somebodies will hammer out a whole lot of books! Look at teen romance novels for instance; because there are always young women clamoring to know everything they can about love and relationships, there is a more or less permanent market for 150 page paperback novels with sappy covers about dating and first love and all that. --When young women grow up, then we see the far more prolific 'grown up' romance novels for slightly different reasons, but still driven by the desire to spin around and absorb certain sets of ideas. So long as there are heroines, (and hormones), there will be romance novels. Not so with Science Fiction. No hormones there. (Well, actually, there were quite a lot, but that wasn't Science Fiction's reason for being.) No. Science Fiction came into existence because the millions of minds living through the first two thirds of the twentieth century were besieged with the growing awareness that technology and industry could, and very likely would achieve terrifying and spectacular wonders! --The kinds of wonders which would change the very shape of humanity itself into something new! But crikey, if people had only the dimmest clue of what that something would be. . . Indeed, people had only the most vague notions, but with Hydroelectric dams being built, telescopes probing ever more deeply into space, rockets being erected, new materials being developed, and all manner of new technological powers being discovered. . , people quickly began to realize that whatever the change was going to be, it was going to be Big with a capital 'B' --and that they'd better start thinking about it right smart quick! But no fear; the trusty human mind has ways to deal with this kind of scenario. Why, the human mind when faced with sudden shocking possibilities, will Think About Them A Lot, thank you very much. --The mind will swim in new ideas and jump around with great excitement, examining the problem from every angle as though it were a new toy, a dangerous animal, a tempting delight, tasting, poking and turning it in the light, and chattering about it incessantly until at last it understands! And so the story-tellers went into overdrive, fighting to wrest this new beast into some kind of manageable shape. Trying to tame it so that when the countless hoarde finally came upon us, we would be ready. --Indeed, so that we might even be able to direct its power towards better ends while avoiding the pitfalls in the road. And all the while, this new reality swarmed into being all around us. (Though, for many a flashlight-under-the-covers 10 year-old, not nearly fast enough!) Well, folks, I hope we all like how things are turning out, because it is rather too late to change a great deal at this point. The steam engine is now thundering along and only the most minor course corrections, (if even those), will be tolerated. That is to say, here we all are, arriving in the Future! Bet you didn't realize that, did you? But, no, look around. Re-check the road map, (the digital one in your car with satelite positioning), make a cell-phone call to your friend who is expecting you, or hop on the internet to compare travel notes. --Spend as much time as you need to make sure. Sip on some re-mineralized bottled water, or perhaps a tetra-packed beverage, and be sure to apply some SPF-40 sunscreen while you're out there scouting around. In the end you'll be forced to agree that This Is It. You're here. That'll be $29.95 please, (plus ten cents a minute on week days.) You can access your wealth from one of many convenient computerized dispensers located on any number of walls around the city. Try not to drink the city water unless you filter it first. You are welcome to enjoy the wide variety of tasty Genetically Modified foods which are discreetly used in almost every item on every menu. Don't worry; it has all been fortified with a vast list of synthetic ingredients created by the most powerful of pharmaceutical agencies on the planet. --And do please smile for the million or so video cameras you will encounter during your stay. Yes indeed! Welcome to the Future! And no, I'm sorry, but we didn't end up with those flying cars in every garage, nor do we get to live in splendid moon colonies. Energy isn't free, and neither is food. Of course, we could arguably have all of those things if we really wanted them; Unlike back in the heyday of Asimov, Bradbury and Clark, the technology for a utopian world is no longer the stuff of dreams. It's here. Right now. All of it. But sorry, no, it really doesn't look like the average Joe and Josephine will find themselves wearing jet-packs on distant worlds while engaged in daring ray gun battles with galactic smugglers. --But then, to be fair, when dealing with billions of possibilities, you really can't have everything; flying cars and ray guns for the people were only a couple of the countless futures envisioned by the many hundreds of story tellers. Unfortunately, so was Orwell's "1984". But I digress. . . The point of the matter is that the open-ended future of a billion possibilities built upon the new and wonderful promise of science and industry is no longer open-ended. Heck, if you were to ask the average person on the street, I suspect you would probably receive a fairly detailed account of where all this new stuff will take us over the next few years. As such. . . The need for stories examining all the possibilities of science and technology isn't really there anymore either. Everybody is fairly well tuned in now. Future vision is no longer a kaleidoscope of science dreaming. Not the way it once was. Sorry, Spider. The job is just about done, and the workers are rolling up the drop cloth and heading for the van. The wild flights of speculation, the story-telling party of the century, is over. Or perhaps I should say, the party has moved into the kitchen. (After all, there's always work of some sort which needs doing somewhere around the ramshackle house of humanity!) --People's minds are traveling over different terrain these days. And while some might look at the Orwellian vision and sink in their chairs with growing despair, I see a great deal more than just the backwards, corrputed, polluted and violent dystopia we were all warned about time and again. There are new and spectacular things afoot in the world! And all the millions of minds are seeking answers to these new kinds of problems. New possibilities! What possibilities? Oh, but that part is easy! Just look at popular fiction. Peer into your own headspace at the questions you find yourself asking. Or perhaps. . , the questions you are avoiding. --Remember, Science Fiction was also, for many years, a most shunned area of literature. A large number of people have a strong tendency to not want to look too closely at things which promise to change their lives in Big (with a capital 'B'), ways. How did Bilbo Baggins put it. . ? 'We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner! I can't think what anybody sees in them,' Ha ha! But that doesn't ever stop the forward thinking and the eager from jumping right in, pulling up new ideas, examining them with passion. And slowly the rest of the world, as always, will warm to the expanding pool of thought even as the new reality begins to dawn all around them. Escapism? But of course! It's all about escapism! They said the same thing about Science Fiction, and they were right! However, the question nobody ever asks is, "Escaping to where?" --Think carefully, because the stories we read today are but kaleidoscope shadows of the places we'll be living in tomorrow. Our subconsciouses are generally much smarter than we are, after all. They speak to us through the stories they make us want to read. And what stories do we find ourselves drawn to? Why, we have Tolkien summoned up in full strength and bright, fresh armor on thousands of theater screens and millions of television monitors around the world. We have Babylon 5 and Buffy, both now on DVD making the rounds. We have The Matrix, (silly as the most recent installment was). Heck, even the latest Star Wars travesties tell a similar story; examining political upheaval and universal change. Oh, and magic. Don't forget the magic. Yes, we also have young Mr. Potter, don't we? There are new winds stirring in the world today. . . Surely you have felt them by now. From VM Thu Sep 18 18:31:40 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4842" "Thursday" "18" "September" "2003" "19:11:13" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "124" "starship-design: Re: X15 space plane" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4842 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8INC9e6014630 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8INC9NT014622 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m02.mx.aol.com (imo-m02.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8INC6e6014018 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id l.189.1ee0e6b1 (4214); Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <189.1ee0e6b1.2c9b9591@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: starksk@gdls.com, rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com, Kryswalker@aol.com, daymoon@shaw.ca, Rick.Jurmain@realityworksinc.com, kathan_1@yahoo.com, casciola@mobil1.net, ben@b2foundation.com, PLove@SIKORSKY.COM, LDRSSEOCliff@aol.com, lparker@cacaphony.net, ARobnett@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: X15 space plane Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:11:13 EDT OK, I'm losing it. I heard one to many folks involved with NASA new OSP (Orbital Space Plane - a program to build a winged manned upper stage craft to taxi people to orbit -- effectively the space station) program, state emphatically that it was impossible. One winner Prof from Florida stated that it would take 15-20 years to develop the technology to build space planes. Much of the statements are pretty blatantly misleading, other ridiculously uninformed. Just to calculate how BAD NASA is doing with its assumption that a winged space plane could not be developed, I decided to go back a half century and see what a X-15 could do. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15a.htm Rocketplane. Year: 1959. Family: Air-Launched. Country: USA. Status: Hardware. Manufacturer: North American. Manned hypersonic research rocket aircraft. Launches: 290. Failures: 2. Success Rate: 99.31% pct. First Launch Date: 10 March 1959. Last Launch Date: 12 December 1968. Launch data is: complete. Apogee: 107 km. Liftoff Thrust: 23,174 kgf. Gross Mass: 14,184 kg. Empty Mass: 5,158 kg. Thrust (vac): 26,762 kgf. Isp: 276 sec. Burn time: 90 sec. Isp(sl): 239 sec. Diameter: 1.42 m. Span: 6.80 m. Length: 15.32 m. Propellants: Lox/Ammonia No Engines: 1. XLR-99 Status: Hardware. It couldn't get into space, but the idea of using it as an upper stage to a Titan booster was tossed around. Especially if you add in the drop tanks used in later flights. Those tanks provided roughly 60 seconds of additional engine burn and were used on the aircraft's Mach 6.7 flight. While adding to the speed the X-15 did achieve, the tanks also increased the aircraft's weight to almost 57,000 LB and added significantly to the drag experienced by the aircraft in flight. But neither matter a lot if it starts its burn above the atmosphere, as a spaceplane upper stage. OK, the X-15 used ammonium and oxygen fueled rocket engines. Assuming Kerosene and oxygen burning engines (the fuels more powerful and compact, and the tech was perfected in the early '60's). Delta_V = Isp * g * ln(Mo/Mf) where: Delta_V change in velocity, in units compatible with the value you use for g Isp specific impulse, in seconds g acceleration of gravity at the earth's surface 32.174 ft/sec/sec (9.805 m/sec/sec) ln() natural logarithm function Mo Mass before the burn Mf Mass after the burn Assuming Kero/Lox and the X-15's weight limits without drop tanks that's = 350 * 9.8 * ln ( 14,184 kg. / 5,158 kg. ) = 3469 m/s delta-V About half that needed to get to orbit The X-15 with drop tanks upped its fuel load by 2/3rds - so = 350 * 9.8 * ln ( 20,141 kg. / 5,158 kg. ) = 4672 m/s delta-V About 2/3rds that needed to get to orbit. So if you could get a X-15 with drop tanks on top of a conventional Expendable launcher (a '60's vintage Titan 3c could lift 8 of them to the needed Delta-V ), it could get to orbit. You'd need to upgrade its skin to handle reentry, but foaming on a rubber ablative would do it. Or actually adding some (post Vietnam era) reusable high temp skin. The X-15 used a tungsten alloy that was heavy as hell, so a little use of modern ceramics and Carbon carbon panels should be easy in its weight limits. Of course NASA has proclaimed that the above vehicles would take new technology that would take 15-20 years to develop. ;/ Oh given the craft is compatible with added drop tanks, if you add more drop tanks, or a bigger first stage booster you could get the thing to Lunar orbit without serious issues. It would take another 3000 m/s to get to the moon, but that's not huge. About equal to tripling the size of the drop tanks or only launching one of the above on said '60's era Titan-3c. Of course if you add some more post Vietnam era tech you could improve things, lighten them. And you'd want to scale it up for more then one person. But unless you scaled it up to 8 times the old weight for a single crewed X-15 with drop tanks, it would be to light for the Titan-3C. So you'd have to carry ballast or you'd over shoot low earth orbit. Kelly p.s. Titan 3C was going to launch Dynasoar in the 60's. LEO Payload: 13,100 kg. Liftoff Thrust: 1,079,550 kgf. 10,586.80 kN. Total Mass: 626,190 kg. From VM Thu Sep 18 18:31:40 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["12897" "Thursday" "18" "September" "2003" "19:29:51" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "474" "Re: starship-design: Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be (Sequel to come)" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 12897 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8INU8e6011193 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8INU8n7011192 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8INU7e6011070 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.15a.24b7b924 (4214); Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:29:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <15a.24b7b924.2c9b99ef@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 h8INU8e6011184 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, Kryswalker@aol.com, rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com, daymoon@shaw.ca, kathan_1@yahoo.com, ben@b2foundation.com Subject: Re: starship-design: Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be (Sequel to come) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:29:51 EDT I'ld disagree with much of this. It really is NASA folks hiding cheep safe access to space, and many current issues are related to science and tech (polution, resources, wealth for all, etc); but those don't seem to intrest as much as social issues - or rather that as a society no one feels they belong here. Not just persecuted minorities, everyone. Its a era where folks are not only not taugh about how science can solve tech problems. They are assured hoping for solutions means you a bad person and should acept your limits. Where kids are tauight our culture is bad to evil, and destroying the world. Where the rules are so focused on accepting even the most extreamly "alternative" lifestyles and values; that folks that want to hook up, have kids, build something, fel right and wrong arn't just maters of oppinion, feel alienated/persecuted. These arn't issues that space will solve, and NASA has done its best to prove space is impossibly inacccessable for any use. Private groups proving the later is wrong might surprize folks enough to rethink their fatalism -- but its not real likely. Kelly ================== >OPINION SPACE > > > >Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be > >The Spacefaring Web 3.17 > >by John Carter McKnight > >Scottsdale - Sep 17, 2003 > > > >This gripe began as ironic nostalgia when 21st Century reality paled in > >comparison to the projections of the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Lately > >that claim has devolved into a favored lament of grumpy old men in the >space > >community, whose stubborn refusal to acknowledge society's priorities > >threatens any real effort to advance our presence in space. > > > >A full-bore cranky-geezer rant was delivered recently by science fiction > >writer Spider (not to be confused with Kim Stanley) Robinson at the World > >Science Fiction Convention, and adapted as an op-ed article in the Toronto > >Globe and Mail > > > >The article gives voice to those in the space community who long for a > >future that never was. Whether in fiction or in policy, many are selling >the > >unwanted solutions of a failed past. They find themselves baffled by their > >loss of market share, but rather than identifying society's concerns and > >offering credible solutions, they blame us for our crass refusal to buy > >their old whine in new bottles. > > > >Robinson argues that science fiction is in a critical and financial decline > >because "[i]ncredibly, young people no longer find the real future exciting. > >They no longer find science admirable. They no longer instinctively lust >to > >go to space…. SF's central metaphor and brightest vision, lovingly polished > >and presented as entertainingly as we know how to make it, has been largely > >rejected by the world we meant to save." > > > >He is indisputably right about our rejection of the mid-20th Century view >of > >the future. Contemporary culture cannot be understood without a firm grasp > >of this key truth. But by no means does it follow that a rejection of 1950s > >"conquest of space" visions means a rejection of science fiction, or a > >closing of the door to space. > > > >Science fiction has long been what the Western once was: adventures > >idealizing the values and technologies at the forefront of the newest, >most > >interesting realms. In the Fifties, that meant space, and engineering, >and > >the customs of the technocrat and megaproject engineer. > > > >What typical Cold War-era sci fi produced was a linear extrapolation of > >technological development while assuming culture as a constant. For all >its > >intentional silliness, the epitome of this view was the cartoon series >The > >Jetsons, with its 1950s nuclear family living in a world of flying cars >and > >talking robots. > > > >That was what the world was supposed to be: mid-century middle-class America > >reproducing itself endlessly, just with better gadgets. The destruction >of > >that vision, the rejection of that future, is what Robinson laments. > > > >The future we chose, while keeping us planetbound longer than anticipated, > >has been much more complex. Technology branched into unexpected directions, > >stifling heavy engineering while innovating in communications at lightspeed. > >And, most profoundly, culture itself transformed just as rapidly. > > > >Even as a visitor from 1903 would be baffled by the gadgetry of 1953, 1953's > >citizen would find the customs and values of 2003 much more alien than >the > >prospect of little green men (as milked wonderfully for laughs in the movie > >Back To The Future). > > > >Those unexpected changes in culture and technology shaped each other. The > >end of the 1960s saw a rejection of technocracy, for many valid reasons. > > > >Industrial-age organizational methods - standardization, hierarchy, > >bureaucracy, mass movements - were rejected as dehumanizing and immoral. > >They were supplanted by better methods - networks, customization, niche > >marketing - made practicable by technological revolutions in communications > >and production. > > > >Industrial age attitudes - seeing the environment as a storehouse of > >resources rather than as our home, nature as a thing to be conquered rather > >than protected, body-count approaches to warfare - were rejected as well. > > > >Industrial age politics - governmental control of industry, the choice >of > >state-glorifying megaprojects over the health and welfare of the country's > >citizens - also met with rejection. Nuclear testing near civilian areas > >ended. Construction projects that poisoned the air and water were > >successfully opposed. > > > >And space projects with no real goal other than the glorification of the > >state came to a similar end. Thus, von Braun's state-dominated, heavy > >engineering dominated future never came to pass. > > > >Would anyone be surprised that stories glorifying these rejected > >technologies, these rejected politics, these rejected values, declined > >dramatically in market share? > > > >Yet science fiction has not withered into irrelevant yarns about a long-lost > >frontier the way the Western did. As technology and culture changed, science > >fiction transformed along with it. > > > >When human spaceflight stopped being the newest, most interesting realm, > >science fiction stopped telling so many stories about it. When computer > >science and communications technology became the new frontier, science > >fiction developed a new sub-genre, cyberpunk, that took its information > >technology as seriously as space opera ever took thrust-to-weight ratios. > > > >When cultural change became at least as interesting as technological change, > >science fiction discovered that engineering and physics weren't the only > >disciplines about which stories could be told: sociology, psychology and > >political science found a home in the literature. > > > >Robinson couldn't be farther from the mark in condemning science fiction > >readers for rejecting the "real future." The "real future" of the Jetsons > >era died a generation ago, along with Camelot and the Baby Boomers' lost > >youth. Even the cyberpunk "real future" is now our present, and its great > >authors are showing gray in their goatees. > > > >Yet there's no Next Big Thing, no hot trend in science fiction, no vision >of > >the future spreading like a virus through the zeitgeist. > > > >And what else would anyone expect? We're finding it hard enough to > >comprehend our present. Real change is outpacing our imaginations. We > >haven't really begun to live in the post- 9/11 world. Our future is changing > >between the morning news and the late-night roundup. Who can envision the > >technologies and values of twenty years out when we don't even understand > >what's going on right now? > > > >But the popular imagination has in fact found stories answering its > >concerns. What is selling, and speaking to contemporary audiences in a >way > >that science fiction is not, is epic fantasy. Rather than speculating on >a > >technological future, fantasy often imagines a preindustrial past, with > >technology replaced by magic as the means of effecting change. People who > >have never read a science fiction novel avidly devour the Harry Potter >books > >and line up for the Lord Of The Rings movies. > > > >For Robinson, this turn to fantasy, besides being a rejection of the values > >of his youth, is a sign of civilization's collapse, of anti-intellectualism, > >of contempt for reason. While there are shadings of those views in > >contemporary culture, the truth lies elsewhere. > > > >The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Buffy The Vampire Slayer touch >a > >cultural nerve that little science fiction of late has managed to do. All > >three are about individual power and responsibility: in each, small, > >seemingly ordinary people find themselves not just with the power to change > >their worlds, but with accountability for their actions in doing so. > > > >We long for that sense that we can make a difference, that we are not just > >mere ants in the hill, that we, rather than the impersonal forces of > >terrorism, globalism and recession, can shape our lives. We long for > >responsibility, both in ourselves and in others. > > > >If science fiction has declined in popularity, it's not because authors >are > >only writing tripe, as Robinson alleges. Nor is it because we in the > >audience are a bunch of superstitious savages. It is because no storyteller > >has convinced us that our pressing problems have a near-term echnological > >solution. > >Most open-minded storytellers and advocates who can read the needs of the > >audience and respond with fresh solutions are, in fact, talking about > >something other than a near-term, large-scale movement into space. Many >are > >looking backward, yes. "Where did we go wrong?" Is a much more honest > >response right now than "here's my military-industrial technological > >panacea." > > > >Few are preaching the old-time space religion, either in fiction or in > >advocacy, right now. There are some in both media still writing for the >tiny > >niche market of believers, but we're not drawing crowds because we're not > >making a widely convincing case. > > > >Some argue that a robust American space program will demonstrate our > >strength in the world and 'show them dang terrorists.' Show them precisely > >what is unclear. Robinson himself says that "inconceivable wealth and > >limitless energy lie right over our heads, within easy reach, and we're >too > >dumb to get them." > > > >Yes: legions of engineers at NASA and entrepreneurial rocket companies >are > >simply "too dumb" to get launch costs down to the point where mining an > >asteroid is cheaper than mining Kentucky. Kids these days and their liberal > >educations, no doubt. > > > >Space does provide answers to many social challenges. Just not to the ones > >at the top of the list. This is why, despite everybody's call for > >Presidential leadership of the faltering NASA human space program, the >White > >House has issued only bland generalities, and is unlikely ever to do > >otherwise. Space simply isn't the priority of anyone today other than a >tiny > >hardcore of true believers. > > > >Likewise, space fiction's market share is miniscule, and the Star Trek > >television franchise, long a touchstone of cultural concerns, is now every > >bit as lost as the Shuttle program. Let's just be deeply thankful that > >nobody at JSC has thought to solve the problem with a little orbital T&A. > > > >For those who believe that space is a viable solution to contemporary > >problems, what can we do? > > > >The answer's very simple: prove it. > > > >For engineers, prove it: build affordable civilian space transportation. > >However small a start, however humble an effort, prove the concept. > > > >For advocates, prove it: make the case without assuming we're all suddenly > >transported back to the Fifties, or supplied with zillion-dollar budgets >or > >barrels of unobtanium. Leaders don't whine about how lame their troops >are: > >they train them, educate them, inspire them, and lead. > > > >For storytellers, Spider Robinson included, prove it: if nobody else is > >writing space fiction that that reaches us where we are, write some. Tell >a > >better story than the fantasists are doing. Show us how a movement into > >space can give us back our liberty, individuality and power. Make us believe > >space is the answer. > > > >Or just take your rocking chair out onto the porch and complain there. >The > >rest of us have work to do. > > > >The Spacefaring Web is a biweekly column © 2003 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 Thu Sep 18 18:31:40 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3179" "Thursday" "18" "September" "2003" "19:46:33" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "82" "Re: starship-design: Spider Robinson" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3179 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8INkme6000325 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8INkmVn000323 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.97]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8INkle6000206 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:46:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id 4.1dc.1112bbee (4214); Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:46:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1dc.1112bbee.2c9b9dd9@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: Spider Robinson Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:46:33 EDT In a message dated 9/17/03 6:34:01 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes: >"I believe that stories exist for no other reason than to explore and share >ideas." > > >It works like this; when people become curious about a subject, there is >a desire to examine and to consider that subject. When desire grows enough, >somebody will inevitably sit down at a keyboard and hammer out a book about >it. Ideas flow, you see, whether we want them to or not, and they must >be contained! Recorded. Sifted through. Shared. --And if the subject is >fascinating enough, why then a lot of somebodies will hammer out a whole >lot of books! > > >Look at teen romance novels for instance; because there are always young >women clamoring to know everything they can about love and relationships, >there is a more or less permanent market for 150 page paperback novels >with sappy covers about dating and first love and all that. --When young women >grow up, then we see the far more prolific 'grown up' romance novels for >slightly different reasons, but still driven by the desire to spin around >and absorb certain sets of ideas. So long as there are heroines, (and >hormones), there will be romance novels. > > > >=== >Science Fiction came into existence because the millions of minds living >through the first two thirds of the twentieth century were besieged with >the growing awareness that technology and industry could, and very likely would >achieve terrifying and spectacular wonders! --The kinds of wonders which >would change the very shape of humanity itself into something new! > > >= = = > > > >Well, folks, I hope we all like how things are turning out, because it >is rather too late to change a great deal at this point. The steam engine >is now thundering along and only the most minor course corrections, (if even >those), will be tolerated. That is to say, here we all are, arriving in >the Future! > > > > >=== > >The point of the matter is that the open-ended future of a billion >possibilities built upon the new and wonderful promise of science and >industry is no longer open-ended. Heck, if you were to ask the average >person on the street, I suspect you would probably receive a fairly detailed >account of where all this new stuff will take us over the next few years. > > >As such. . . > >The need for stories examining all the possibilities of science and >technology isn't really there anymore either. Everybody is fairly well >tuned in now. Future vision is no longer a kaleidoscope of science dreaming. >Not the way it once was. Sorry, Spider. The job is just about done, and the >workers are rolling up the drop cloth and heading for the van. The wild >flights of speculation, the story-telling party of the century, is over. == Ok, this is really a non starter. To think that the futures possibilities are smaller then 50 years ago is insane! They might not involve space fleets. But they certainly involve a dizzying number of possible changes and technologies. -- I think the real issue is that folks can't imagine their are such option. That the changes in our future dwarf even the wildest speculations of the "golden age SF eras" future. From VM Thu Sep 18 18:31:40 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3908" "Thursday" "18" "September" "2003" "16:49:09" "-0700" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" nil "51" "Re: starship-design: Re: X15 space plane" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3908 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8INnAe6002956 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:49:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8INnAB7002954 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:49:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web13609.mail.yahoo.com (web13609.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.9]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h8INn9e6002938 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:49:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20030918234909.3100.qmail@web13609.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [206.148.93.3] by web13609.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:49:09 PDT In-Reply-To: <189.1ee0e6b1.2c9b9591@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on darkwing See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html for details. $Revision: 1.139 $Date: 2003-09-07 10:14:23-07 X-Security: The postmaster has not enabled quarantine of poisoned messages. Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1821519644-1063928949=:2393" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: Re: starship-design: Re: X15 space plane Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:49:09 -0700 (PDT) --0-1821519644-1063928949=:2393 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thanks, Kelly, for a marvelous illustration of how far we haven't progressed from such promising beginnings. I see this kind of thing a lot; the other day I saw a Studebaker Avanti on the street, and I think those had some features that are still ahead of our time (though I can't recall what those were, sorry). Think about this, though -- a 747, (or any modern jet) rebuilt for the rigors of reentry. It's cabin is already capable of withstanding vacuum; we just need to reshape the wings and give it appropriate engines. I don't know if you could make it fly from ground to orbit, but with that kind of capacity, who cares? Stick some boosters on it and save the in-flight meal for after the movie. The thing I'm pointing up here is how much of the needed stuff we already have in everyday use. what think ye? keep looking up, Curtis KellySt@aol.com wrote: OK, I'm losing it. I heard one to many folks involved with NASA new OSP (Orbital Space Plane - a program to build a winged manned upper stage craft to taxi people to orbit -- effectively the space station) program, state emphatically that it was impossible. One winner Prof from Florida stated that it would take 15-20 years to develop the technology to build space planes. Much of the statements are pretty blatantly misleading, other ridiculously uninformed. Just to calculate how BAD NASA is doing with its assumption that a winged space plane could not be developed, I decided to go back a half century and see what a X-15 could do. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15a.htm --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --0-1821519644-1063928949=:2393 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Thanks, Kelly, for a marvelous illustration of how far we haven't progressed from such promising beginnings. I see this kind of thing a lot; the other day I saw a Studebaker Avanti on the street, and I think those had some features that are still ahead of our time (though I can't recall what those were, sorry). Think about this, though --
 
a 747, (or any modern jet) rebuilt for the rigors of reentry. It's cabin is already capable of withstanding vacuum; we just need to reshape the wings and give it appropriate engines. I don't know if you could make it fly from ground to orbit, but with that kind of capacity, who cares? Stick some boosters on it and save the in-flight meal for after the movie. The thing I'm pointing up here is how much of the needed stuff we already have in everyday use.
 
what think ye?
 
keep looking up,
 
Curtis

KellySt@aol.com wrote:

OK, I'm losing it. I heard one to many folks involved with NASA new OSP
(Orbital Space Plane - a program to build a winged manned upper stage craft to
taxi people to orbit -- effectively the space station) program, state
emphatically that it was impossible. One winner Prof from Florida stated that it would
take 15-20 years to develop the technology to build space planes.

Much of the statements are pretty blatantly misleading, other ridiculously
uninformed.

Just to calculate how BAD NASA is doing with its assumption that a winged
space plane could not be developed, I decided to go back a half century and
see what a X-15 could do.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15a.htm

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software --0-1821519644-1063928949=:2393-- From VM Thu Sep 18 18:31:40 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["14364" "Thursday" "18" "September" "2003" "20:35:54" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "338" "starship-design: Fwd: Rutan wants to fly in space by Kittyhawk aniversary" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 14364 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8J0bUe6022847 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8J0bUm8022846 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m03.mx.aol.com (imo-m03.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8J0bSe6022769 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id i.167.25b5328f (4214); Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:35:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <167.25b5328f.2c9ba96a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on darkwing See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html for details. $Revision: 1.139 $Date: 2003-09-07 10:14:23-07 X-Security: The postmaster has not enabled quarantine of poisoned messages. Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_167.25b5328f.2c9ba96a_boundary" 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: JohnFrance@aol.com, dtaylor611@comcast.net, moschleg@erols.com, TOSReports@aol.com, daymoon@shaw.ca, Rick.Jurmain@realityworksinc.com, LDRSSEOCliff@aol.com, lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Rutan wants to fly in space by Kittyhawk aniversary Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:35:54 EDT --part1_167.25b5328f.2c9ba96a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/18/03 12:59:01 PM, starksk@gdls.com writes: >He'ld be the first non gov space craft to flyinto space, on the 100th >aniversary of the wright brothers private development of aircraft. > >Oh, did you know the Wright brothers beat out a big government funded >aircraft program? The gov program craft was catipult launched off a barge, >and the craft all just fell into the river. > > > >==> The total cost of the development and test flight program of " >SpaceShipOne" is reported to be less > > >==> than $30 million; that's about what OECD space agencies (ie Nasa, >Esa, >Nasda and the national agencies > > >==> in Europe) spend every twelve hours. The cost per flight is said to >be >going to be about $80,000 - or > > >==> about 1/1,000 of the cost of Alan Shepard's sub-orbital flight in >1961. Although SpaceShipOne is a > > >==> modern design and uses new materials, sub-orbital passenger space >flights could have started fully 30 years > > >==> ago, after the X-15 rocket plane proved out all the necessary >technology in the 1960s. > > >================================ > > >http://www.spacefuture.com/journal/journal.cgi?art=2003.09.11.spaceshipone_se cond_flight > >Fingers Crossed! > > > > > >As the test flight program of Scaled Composites Inc's sub-orbital, >passenger-carrying rocketplane "SpaceShipOne" progresses steadily, it >performed its second gliding flight on August 27. Described on Scaled >Composites' web-site the flight successfuly achieved all its objectives, >which are listed as: > >"Flying qualities and performance in the space ship feather mode. Pilot >workload and situational awareness while transitioning and handling >qualities assessment when reconfigured. As a glider, deep stall >investigation both at high and low altitude and envelope expansion out >to >200 kts and 4 G's. Lateral directional characteristics including adverse >yaw, roll rate effectiveness and control including aileron roll and full >rudder side slips." > >The flight proved out SpaceShipOne's unique re-entry configuration, and >further increases confidence that the vehicle will perform as planned when >it starts to use its rocket propulsion system. > >It's said to be an unofficial target of the program to make the world's >"First private space flight" on December 17. That is the exact centenary >of >the Wright Brothers' world-changing first aeroplane flight. If Burt Rutan's >team achieves this milestone, we can anticipate that it will receive truly >world-wide publicity. The "Wright Brothers of Space" is a catchy title >- >and the implications for the existing "space industry" are absolutely >shattering. > >The total cost of the development and test flight program of "SpaceShipOne" >is reported to be less than $30 million; that's about what OECD space >agencies (ie Nasa, Esa, Nasda and the national agencies in Europe) spend >every twelve hours. The cost per flight is said to be going to be about >$80,000 - or about 1/1,000 of the cost of Alan Shepard's sub-orbital flight >in 1961. Although SpaceShipOne is a modern design and uses new materials, >sub-orbital passenger space flights could have started fully 30 years ago, >after the X-15 rocket plane proved out all the necessary technology in >the >1960s. And there's no reason to doubt that similarly focused efforts can >reduce orbital spaceflight costs by similar orders of magnitude - which >is >all we need to realise Space Future's scenario of space tourism >development. > >These incontrovertible cost data are excellent follow-ups to Dennis Tito's >flight in April 2001 which showed that the cheapest and safest way to >travel to space is to fly on basically the same vehicle that carried Yuri >Gagarin. Trouble is, OECD space agencies have spent $1 trillion of >taxpayers' money since then - but without reducing the cost of getting >to >space by a single centime. But what could be more important than making >space accessible to the taxpayers who pay for all their work? Well, until >SpaceShipOne came along, the agencies could still squeak by, by saying >that >whatever technology is used, space travel is immensely difficult and >complex and expensive and so should be left to them - "So come back in >40 >years, but keep paying your taxes in the meantime" etc etc. > >But now that nonsense won't wash any more - and the entire world is going >to hear it on December 17. . . with a bit of luck. > >The space agencies are still in denial, of course. But that isn't going >to >prevent them being shaken to their foundations - just as trying to ignore >the implications of the Internet hasn't saved swaths of companies from >being turned inside out by the cutting of information transmission costs >to >nearly zero. > >So our fingers are crossed for the Scaled Composites team: Take care - >and >please give us the best imaginable memorial possible of the Wright >Brothers' 100th anniversary! > > >PS Even if SpaceShipOne or some other "X-Prize" contender don't hit the >December 17 deadline, the implications of their successful flights will >be >just the same whenever they occur: proving that space travel costs can >be >just 1/100 to 1/1,000 of space agencies' costs. December 17 is just a >publicity "Sweet Spot" which would guarantee the most rapid spread around >the world of this wonderfully subversive fact. > > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >Return-Path: >Received: from rly-xg06.mx.aol.com (rly-xg06.mail.aol.com [172.20.115.197]) >by air-xg02.mail.aol.com (v96.6) with ESMTP id MAILINXG21-7003f6a0e6f28e; >Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:59:01 -0400 >Received: from maiss02h.gdls.com (maiss02h.gdls.com [192.136.15.144]) >by rly-xg06.mx.aol.com (v96.6) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXG62-7003f6a0e6f28e; >Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:58:39 -0400 >Received: from maiss04h.gdls.com (maiss04h.gdls.com [136.180.1.4]) > by maiss02h.gdls.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h8IJwbTk027580; > Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:58:38 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from IS002023.gdls.com (is002023 [136.180.45.23]) > by maiss04h.gdls.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8IJwNk06865; > Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:58:25 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from IS002018.gdls.com ([136.180.45.18]) > by IS002023.gdls.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) > with ESMTP id 2003091815582182:118439 ; > Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:58:21 -0400 >Subject: Rutan wants to fly in space by Kittyhawk aniversary >To: rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com, kryswalker@aol.com, ben@b2foundation.com, > kellyst@aol.com >X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 >Message-ID: >From: starksk@gdls.com >Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:58:26 -0400 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on STL01/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June >18, 2001) at > 09/18/2003 03:58:21 PM, > Itemize by SMTP Server on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) >at > 09/18/2003 03:58:21 PM, > Serialize by Router on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) >at > 09/18/2003 03:58:31 PM, > Serialize complete at 09/18/2003 03:58:31 PM >Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >X-AOL-IP: 192.136.15.144 >X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:XXX:XX >X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 > > --part1_167.25b5328f.2c9ba96a_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-xg06.mx.aol.com (rly-xg06.mail.aol.com [172.20.115.197]) by air-xg02.mail.aol.com (v96.6) with ESMTP id MAILINXG21-7003f6a0e6f28e; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:59:01 -0400 Received: from maiss02h.gdls.com (maiss02h.gdls.com [192.136.15.144]) by rly-xg06.mx.aol.com (v96.6) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXG62-7003f6a0e6f28e; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:58:39 -0400 Received: from maiss04h.gdls.com (maiss04h.gdls.com [136.180.1.4]) by maiss02h.gdls.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h8IJwbTk027580; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:58:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IS002023.gdls.com (is002023 [136.180.45.23]) by maiss04h.gdls.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8IJwNk06865; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:58:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IS002018.gdls.com ([136.180.45.18]) by IS002023.gdls.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2003091815582182:118439 ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:58:21 -0400 Subject: Rutan wants to fly in space by Kittyhawk aniversary To: rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com, kryswalker@aol.com, ben@b2foundation.com, kellyst@aol.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: starksk@gdls.com Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:58:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on STL01/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 09/18/2003 03:58:21 PM, Itemize by SMTP Server on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 09/18/2003 03:58:21 PM, Serialize by Router on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 09/18/2003 03:58:31 PM, Serialize complete at 09/18/2003 03:58:31 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-AOL-IP: 192.136.15.144 He'ld be the first non gov space craft to flyinto space, on the 100th aniversary of the wright brothers private development of aircraft. Oh, did you know the Wright brothers beat out a big government funded aircraft program? The gov program craft was catipult launched off a barge, and the craft all just fell into the river. ==> The total cost of the development and test flight program of " SpaceShipOne" is reported to be less ==> than $30 million; that's about what OECD space agencies (ie Nasa, Esa, Nasda and the national agencies ==> in Europe) spend every twelve hours. The cost per flight is said to be going to be about $80,000 - or ==> about 1/1,000 of the cost of Alan Shepard's sub-orbital flight in 1961. Although SpaceShipOne is a ==> modern design and uses new materials, sub-orbital passenger space flights could have started fully 30 years ==> ago, after the X-15 rocket plane proved out all the necessary technology in the 1960s. ================================ http://www.spacefuture.com/journal/journal.cgi?art=2003.09.11.spaceshipone_second_flight Fingers Crossed! As the test flight program of Scaled Composites Inc's sub-orbital, passenger-carrying rocketplane "SpaceShipOne" progresses steadily, it performed its second gliding flight on August 27. Described on Scaled Composites' web-site the flight successfuly achieved all its objectives, which are listed as: "Flying qualities and performance in the space ship feather mode. Pilot workload and situational awareness while transitioning and handling qualities assessment when reconfigured. As a glider, deep stall investigation both at high and low altitude and envelope expansion out to 200 kts and 4 G's. Lateral directional characteristics including adverse yaw, roll rate effectiveness and control including aileron roll and full rudder side slips." The flight proved out SpaceShipOne's unique re-entry configuration, and further increases confidence that the vehicle will perform as planned when it starts to use its rocket propulsion system. It's said to be an unofficial target of the program to make the world's "First private space flight" on December 17. That is the exact centenary of the Wright Brothers' world-changing first aeroplane flight. If Burt Rutan's team achieves this milestone, we can anticipate that it will receive truly world-wide publicity. The "Wright Brothers of Space" is a catchy title - and the implications for the existing "space industry" are absolutely shattering. The total cost of the development and test flight program of "SpaceShipOne" is reported to be less than $30 million; that's about what OECD space agencies (ie Nasa, Esa, Nasda and the national agencies in Europe) spend every twelve hours. The cost per flight is said to be going to be about $80,000 - or about 1/1,000 of the cost of Alan Shepard's sub-orbital flight in 1961. Although SpaceShipOne is a modern design and uses new materials, sub-orbital passenger space flights could have started fully 30 years ago, after the X-15 rocket plane proved out all the necessary technology in the 1960s. And there's no reason to doubt that similarly focused efforts can reduce orbital spaceflight costs by similar orders of magnitude - which is all we need to realise Space Future's scenario of space tourism development. These incontrovertible cost data are excellent follow-ups to Dennis Tito's flight in April 2001 which showed that the cheapest and safest way to travel to space is to fly on basically the same vehicle that carried Yuri Gagarin. Trouble is, OECD space agencies have spent $1 trillion of taxpayers' money since then - but without reducing the cost of getting to space by a single centime. But what could be more important than making space accessible to the taxpayers who pay for all their work? Well, until SpaceShipOne came along, the agencies could still squeak by, by saying that whatever technology is used, space travel is immensely difficult and complex and expensive and so should be left to them - "So come back in 40 years, but keep paying your taxes in the meantime" etc etc. But now that nonsense won't wash any more - and the entire world is going to hear it on December 17. . . with a bit of luck. The space agencies are still in denial, of course. But that isn't going to prevent them being shaken to their foundations - just as trying to ignore the implications of the Internet hasn't saved swaths of companies from being turned inside out by the cutting of information transmission costs to nearly zero. So our fingers are crossed for the Scaled Composites team: Take care - and please give us the best imaginable memorial possible of the Wright Brothers' 100th anniversary! PS Even if SpaceShipOne or some other "X-Prize" contender don't hit the December 17 deadline, the implications of their successful flights will be just the same whenever they occur: proving that space travel costs can be just 1/100 to 1/1,000 of space agencies' costs. December 17 is just a publicity "Sweet Spot" which would guarantee the most rapid spread around the world of this wonderfully subversive fact. --part1_167.25b5328f.2c9ba96a_boundary-- From VM Thu Sep 18 18:45:44 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["239" "Thursday" "18" "September" "2003" "20:30:46" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "6" "RE: starship-design: Re: X15 space plane" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 239 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8J1Z1e6002582 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8J1Z1Zg002581 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8J1Yxe6002570 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:34:59 -0700 (PDT) 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 1A0A9T-0005KW-00; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:33:39 -0700 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <189.1ee0e6b1.2c9b9591@aol.com> Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: X15 space plane Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:30:46 -0500 Given all that; other equally important talking heads have said that the idea of the USAF fielding an orbital bomber to carry the CAV was impossible. Of course we all know that it is not only possible, but probably already flying ;-) Lee From VM Fri Sep 19 00:19:14 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1918" "Thursday" "18" "September" "2003" "22:37:28" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "53" "Re: starship-design: Re: X15 space plane" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1918 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8J2bce6020163 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:37:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8J2bcYP020155 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:37:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.97]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8J2bbe6019727 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:37:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.147.1947a59d (4214) for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:37:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <147.1947a59d.2c9bc5e8@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: Re: X15 space plane Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:37:28 EDT Yeah more scary, now a days we don't even have the nery to try to do what we once did. :( As to 747s. They are not airtight, and are structurally completly wrong for reentry. It would be like converting a sail boat to be a hydroplane racer. In a message dated 9/18/03 4:51:28 PM, clmanges@yahoo.com writes: >Thanks, Kelly, for a marvelous illustration of how far we haven't progressed >from such promising beginnings. I see this kind of thing a lot; the other >day I saw a Studebaker Avanti on the street, and I think those had some >features that are still ahead of our time (though I can't recall what those >were, sorry). Think about this, though -- > >a 747, (or any modern jet) rebuilt for the rigors of reentry. It's cabin >is already capable of withstanding vacuum; we just need to reshape the >wings and give it appropriate engines. I don't know if you could make it >fly from ground to orbit, but with that kind of capacity, who cares? Stick >some boosters on it and save the in-flight meal for after the movie. The >thing I'm pointing up here is how much of the needed stuff we already have >in everyday use. > >what think ye? > >keep looking up, > >Curtis > >KellySt@aol.com wrote: > >OK, I'm losing it. I heard one to many folks involved with NASA new OSP > >(Orbital Space Plane - a program to build a winged manned upper stage craft >to >taxi people to orbit -- effectively the space station) program, state >emphatically that it was impossible. One winner Prof from Florida stated >that it would >take 15-20 years to develop the technology to build space planes. > >Much of the statements are pretty blatantly misleading, other ridiculously > >uninformed. > >Just to calculate how BAD NASA is doing with its assumption that a winged >space plane could not be developed, I decided to go back a half century >and >see what a X-15 could do. > >http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15a.htm From VM Fri Sep 19 11:39:46 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1844" "Friday" "19" "September" "2003" "14:50:18" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be (Sequel to come)" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1844 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8JCqee6010160 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 05:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8JCqemI010157 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 05:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8JCqbe6009964 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 05:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id OAA08773; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:50:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200309191250.OAA08773@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, Kryswalker@aol.com, rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com, daymoon@shaw.ca, kathan_1@yahoo.com, ben@b2foundation.com, KellySt@aol.com Subject: Re: starship-design: Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be (Sequel to come) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:50:18 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Sep 19 01:29:17 2003 > From: KellySt@aol.com > > I'ld disagree with much of this. It really is NASA folks hiding cheap safe > access to space, and many current issues are related to science and tech > (polution, resources, wealth for all, etc); but those don't seem to intrest as > much as social issues - or rather that as a society no one feels they belong here. > Not just persecuted minorities, everyone. Its a era where folks are not only > not taugh about how science can solve tech problems. They are assured hoping > for solutions means you a bad person and should acept your limits. Where > kids are tauight our culture is bad to evil, and destroying the world. > Where the rules are so focused on accepting even the most extreamly "alternative" > lifestyles and values; that folks that want to hook up, have kids, build > something, fel right and wrong arn't just maters of oppinion, > feel alienated/persecuted. > Can't be more in agreement. Add also the way of thinking/acting I call the "Black single mothers" syndrome. Space (science, whatever) is an extravagance, they say, first we must take care for the poor Black single mothers (or unemployed coal miners, poor drug addicts, whatever). So they cajole or force taxpayers to fund a giant care system for them. And they succeed spectacularly - the number of Black single mothers is dynamically and steadily growing. And so is, of course, the number (and pay) of bureaucrats managing the system... > These arn't issues that space will solve, and NASA has done its best to prove > space is impossibly inacccessable for any use. Private groups proving the > later is wrong might surprize folks enough to rethink their fatalism -- but its > not real likely. > But what other hope remains? -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Fri Sep 19 11:39:46 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["266" "Friday" "19" "September" "2003" "15:37:02" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl" nil "8" "Re: starship-design: Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be (Sequel to come)" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 266 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8JDdIe6018544 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 06:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8JDdIw6018541 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 06:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8JDdGe6018368 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 06:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA08807; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:37:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200309191337.PAA08807@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, Kryswalker@aol.com, rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com, daymoon@shaw.ca, kathan_1@yahoo.com, ben@b2foundation.com, KellySt@aol.com Subject: Re: starship-design: Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be (Sequel to come) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:37:02 +0200 (MET DST) > From ben@b2foundation.com Fri Sep 19 15:33:25 2003 > > last time I checked the largest group on welfare was WHITE single mothers > Quite possible. But in campaigns for maintaining the system they somehow talk mostly about Black single mothers... -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Tue Sep 23 13:19:48 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2510" "Sunday" "21" "September" "2003" "21:40:53" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "68" "Re: starship-design: Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be (Sequel to come)" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2510 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8M1fbe6016964 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8M1fb0Z016962 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com (imo-m05.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8M1fZe6016920 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id 7.ba.46d639d6 (4568); Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:40:53 -0400 (EDT) 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: zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be (Sequel to come) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:40:53 EDT In a message dated 9/19/03 5:53:01 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Sep 19 01:29:17 2003 >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> I'ld disagree with much of this. It really is NASA folks hiding cheap >safe >> access to space, and many current issues are related to science and tech > >> (polution, resources, wealth for all, etc); but those don't seem to intrest >as >> much as social issues - or rather that as a society no one feels they >belong here. >> Not just persecuted minorities, everyone. Its a era where folks are >not only >> not taugh about how science can solve tech problems. They are assured >hoping >> for solutions means you a bad person and should acept your limits. Where > >> kids are tauight our culture is bad to evil, and destroying the world. > >> Where the rules are so focused on accepting even the most extreamly "alternative" > >> lifestyles and values; that folks that want to hook up, have kids, build > >> something, fel right and wrong arn't just maters of oppinion, >> feel alienated/persecuted. >> >Can't be more in agreement. Add also the way of thinking/acting I call >the "Black single mothers" syndrome. Space (science, whatever) is an >extravagance, they say, first we must take care for the poor Black single >mothers >(or unemployed coal miners, poor drug addicts, whatever). >So they cajole or force taxpayers to fund a giant care system for them. > >And they succeed spectacularly - the number of Black single mothers >is dynamically and steadily growing. And so is, of course, the number >(and pay) of bureaucrats managing the system... An economist would say that was obvious. Pay money for something and you get more of it. If unwed motherhood becomes a automtic qualkification to get a long term welfare support -- you get more girls deciding to go that route. And yes I find folks livid over wasting a couple billion a year on some space tech research program, saying it should be added into the hundreds of billion s a year spent on their pet welfare group. > >> These arn't issues that space will solve, and NASA has done its best >to prove >> space is impossibly inacccessable for any use. Private groups proving >the >> later is wrong might surprize folks enough to rethink their fatalism >-- but its >> not real likely. >> >But what other hope remains? Comercial of some scale is the only possible hope. no gov program will ever help. Thats not what govs do. > >-- Zenon Kulpa From VM Tue Sep 23 13:19:49 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1621" "Monday" "22" "September" "2003" "16:08:02" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl" nil "40" "Re: starship-design: Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be (Sequel to come)" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1621 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8MEALe6020040 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8MEALON020038 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8MEAIe6019975 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id QAA10643 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:08:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200309221408.QAA10643@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be (Sequel to come) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:08:02 +0200 (MET DST) > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Sep 22 03:40:18 2003 > From: KellySt@aol.com > > In a message dated 9/19/03 5:53:01 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes: > [...] > >> > >Can't be more in agreement. Add also the way of thinking/acting I call > >the "Black single mothers" syndrome. Space (science, whatever) is an > >extravagance, they say, first we must take care of the poor Black > >single mothers (or unemployed coal miners, poor drug addicts, whatever). > >So they cajole or force taxpayers to fund a giant care system for them. > > > >And they succeed spectacularly - the number of Black single mothers > >is dynamically and steadily growing. And so is, of course, the number > >(and pay) of bureaucrats managing the system... > > An economist would say that was obvious. Pay money for something > and you get more of it. If unwed motherhood becomes a automtic > qualkification to get a long term welfare support -- > you get more girls deciding to go that route. > Exactly. But who listens to economists in the Congress nowadays? [...] > >> These arn't issues that space will solve, and NASA has done > >> its best to prove space is impossibly inacccessable for any use. > >> Private groups proving the later is wrong might surprize folks > >> enough to rethink their fatalism -- but its not real likely. > >> > >But what other hope remains? > > Comercial of some scale is the only possible hope. > no gov program will ever help. Thats not what govs do. > Exactly. So please do not write "it's not really likely", as it only spreads and strenghtens the fatalism... -- Zenon Kulpa From VM Tue Sep 23 13:19:49 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1585" "Monday" "22" "September" "2003" "09:38:11" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "63" "RE: starship-design: Re: X15 space plane" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1585 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8MEf8e6009584 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8MEf8dC009583 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8MEf7e6009576 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1A1Rs9-00066D-00; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 07:41:05 -0700 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Cc: "Starship-Design" Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: X15 space plane Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:38:11 -0500 CAV = Common Aero Vehicle, a multi-purpose reentry shell that will carry a range of munitions and disperse them after reentry. BTW, my email address will probably be changing later today. I am getting over sixty worms/viruses per hour directed at my account and another two hundred bounce messages. Lee > -----Original Message----- > From: starksk@gdls.com [mailto:starksk@gdls.com] > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:12 AM > To: L. Clayton Parker > Subject: RE: starship-design: Re: X15 space plane > > > > CAV? > > > > > > > > "L. Clayton > > Parker" To: > , , > , , > hony.net> , > , > , > , > 09/18/2003 , > , > 09:30 PM , > , > > > cc: > > Subject: RE: > starship-design: Re: X15 space plane > > > > > > > Given all that; other equally important talking heads have said that the > idea of the USAF fielding an orbital bomber to carry the CAV was > impossible. > Of course we all know that it is not only possible, but probably already > flying ;-) > > Lee > > > > > From VM Tue Sep 23 13:19:49 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1768" "Monday" "22" "September" "2003" "20:22:05" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "58" "Re: starship-design: Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be (Sequel to come)" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1768 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8N0MTe6014188 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8N0MT9E014187 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.103]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8N0MSe6014114 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.1a3.1a5b3fae (25508) for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:22:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1a3.1a5b3fae.2ca0ec2d@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: Grumpy Old Men: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be (Sequel to come) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:22:05 EDT In a message dated 9/22/03 7:11:26 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes: >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Sep 22 03:40:18 2003 >> From: KellySt@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 9/19/03 5:53:01 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes: >> >[...] >> >> >> >Can't be more in agreement. Add also the way of thinking/acting I call >> >the "Black single mothers" syndrome. Space (science, whatever) is an >> >extravagance, they say, first we must take care of the poor Black >> >single mothers (or unemployed coal miners, poor drug addicts, whatever). >> >So they cajole or force taxpayers to fund a giant care system for them. >> > >> >And they succeed spectacularly - the number of Black single mothers > >> >is dynamically and steadily growing. And so is, of course, the number >> >(and pay) of bureaucrats managing the system... >> >> An economist would say that was obvious. Pay money for something >> and you get more of it. If unwed motherhood becomes a automtic >> qualkification to get a long term welfare support -- >> you get more girls deciding to go that route. >> >Exactly. But who listens to economists in the Congress nowadays? Thats just so un-PC. ;) > >[...] > >> >> These arn't issues that space will solve, and NASA has done >> >> its best to prove space is impossibly inacccessable for any use. > >> >> Private groups proving the later is wrong might surprize folks >> >> enough to rethink their fatalism -- but its not real likely. >> >> >> >But what other hope remains? >> >> Comercial of some scale is the only possible hope. >> no gov program will ever help. Thats not what govs do. >> >Exactly. So please do not write "it's not really likely", >as it only spreads and strenghtens the fatalism... ?? > >-- Zenon Kulpa From VM Wed Sep 24 13:14:07 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3669" "Tuesday" "23" "September" "2003" "19:15:42" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "100" "starship-design: Fwd: No Subject" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3669 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8NNG1NM029536 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8NNG14r029530 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com (imo-r03.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.99]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8NNFxNM029427 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.158.24f2d349 (4394); Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <158.24f2d349.2ca22e1e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on darkwing See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html for details. $Revision: 1.139 $Date: 2003-09-07 10:14:23-07 X-Security: The postmaster has not enabled quarantine of poisoned messages. Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_158.24f2d349.2ca22e1e_boundary" 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, sdenbes1@san.rr.com, daymoon@shaw.ca, Rick.Jurmain@realityworksinc.com, kathan_1@yahoo.com, Kath2go@yahoo.com, ben@b2foundation.com, LDRSSEOCliff@aol.com, lparker@cacaphony.net Subject: starship-design: Fwd: No Subject Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 19:15:42 EDT --part1_158.24f2d349.2ca22e1e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/23/03 2:32:19 PM, starksk@gdls.com writes: > >Article has some details on how POINTEDLY they told NASA they weer droping >the ball on this - and had a attitude that you recover the craft to recover >the crew. > >The ejection pod in the payload bay, with ejection seats for the pilot >& >copilot, is a interesting idea. > > > >http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=780 > > Safety Panel to NASA: Build a "Full Envelope" Shuttle Escape System > > >Keith Cowing >Wednesday, March 26, 2003 > >NASA needs to stop studying crew escape systems for the Space Shuttle and >start building them. Moreover, such an escape system should allow the crew >to safely depart the Shuttle during all phases of flight - so says the >agency's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. > > >In a rather spirited discussion at NASA Headquarters on Wednesday, NASA >Administrator Sean O'Keefe and several === --part1_158.24f2d349.2ca22e1e_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (rly-yb03.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.3]) by air-yb02.mail.aol.com (v96.6) with ESMTP id MAILINYB22-1903f70bbdfe1; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:32:18 -0400 Received: from maiss02h.gdls.com (maiss02h.gdls.com [192.136.15.144]) by rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (v96.6) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYB310-1903f70bbdfe1; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:32:15 -0400 Received: from maiss04h.gdls.com (maiss04h.gdls.com [136.180.1.4]) by maiss02h.gdls.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h8NLWDTk011595; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:32:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IS002023.gdls.com (is002023 [136.180.45.23]) by maiss04h.gdls.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8NLWDk04424; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:32:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IS002018.gdls.com ([136.180.45.18]) by IS002023.gdls.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2003092317321290:211990 ; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:32:12 -0400 Subject: To: hanked@gdls.com, rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com, kryswalker@aol.com, kellyst@aol.com, ben@b2foundation.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: starksk@gdls.com Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:32:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on STL01/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 09/23/2003 05:32:12 PM, Itemize by SMTP Server on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 09/23/2003 05:32:12 PM, Serialize by Router on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 09/23/2003 05:32:13 PM, Serialize complete at 09/23/2003 05:32:13 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-AOL-IP: 192.136.15.144 Article has some details on how POINTEDLY they told NASA they weer droping the ball on this - and had a attitude that you recover the craft to recover the crew. The ejection pod in the payload bay, with ejection seats for the pilot & copilot, is a interesting idea. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=780 Safety Panel to NASA: Build a "Full Envelope" Shuttle Escape System Keith Cowing Wednesday, March 26, 2003 NASA needs to stop studying crew escape systems for the Space Shuttle and start building them. Moreover, such an escape system should allow the crew to safely depart the Shuttle during all phases of flight - so says the agency's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. In a rather spirited discussion at NASA Headquarters on Wednesday, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe and several === --part1_158.24f2d349.2ca22e1e_boundary-- From VM Thu Sep 25 14:01:27 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3082" "Wednesday" "24" "September" "2003" "18:43:05" "-0400" "Netbug" "netbug@rogers.com" nil "119" "starship-design: UNSUBSCRIBE" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3082 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8OMhNNM009876 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8OMhNRN009875 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com (fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.86.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8OMhLNM009750 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:43:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netbug ([24.156.202.52]) by fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com (InterMail vM.5.01.05.12 201-253-122-126-112-20020820) with ESMTP id <20030924224247.DRNS83282.fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@netbug> for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:42:47 -0400 Message-ID: <004701c382ed$3b4ae550$6400a8c0@netbug> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on darkwing See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html for details. $Revision: 1.139 $Date: 2003-09-07 10:14:23-07 X-Security: The postmaster has not enabled quarantine of poisoned messages. Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0048_01C382CB.B4394550" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [24.156.202.52] using ID at Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:42:39 -0400 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Netbug" From: "Netbug" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: starship-design: UNSUBSCRIBE Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:43:05 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C382CB.B4394550 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C382CB.B4394550 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -->

 

------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C382CB.B4394550-- From VM Thu Sep 25 14:01:27 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3082" "Wednesday" "24" "September" "2003" "18:46:18" "-0400" "Netbug" "netbug@rogers.com" nil "119" "starship-design: Sorry about previous message. NT" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3082 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8OMkaNM013284 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8OMkaeq013283 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fep03-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com (fep03-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.86.73]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8OMkYNM013182 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netbug ([24.156.202.52]) by fep03-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com (InterMail vM.5.01.05.12 201-253-122-126-112-20020820) with ESMTP id <20030924224628.ZCXZ516634.fep03-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@netbug> for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:46:28 -0400 Message-ID: <004e01c382ed$ae5b87c0$6400a8c0@netbug> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on darkwing See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html for details. $Revision: 1.139 $Date: 2003-09-07 10:14:23-07 X-Security: The postmaster has not enabled quarantine of poisoned messages. Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004F_01C382CC.2749E7C0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep03-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [24.156.202.52] using ID at Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:46:20 -0400 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Netbug" From: "Netbug" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Subject: starship-design: Sorry about previous message. NT Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:46:18 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C382CC.2749E7C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C382CC.2749E7C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -->

 

------=_NextPart_000_004F_01C382CC.2749E7C0-- From VM Thu Sep 25 14:01:27 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1102" "Wednesday" "24" "September" "2003" "22:16:24" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "55" "starship-design: Re: Lunar concat link" "^From:" nil nil "9" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1102 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8P2GZNM022960 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8P2GZ79022958 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8P2GYNM022919 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id 2.173.20052215 (4568); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <173.20052215.2ca3a9f8@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: j.cowie@nutsoc.org.uk, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Lunar concat link Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:16:24 EDT That's for your interest, and inclusion in your web site. I glad you found it valuable enough to mention. Though I'd like to link back to you. We currently have no access to the site to even fix its internal problems. The founder left the group without forwarding account passwords and such. Please don't interpret this as an unwillingness to reciprocate, we just can't modify the pages. Sorry, and thanks again for the interest. Kelly Starks In a message dated 9/24/03 3:37:50 AM, j.cowie@nutsoc.org.uk writes: >Dear lunar site, > > >Have checked out your site which is fun (even have some of the source material >myself). > >http://www.ibiblio.org/lunar/school/ > > >I will ask our web master to put your site up on our links page >under the section 'Science topics' and called > >Lunar (+ other) development > >this fits in with our house style. > >If you wish to reciprocate with a link back from your site then that would >be great. > > >Regards > > >Jonathan > >(Editor Science Fact & Fiction Concatenation) > >www.concatentation.org > > >Alan - is this OK? > >Best > >Jonathan From VM Thu Oct 9 10:15:20 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1293" "Thursday" "9" "October" "2003" "01:19:04" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "34" "starship-design: New Shuttle" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1293 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h995JEE8019852 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 22:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h995JEfi019850 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 22:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m07.mx.aol.com (imo-m07.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.162]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h995JDE8019811 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 22:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id l.20.1a1f6acb (4568); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:19:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20.1a1f6acb.2cb649c8@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: starksk@gdls.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: New Shuttle Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:19:04 EDT And speaking OF a Future Shuttle, the RLV news site: HobbySpace - Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) News http://www.hobbyspace.com/Links/RLVNews.html Had a link to the following article: NASA Changes The Focus Of Future ISS Cargo Delivery Plans | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=878 The gist? The "Alternate" access to space program has fundamentally changed. It is now the ASSURED access to space program and NASA has been visiting contractors and letting them know they are planning on retiring the Shuttle in a few years and they WILL require a 'Shuttle-class" cargo vehicle. Now whether Congress will fund this requirement, or not is not yet known. The OTHER 'downside' of this changes is that current startups which were counting on supply runs to the ISS for startup missions will be pretty much dumped. The 'up' side of this is that Kelly's aerospace companies get to prove what he's been saying for years. That they are ready and willing to trot out a Shuttle replacement at a moments notice. (As long as NASA foots the bills :o) What OTHER effects this will have... well we'll see.... Randy From VM Thu Oct 9 18:30:25 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["14282" "Thursday" "9" "October" "2003" "21:18:08" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "321" "starship-design: Fwd: New shutle" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 14282 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9A1IgE8022897 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9A1Ig9S022896 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-m03.mx.aol.com (imo-m03.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.6]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9A1IfE8022876 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id y.1d5.1225c253 (4214); Thu, 9 Oct 2003 21:18:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1d5.1225c253.2cb762d0@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on darkwing See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html for details. $Revision: 1.139 $Date: 2003-09-07 10:14:23-07 X-Security: The postmaster has not enabled quarantine of poisoned messages. Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_1d5.1225c253.2cb762d0_boundary" 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: daymoon@shaw.ca, kathan_1@yahoo.com, Kath2go@yahoo.com, LDRSSEOCliff@aol.com, PLove@SIKORSKY.COM, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, JohnFrance@aol.com, dtaylor611@comcast.net, moschleg@erols.com, TOSReports@aol.com Subject: starship-design: Fwd: New shutle Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 21:18:08 EDT --part1_1d5.1225c253.2cb762d0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/9/03 6:20:09 AM, starksk@gdls.com writes: > > >http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=878 > > NASA Changes The Focus Of Future ISS Cargo Delivery Plans > > >Keith Cowing, NASA Watch >Tuesday, October 07, 2003 > >NASA has decided to dramatically alter its approach to developing new means >of cargo transport to the International Space Station (ISS). In a meeting >held at NASA headquarters on Tuesday, four companies under contract to >study so called "Alternate Access" ("Alt Access") concepts, were given >details of NASA's new direction. > > >The initial idea of Alt Access was to find ways to augment the planned >cargo capability for the Space Shuttle, Europe's ATV (Automated Transfer >Vehicle), Japan's HTV (H-II Transfer Vehicle) and Russia's Progress >vehicles. > > >NASA now uses the phrase "Assured Access" to supplant "Alternate Access" >to >describe its interest in new cargo capabilities to the ISS. > > >The companies originally under contract to participate in the Alt Access >effort (funded out to the Space Launch Initiative - SLI) were: Andrews >Space and Technology ($2.9 million); Lockheed Martin,($3 million); Boeing >($2.6 million); and Constellation Services International ($2.3 million). > > >These contracts were set to expire in July 2003. After concerns over this >termination were raised in Congress, NASA decided to extend these >contracts. $4 million in additional funds was divided among these companies >for additional work to be performed in 2003. Data is due to be delivered >to >NASA no later than the end of December regarding cost and performance >concepts. Final contract deliverables are due to NASA In January 2004. > > >NASA is now interested in having a reliable or "assured" means of >delivering cargo to the ISS in the 2011 time frame. "Alternate" means of >delivering cargo is no longer the highest driver - making sure that cargo >can be delivered is. This "assured" capability is needed to replace the >cargo carrying capability of the Space Shuttle which NASA now feels >pressured to retire (at least as a vehicle carrying humans) much sooner >than it had planned to - and to replace its human transport capabilities >with the Orbital Space Plane (OSP). > > >In essence NASA is now looking to replace the capability of the Shuttle >immediately aft of the crew compartment bulkhead - the trailer behind the >cab, if you will. > > >Studies are reportedly under way at Code B at NASA Headquarters which look >at the implications of halting shuttle missions sooner rather than later. >At Tuesday's meeting NASA made mention of the fact that Congress and the >CAIB were indeed calling for NASA to stop flying the Shuttle as soon as >possible. > > >However strong the call NASA hears to stop flying humans aboard Space >Shuttles, NASA still sees the need to have a heavy cargo carrying capacity >in place - just in case future projects should require it. As such, NASA >is >still reluctant to do away with the Shuttle system entirely. Alas, NASA >has >no identified heavy lift requirements after the ISS is completed to >actually drive future planning. Discussions are being held at the White >House on possible new directions - but so far these discussions are, only >discussions. > > >Providing this Assured Access capability will be run under a separate >budget than the OSP - that of the NGLT (Next Generation Launch Technology). >Moreover, the additional funds to develop this capability, (certainly to >be >in the billions) will also have to be found since no mention is made in >current budget projects. > > >Dennis Smith from NASA MSFC as making the rounds on Capitol Hill last week >and told Congressional staff that the cost of getting to a CRV (crew >return) capability for the OSP - by 2008 - will cost between $11-12 >billion. The cost to get the OSP to have a CTV (crew transport) capability >atop an EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) is still not known - at >least Smith has not been able to provide those numbers to Congress. > > >Attendees at Tuesday's meeting were provided with details of a Design >Reference Mission (DRM) which is based upon the needs of the ISS program. >The DRM calls for the transport of 48,700 kg (107,140 lbs) in upmass and >packing and 34,800 (76,560 lbs.) in downmass and packing every year. There >also needs to be the capability to carry at least two ISPRs (international >Standard Payload Racks) up and down on any given flight. NASA claims that >such a downmass requirement is needed in case there is a shortage of ORU's >(Orbital Replacement Units) in the future - things that might no longer >be >manufactured by the original vendors. > > >No specific direction has been given by NASA as to whether such an Assured >Access cargo capability is - or should be - a derivation of OSP systems >- >or of existing Shuttle systems. However, it is clear that NASA is looking >to replace the a cargo bay of a Shuttle orbiter - and its ability to bring >things back to Earth while human transport responsibilities are to be >assigned to the OSP. > > >Also, instead of embracing the notion of multiple capabilities to deliver >cargo to the ISS (as was the implication under Alt Access) NASA is now >clearly looking in the direction of a capability that would have a single >implementation. > > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >Return-Path: >Received: from rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (rly-zd01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.225]) >by air-zd01.mail.aol.com (v96.8) with ESMTP id MAILINZD14-38f3f85608315b; >Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:20:09 -0400 >Received: from maiss02h.gdls.com (maiss02h.gdls.com [192.136.15.144]) >by rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (v96.8) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINZD11-38f3f85608315b; >Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:20:03 -0400 >Received: from maiss04h.gdls.com (maiss04h.gdls.com [136.180.1.4]) > by maiss02h.gdls.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h99DK1n6002840; > Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:20:02 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from IS002023.gdls.com (is002023 [136.180.45.23]) > by maiss04h.gdls.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h99DK1a26370; > Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:20:01 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from IS002018.gdls.com ([136.180.45.18]) > by IS002023.gdls.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) > with ESMTP id 2003100909200042:278930 ; > Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:20:00 -0400 >Subject: New shutle >To: rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com, hanked@gdls.com, kryswalker@aol.com, > kellyst@aol.com, ben@b2foundation.com >X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 >Message-ID: >From: starksk@gdls.com >Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:20:00 -0400 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on STL01/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June >18, 2001) at > 10/09/2003 09:20:00 AM, > Itemize by SMTP Server on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) >at > 10/09/2003 09:20:00 AM, > Serialize by Router on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) >at > 10/09/2003 09:20:01 AM, > Serialize complete at 10/09/2003 09:20:01 AM >Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >X-AOL-IP: 192.136.15.144 >X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:XXX:XX >X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 > > --part1_1d5.1225c253.2cb762d0_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (rly-zd01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.225]) by air-zd01.mail.aol.com (v96.8) with ESMTP id MAILINZD14-38f3f85608315b; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:20:09 -0400 Received: from maiss02h.gdls.com (maiss02h.gdls.com [192.136.15.144]) by rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (v96.8) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINZD11-38f3f85608315b; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:20:03 -0400 Received: from maiss04h.gdls.com (maiss04h.gdls.com [136.180.1.4]) by maiss02h.gdls.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h99DK1n6002840; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:20:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IS002023.gdls.com (is002023 [136.180.45.23]) by maiss04h.gdls.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h99DK1a26370; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:20:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IS002018.gdls.com ([136.180.45.18]) by IS002023.gdls.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2003100909200042:278930 ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:20:00 -0400 Subject: New shutle To: rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com, hanked@gdls.com, kryswalker@aol.com, kellyst@aol.com, ben@b2foundation.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: starksk@gdls.com Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:20:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on STL01/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/09/2003 09:20:00 AM, Itemize by SMTP Server on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/09/2003 09:20:00 AM, Serialize by Router on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/09/2003 09:20:01 AM, Serialize complete at 10/09/2003 09:20:01 AM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-AOL-IP: 192.136.15.144 http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=878 NASA Changes The Focus Of Future ISS Cargo Delivery Plans Keith Cowing, NASA Watch Tuesday, October 07, 2003 NASA has decided to dramatically alter its approach to developing new means of cargo transport to the International Space Station (ISS). In a meeting held at NASA headquarters on Tuesday, four companies under contract to study so called "Alternate Access" ("Alt Access") concepts, were given details of NASA's new direction. The initial idea of Alt Access was to find ways to augment the planned cargo capability for the Space Shuttle, Europe's ATV (Automated Transfer Vehicle), Japan's HTV (H-II Transfer Vehicle) and Russia's Progress vehicles. NASA now uses the phrase "Assured Access" to supplant "Alternate Access" to describe its interest in new cargo capabilities to the ISS. The companies originally under contract to participate in the Alt Access effort (funded out to the Space Launch Initiative - SLI) were: Andrews Space and Technology ($2.9 million); Lockheed Martin,($3 million); Boeing ($2.6 million); and Constellation Services International ($2.3 million). These contracts were set to expire in July 2003. After concerns over this termination were raised in Congress, NASA decided to extend these contracts. $4 million in additional funds was divided among these companies for additional work to be performed in 2003. Data is due to be delivered to NASA no later than the end of December regarding cost and performance concepts. Final contract deliverables are due to NASA In January 2004. NASA is now interested in having a reliable or "assured" means of delivering cargo to the ISS in the 2011 time frame. "Alternate" means of delivering cargo is no longer the highest driver - making sure that cargo can be delivered is. This "assured" capability is needed to replace the cargo carrying capability of the Space Shuttle which NASA now feels pressured to retire (at least as a vehicle carrying humans) much sooner than it had planned to - and to replace its human transport capabilities with the Orbital Space Plane (OSP). In essence NASA is now looking to replace the capability of the Shuttle immediately aft of the crew compartment bulkhead - the trailer behind the cab, if you will. Studies are reportedly under way at Code B at NASA Headquarters which look at the implications of halting shuttle missions sooner rather than later. At Tuesday's meeting NASA made mention of the fact that Congress and the CAIB were indeed calling for NASA to stop flying the Shuttle as soon as possible. However strong the call NASA hears to stop flying humans aboard Space Shuttles, NASA still sees the need to have a heavy cargo carrying capacity in place - just in case future projects should require it. As such, NASA is still reluctant to do away with the Shuttle system entirely. Alas, NASA has no identified heavy lift requirements after the ISS is completed to actually drive future planning. Discussions are being held at the White House on possible new directions - but so far these discussions are, only discussions. Providing this Assured Access capability will be run under a separate budget than the OSP - that of the NGLT (Next Generation Launch Technology). Moreover, the additional funds to develop this capability, (certainly to be in the billions) will also have to be found since no mention is made in current budget projects. Dennis Smith from NASA MSFC as making the rounds on Capitol Hill last week and told Congressional staff that the cost of getting to a CRV (crew return) capability for the OSP - by 2008 - will cost between $11-12 billion. The cost to get the OSP to have a CTV (crew transport) capability atop an EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) is still not known - at least Smith has not been able to provide those numbers to Congress. Attendees at Tuesday's meeting were provided with details of a Design Reference Mission (DRM) which is based upon the needs of the ISS program. The DRM calls for the transport of 48,700 kg (107,140 lbs) in upmass and packing and 34,800 (76,560 lbs.) in downmass and packing every year. There also needs to be the capability to carry at least two ISPRs (international Standard Payload Racks) up and down on any given flight. NASA claims that such a downmass requirement is needed in case there is a shortage of ORU's (Orbital Replacement Units) in the future - things that might no longer be manufactured by the original vendors. No specific direction has been given by NASA as to whether such an Assured Access cargo capability is - or should be - a derivation of OSP systems - or of existing Shuttle systems. However, it is clear that NASA is looking to replace the a cargo bay of a Shuttle orbiter - and its ability to bring things back to Earth while human transport responsibilities are to be assigned to the OSP. Also, instead of embracing the notion of multiple capabilities to deliver cargo to the ISS (as was the implication under Alt Access) NASA is now clearly looking in the direction of a capability that would have a single implementation. --part1_1d5.1225c253.2cb762d0_boundary-- From VM Mon Oct 13 10:11:36 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1123" "Sunday" "12" "October" "2003" "12:55:52" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "39" "starship-design: Re: Starship Design" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1123 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9CGu4E8019138 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9CGu4Nx019137 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9CGu2E8019111 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id i.187.20653d2f (4206); Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:55:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <187.20653d2f.2cbae198@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: Brian.V.Mansur@dmu.edu, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Starship Design Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:55:52 EDT Thanks brian, I'll check out the web sit, and pass on your note to the group. In a message dated 10/11/03 7:16:13 PM, Brian.V.Mansur@dmu.edu writes: >Dear Kelly Starks, > > > >I see that as recently as a few years ago, you were still working on Starship >design (I've been thinking about it myself again as a result of the recent >Discover Magazine article on the familiar concepts already out there. >While searching for on-line discussions, I ran across one of your more >recent e-mails at http://www.uoregon.edu/~stevev/sd-archive/sd-2001-1/msg00018.html. > There, the nature of inertia was being discussed. If you are still interested >(two years later) on the subject. I found something of possible interest >at the following website. http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/mercury.html > > > >Hope things are well with you. I'm about a month from graduating from >medical school and will relocate to Fort Bragg, North Carolina for residency >with the Army. > > > >Kindest Regards, > >Brian V. Mansur > > > >P.S. Never stop reaching for the stars. By the grace of God, someone will >get there eventually. From VM Mon Oct 13 16:59:01 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["27095" "Monday" "13" "October" "2003" "19:29:48" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "810" "starship-design: Fwd: NASA's new culture - Touche feely??!!!" "^From:" nil nil "10" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 27095 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9DNVDE8006807 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id h9DNVD3n006799 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9DNVCE8006321 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.169.25022ab1 (25508); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:29:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <169.25022ab1.2cbc8f6c@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on darkwing See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html for details. $Revision: 1.139 $Date: 2003-09-07 10:14:23-07 X-Security: The postmaster has not enabled quarantine of poisoned messages. Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_169.25022ab1.2cbc8f6c_boundary" 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, sdenbes1@san.rr.com, kathan_1@yahoo.com, LDRSSEOCliff@aol.com Subject: starship-design: Fwd: NASA's new culture - Touche feely??!!! Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:29:48 EDT --part1_169.25022ab1.2cbc8f6c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/13/03 10:52:28 AM, starksk@gdls.com writes: > >http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/10/12/nasa.reformers.ap/index.html > > >Managers aim to cultivate new NASA culture >'I care about people's feelings,' one says > > >Sunday, October 12, 2003 Posted: 6:46 PM EDT (2246 GMT) > > > > > > > > > > >JOHNSON SPACE CENTER, Texas (AP) -- In the land of rocket science, where >numbers count for everything and hunches are scorned, two men are on a >mission more difficult than plugging a hole in the space shuttle. > > >They're trying to make NASA's shuttle program a warmer, fuzzier place by >recrafting the culture that doomed Columbia, and Challenger before that. > > >To these reformers, that means being super-sensitive about their words, >their tone, their height, even the shape of their conference table. > > >"None of this is too touchy-feely for me," says Bill Parsons, an ex-Marine >who took over NASA's decimated shuttle program following the Columbia >accident. > > >Parsons knows his 6-foot-5, 222-pound frame is intimidating, so he tries >not to tower over anyone. He's recruited a colleague to critique his >meetings with employees, to make sure he sends the right message and sets >an encouraging tone. > > >His hand-picked deputy, Wayne Hale, a shorter, stouter fellow, is stocking >up on sociology books and reshaping the team that oversees each shuttle >flight, along with the team's conference table. > > >"We talk about the shape of the table and everybody giggles," he says. > > >Hale hasn't hit the furniture store yet. But he's trying to figure out >"how >to deal with the human question, the human element in these communication >issues." > > >This is all penance for Columbia's final flight. > > >Columbia accident investigators blasted NASA for creating an environment >in >which engineers were too afraid to speak up about potential dangers and >managers were too caught up with flight schedules. > > >The space agency's broken culture, along with a ripped slice of insulating >foam, proved deadly for Columbia and its seven astronauts. For Challenger >and its seven astronauts 17 years earlier, it was a decayed culture >combined with cold-stiffened O-rings. > > >New Age NASA? > > > > > > > >The flight director who guided the Apollo 11 moon landing and the Apollo >13 >rescue finds the space agency's new, soft, mushy approach distasteful -- >and flat-out wrong. > > >"Look, these people are professionals. They're being paid a professional >wage. If they have a problem, I expect them to stand up and speak up. >Period," says Gene Kranz, the subject of the recent History Channel >documentary, "Failure Is Not an Option." The title is borrowed from his >2000 autobiography. > > >"We've got 19- and 20- and 21-year-olds over in Iraq right now who have >to >make daily decisions. It's no ambiguity. I don't think we should expect >anything less of the people who are working in the space program. Daily >decisions, no ambiguity," the 70-year-old Kranz says, his words clipped >as >short as his lifelong crewcut. > > >Kranz isn't the only old-timer complaining about the New Age NASA. > > >Retired space program veterans from the 1960s and '70s are asking Hale >how >he, as chairman of the mission management team for all future shuttle >flights, will make potential life-and-death decisions if there is an >overload of opinion, gut feelings and hunches -- and no consensus. > > >Do what we did, they tell him. > > >Hale shudders at the thought. > > >"They were dealing with all-white males, and there was a lot of >in-your-face, militaristic almost (communication)," says Hale, 49, a former >shuttle flight director. > > >Soft-spoken and bald with a storyteller's voice and a fondness for >space-motif and stars-and-stripes ties, he says: "I'm still a student at >this, but if you want to inhibit communication, that's a good way to do >it >these days." > > >Even Parsons, 46, a former Marine infantry officer, disapproves of >nose-to-nose yelling matches. > > >"To be honest, there are a lot of people I thought were much more qualified >to do this job than myself. But I think the reason I was picked is because >I can nurture a team. I can help that team grow confidence in itself," >he >says in a thick Mississippi accent. > > >Parsons was director of NASA's Stennis Space Center in his home state when >the space agency asked him to move to Houston for the top shuttle job last >spring, three months after the Columbia tragedy. He replaced Ron Dittemore, >the face and voice of NASA in the wake of the disaster. > > >A one-time sub-six-minute-miler, Parsons maintains a runner's physique >under natty dress suits. He knows he can't escape his big Marine image. > > >"But I've spent my life trying to make sure that I didn't intimidate >people. I don't like to walk up to people and tower over them. I know how >that feels," he says. > > >"I care about people's feelings." > > >'In God we trust, all others bring data' > > > > > > > >NASA spaceflight officials never used to worry about the emotional >ramifications of their actions or fear among the working masses -- "the >working-level devils," as Kranz affectionately calls them. > > >The opinions of technicians and engineers, no matter how low on the ladder, >were not only respected, but sought by flight directors like the legendary >Kranz. He practiced "defense in depth," so that if a technical problem >slipped past one group, it would be caught by the next, or the next. He >demanded toughness, competence, confidence. > > >He contends the NASA of yesteryear would not have allowed the Columbia >accident. The system would have fixed the recurring launch problem of >breakaway fuel-tank foam, he says. > > >Midlevel management -- gutted during the 1990s to save money -- is where >Kranz would turn to hear about workers' gut feelings. If two or three >workers had the same hunch -- even without data to back it up -- then that >would be enough for Kranz to call a halt and investigate, and to collect >more data. > > >The framed plaque from that era still hangs in the Mission Evaluation Room >at Johnson Space Center, downstairs from Mission Control: > > >"In God we trust, all others bring data." > > >With Columbia, engineers had no data, just a sick, sinking feeling when >they saw the video and film images of the chunk of foam smacking the ship's >left wing during liftoff in January. Their repeated requests for spy >satellite pictures were ignored or overruled, so no one knew Columbia had >a >mortal gash that would let in scorching atmospheric gases when the >spacecraft headed home. > > >To his everlasting regret, Hale -- who initially pursued the request for >satellite photos -- ultimately came down on the side of mission management >team leader Linda Ham, who nixed the pictures. > > >Hale grows quiet when asked if the episode was a good lesson in his new >role as Ham's replacement: "It's a lesson that was too dear to learn ... >the price was too high." > > >Columbia was lost over Texas that Saturday morning in February, when the >ship ripped apart just 16 minutes short of a Florida homecoming. Hale was >waiting at the Kennedy Space Center landing strip, along with other agency >bigwigs and the astronauts' families. > > >Timetable pressure > > > > > > > >By summer, Ham was shoved into a lower-ranking engineering job and Hale >was >moving back to Houston from Cape Canaveral. > > >Parsons needed him. > > >Not only does Hale live every day with the pain of being wrong, he also >knows firsthand what it's like to be too afraid to speak up. > > >Last year, he was angry when NASA headquarters in Washington issued >computer screen-savers to shuttle managers counting down in days, hours, >minutes and seconds to the February 19, 2004, launch date for the final >U.S. segment of the international space station. > > >Hale vowed to write NASA boss Sean O'Keefe that the screen-savers were >sending the wrong message by stressing flight deadlines and putting >pressure on everyone. But he didn't. > > >"I was inhibited for sociological reasons. He's way up there, I'm way down >here. He didn't want my advice and he didn't know who I am. > > >"Now you talk about guilt." > > >In its final report in August, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board >cited the screen-savers as evidence of the timetable pressure that >contributed to the tragedy. > > >There were other signs that troubled Hale long before the Columbia breakup, >yet he never complained to the people who mattered like O'Keefe or NASA's >previous chief, Daniel Goldin. > > >Throughout the 1990s, shuttle managers kept being pressed from the top >to >make do with less money -- and to even do more. Hale penny-pinched along >with the rest. > > >"It's the frog in the pot of water story," Hale says. "You try to put a >frog in a boiling pot of water, he'll jump out. If you put him in a pot >of >cold water and turn the heat up, slowly by degrees, you can cook the frog. >Well, I think we were in the pot of water that slowly got turned up by >degrees and didn't realize what we were up against." > > >No whining, no denying > > > > > > > >Now, Parsons, Hale and everyone else at NASA vow to carry out all 29 >recommendations made by the Columbia investigators, regardless of cost >or >consternation. Half the new measures are to be fulfilled before shuttle >flights resume a year or more from now. > > >As the mission management chairman, Hale is doubling the team members to >more than 30, insisting on daily meetings that run as long as necessary >during flights, requiring thorough briefings on the fuel tank, booster >rockets and other critical components, bringing in outside experts for >group decision-making advice, and putting everyone through training >sessions that mimic emergencies. > > >The Columbia investigators insisted on expanded training for mission >managers, following their dismal performance in January. > > >As part of the catharsis -- for him and the entire shuttle program -- Hale >is also readily accepting blame for the disaster. No whining. No denying. > > >"We fouled up," he says. > > >According to Hale, some at NASA still believe there isn't much to fix, >just >a tweak here and there. > > >Others wonder what the culture fuss is all about. > > >"Culture. I don't know exactly what that word means. I'm going to find >out, >I'm sure, in the next year or so what it means," says Milt Heflin, an >Apollo veteran who heads NASA's flight director office. > > >At the opposite extreme are those calling for radical, revolutionary >change. > > >"The truth probably lies somewhere in between, as it generally does," Hale >says. > > >Parsons already sees a shift in attitude and a desire to learn from >mistakes. But he says it will be a gradual process. > > >"I don't want to give the impression that people are different and they've >changed, and now we've seen the light," Parsons says. "We are working on >it." > > >Everyone knows, deep down, that failure is no longer an option. > > >"I'm kind of surprised that the program didn't end when Columbia crashed," >says Hale. "Before, I would have told you one more shuttle accident and >we'll be done. > > >"The country right now is giving us another chance, and we can't get it >wrong this time." > > > > >Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material >may >not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. > > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >Return-Path: >Received: from rly-xh04.mx.aol.com (rly-xh04.mail.aol.com [172.20.115.233]) >by air-xh04.mail.aol.com (v96.8) with ESMTP id MAILINXH41-4a43f8ae63c21a; >Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:52:28 -0400 >Received: from maiss02h.gdls.com (maiss02h.gdls.com [192.136.15.144]) >by rly-xh04.mx.aol.com (v96.8) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXH48-4a43f8ae63c21a; >Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:51:56 -0400 >Received: from maiss04h.gdls.com (maiss04h.gdls.com [136.180.1.4]) > by maiss02h.gdls.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9DHprn6028526; > Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:51:53 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from IS002023.gdls.com (is002023 [136.180.45.23]) > by maiss04h.gdls.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9DHpqa17885; > Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:51:52 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from IS002018.gdls.com ([136.180.45.18]) > by IS002023.gdls.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) > with ESMTP id 2003101313515178:349416 ; > Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:51:51 -0400 >Subject: NASA's new culture - Touche feely??!!! >To: rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com, hanked@gdls.com, kryswalker@aol.com, > kellyst@aol.com, ben@b2foundation.com >X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 >Message-ID: >From: starksk@gdls.com >Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:51:51 -0400 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on STL01/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June >18, 2001) at > 10/13/2003 01:51:51 PM, > Itemize by SMTP Server on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) >at > 10/13/2003 01:51:51 PM, > Serialize by Router on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) >at > 10/13/2003 01:51:53 PM, > Serialize complete at 10/13/2003 01:51:53 PM >Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >X-AOL-IP: 192.136.15.144 >X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:XXX:XX >X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 > > --part1_169.25022ab1.2cbc8f6c_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-xh04.mx.aol.com (rly-xh04.mail.aol.com [172.20.115.233]) by air-xh04.mail.aol.com (v96.8) with ESMTP id MAILINXH41-4a43f8ae63c21a; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:52:28 -0400 Received: from maiss02h.gdls.com (maiss02h.gdls.com [192.136.15.144]) by rly-xh04.mx.aol.com (v96.8) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXH48-4a43f8ae63c21a; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:51:56 -0400 Received: from maiss04h.gdls.com (maiss04h.gdls.com [136.180.1.4]) by maiss02h.gdls.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9DHprn6028526; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:51:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IS002023.gdls.com (is002023 [136.180.45.23]) by maiss04h.gdls.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9DHpqa17885; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:51:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IS002018.gdls.com ([136.180.45.18]) by IS002023.gdls.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2003101313515178:349416 ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:51:51 -0400 Subject: NASA's new culture - Touche feely??!!! To: rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com, hanked@gdls.com, kryswalker@aol.com, kellyst@aol.com, ben@b2foundation.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: starksk@gdls.com Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:51:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on STL01/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/13/2003 01:51:51 PM, Itemize by SMTP Server on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/13/2003 01:51:51 PM, Serialize by Router on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 10/13/2003 01:51:53 PM, Serialize complete at 10/13/2003 01:51:53 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-AOL-IP: 192.136.15.144 http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/10/12/nasa.reformers.ap/index.html Managers aim to cultivate new NASA culture 'I care about people's feelings,' one says Sunday, October 12, 2003 Posted: 6:46 PM EDT (2246 GMT) JOHNSON SPACE CENTER, Texas (AP) -- In the land of rocket science, where numbers count for everything and hunches are scorned, two men are on a mission more difficult than plugging a hole in the space shuttle. They're trying to make NASA's shuttle program a warmer, fuzzier place by recrafting the culture that doomed Columbia, and Challenger before that. To these reformers, that means being super-sensitive about their words, their tone, their height, even the shape of their conference table. "None of this is too touchy-feely for me," says Bill Parsons, an ex-Marine who took over NASA's decimated shuttle program following the Columbia accident. Parsons knows his 6-foot-5, 222-pound frame is intimidating, so he tries not to tower over anyone. He's recruited a colleague to critique his meetings with employees, to make sure he sends the right message and sets an encouraging tone. His hand-picked deputy, Wayne Hale, a shorter, stouter fellow, is stocking up on sociology books and reshaping the team that oversees each shuttle flight, along with the team's conference table. "We talk about the shape of the table and everybody giggles," he says. Hale hasn't hit the furniture store yet. But he's trying to figure out "how to deal with the human question, the human element in these communication issues." This is all penance for Columbia's final flight. Columbia accident investigators blasted NASA for creating an environment in which engineers were too afraid to speak up about potential dangers and managers were too caught up with flight schedules. The space agency's broken culture, along with a ripped slice of insulating foam, proved deadly for Columbia and its seven astronauts. For Challenger and its seven astronauts 17 years earlier, it was a decayed culture combined with cold-stiffened O-rings. New Age NASA? The flight director who guided the Apollo 11 moon landing and the Apollo 13 rescue finds the space agency's new, soft, mushy approach distasteful -- and flat-out wrong. "Look, these people are professionals. They're being paid a professional wage. If they have a problem, I expect them to stand up and speak up. Period," says Gene Kranz, the subject of the recent History Channel documentary, "Failure Is Not an Option." The title is borrowed from his 2000 autobiography. "We've got 19- and 20- and 21-year-olds over in Iraq right now who have to make daily decisions. It's no ambiguity. I don't think we should expect anything less of the people who are working in the space program. Daily decisions, no ambiguity," the 70-year-old Kranz says, his words clipped as short as his lifelong crewcut. Kranz isn't the only old-timer complaining about the New Age NASA. Retired space program veterans from the 1960s and '70s are asking Hale how he, as chairman of the mission management team for all future shuttle flights, will make potential life-and-death decisions if there is an overload of opinion, gut feelings and hunches -- and no consensus. Do what we did, they tell him. Hale shudders at the thought. "They were dealing with all-white males, and there was a lot of in-your-face, militaristic almost (communication)," says Hale, 49, a former shuttle flight director. Soft-spoken and bald with a storyteller's voice and a fondness for space-motif and stars-and-stripes ties, he says: "I'm still a student at this, but if you want to inhibit communication, that's a good way to do it these days." Even Parsons, 46, a former Marine infantry officer, disapproves of nose-to-nose yelling matches. "To be honest, there are a lot of people I thought were much more qualified to do this job than myself. But I think the reason I was picked is because I can nurture a team. I can help that team grow confidence in itself," he says in a thick Mississippi accent. Parsons was director of NASA's Stennis Space Center in his home state when the space agency asked him to move to Houston for the top shuttle job last spring, three months after the Columbia tragedy. He replaced Ron Dittemore, the face and voice of NASA in the wake of the disaster. A one-time sub-six-minute-miler, Parsons maintains a runner's physique under natty dress suits. He knows he can't escape his big Marine image. "But I've spent my life trying to make sure that I didn't intimidate people. I don't like to walk up to people and tower over them. I know how that feels," he says. "I care about people's feelings." 'In God we trust, all others bring data' NASA spaceflight officials never used to worry about the emotional ramifications of their actions or fear among the working masses -- "the working-level devils," as Kranz affectionately calls them. The opinions of technicians and engineers, no matter how low on the ladder, were not only respected, but sought by flight directors like the legendary Kranz. He practiced "defense in depth," so that if a technical problem slipped past one group, it would be caught by the next, or the next. He demanded toughness, competence, confidence. He contends the NASA of yesteryear would not have allowed the Columbia accident. The system would have fixed the recurring launch problem of breakaway fuel-tank foam, he says. Midlevel management -- gutted during the 1990s to save money -- is where Kranz would turn to hear about workers' gut feelings. If two or three workers had the same hunch -- even without data to back it up -- then that would be enough for Kranz to call a halt and investigate, and to collect more data. The framed plaque from that era still hangs in the Mission Evaluation Room at Johnson Space Center, downstairs from Mission Control: "In God we trust, all others bring data." With Columbia, engineers had no data, just a sick, sinking feeling when they saw the video and film images of the chunk of foam smacking the ship's left wing during liftoff in January. Their repeated requests for spy satellite pictures were ignored or overruled, so no one knew Columbia had a mortal gash that would let in scorching atmospheric gases when the spacecraft headed home. To his everlasting regret, Hale -- who initially pursued the request for satellite photos -- ultimately came down on the side of mission management team leader Linda Ham, who nixed the pictures. Hale grows quiet when asked if the episode was a good lesson in his new role as Ham's replacement: "It's a lesson that was too dear to learn ... the price was too high." Columbia was lost over Texas that Saturday morning in February, when the ship ripped apart just 16 minutes short of a Florida homecoming. Hale was waiting at the Kennedy Space Center landing strip, along with other agency bigwigs and the astronauts' families. Timetable pressure By summer, Ham was shoved into a lower-ranking engineering job and Hale was moving back to Houston from Cape Canaveral. Parsons needed him. Not only does Hale live every day with the pain of being wrong, he also knows firsthand what it's like to be too afraid to speak up. Last year, he was angry when NASA headquarters in Washington issued computer screen-savers to shuttle managers counting down in days, hours, minutes and seconds to the February 19, 2004, launch date for the final U.S. segment of the international space station. Hale vowed to write NASA boss Sean O'Keefe that the screen-savers were sending the wrong message by stressing flight deadlines and putting pressure on everyone. But he didn't. "I was inhibited for sociological reasons. He's way up there, I'm way down here. He didn't want my advice and he didn't know who I am. "Now you talk about guilt." In its final report in August, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board cited the screen-savers as evidence of the timetable pressure that contributed to the tragedy. There were other signs that troubled Hale long before the Columbia breakup, yet he never complained to the people who mattered like O'Keefe or NASA's previous chief, Daniel Goldin. Throughout the 1990s, shuttle managers kept being pressed from the top to make do with less money -- and to even do more. Hale penny-pinched along with the rest. "It's the frog in the pot of water story," Hale says. "You try to put a frog in a boiling pot of water, he'll jump out. If you put him in a pot of cold water and turn the heat up, slowly by degrees, you can cook the frog. Well, I think we were in the pot of water that slowly got turned up by degrees and didn't realize what we were up against." No whining, no denying Now, Parsons, Hale and everyone else at NASA vow to carry out all 29 recommendations made by the Columbia investigators, regardless of cost or consternation. Half the new measures are to be fulfilled before shuttle flights resume a year or more from now. As the mission management chairman, Hale is doubling the team members to more than 30, insisting on daily meetings that run as long as necessary during flights, requiring thorough briefings on the fuel tank, booster rockets and other critical components, bringing in outside experts for group decision-making advice, and putting everyone through training sessions that mimic emergencies. The Columbia investigators insisted on expanded training for mission managers, following their dismal performance in January. As part of the catharsis -- for him and the entire shuttle program -- Hale is also readily accepting blame for the disaster. No whining. No denying. "We fouled up," he says. According to Hale, some at NASA still believe there isn't much to fix, just a tweak here and there. Others wonder what the culture fuss is all about. "Culture. I don't know exactly what that word means. I'm going to find out, I'm sure, in the next year or so what it means," says Milt Heflin, an Apollo veteran who heads NASA's flight director office. At the opposite extreme are those calling for radical, revolutionary change. "The truth probably lies somewhere in between, as it generally does," Hale says. Parsons already sees a shift in attitude and a desire to learn from mistakes. But he says it will be a gradual process. "I don't want to give the impression that people are different and they've changed, and now we've seen the light," Parsons says. "We are working on it." Everyone knows, deep down, that failure is no longer an option. "I'm kind of surprised that the program didn't end when Columbia crashed," says Hale. "Before, I would have told you one more shuttle accident and we'll be done. "The country right now is giving us another chance, and we can't get it wrong this time." Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. --part1_169.25022ab1.2cbc8f6c_boundary-- From VM Mon Nov 24 09:45:22 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["19600" "Saturday" "22" "November" "2003" "18:44:20" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "l_parker@cacaphony.net" nil "319" "starship-design: The Military Space Service: Why It's Time Has Come" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 19600 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAOHetYl014230 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:40:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAOHet7b014228 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:40:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (stevev@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAOHesYl014207 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:40:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAOHesrQ014203 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:40:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAN0lkYl010023 for ; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:47:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1ANiPg-0006oZ-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:47:45 -0800 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: The Military Space Service: Why It's Time Has Come Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:44:20 -0600 The Military Space Service: Why It's Time Has Come by Franz J. Gayl Washington - Nov 17, 2003 The future of U.S. supremacy in space is in jeopardy. New entrants to space exploration, rich in both intellectual capital and superpower ambitions, are pressing irresistibly forward. These include formidable past competitors, such as China and Russia, as well as India, Japan, Europe, and others. If the stakes were only related to commercial advantage or national scientific pride these independent initiatives would be welcome in the spirit of peaceful globalization. Yet the taming of all land, sea, air, and undersea environments has invariably included their full exploitation for war. Similarly, the seemingly relentless pursuit of technological advantage is an inherent drive in any willful, sovereign nation. It can therefore be assumed that the comprehensive militarization of space is inevitable. Though the human exploitation of space is still in its infancy, we are at risk of relinquishing our military space dominance to competitors at an early stage. The Dilemma The reasons for our National decline in space engagement are well known, and the case has often been made for reinvigorating U.S. military and civil space programs to correct the atrophy and prepare for future challenges. As a consequence of recommendations from the Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization, the Air Force (AF) has been designated as the Executive Agent (EA) for National Security Space (NSS). This has served as a crucial initial step towards greater NSS unity of effort, leadership, and space advocacy. The results of implementation of the Space Commission's recommendations, with regards to Joint Space Cadre solidification and NSS martial identity, have been wholly successful to date. However, the dilemma for a single Service to simultaneously advocate and fund two environmentally disparate sets of technologies and warfighting responsibilities is becoming increasingly evident. Space-enabled national security contributions are expensive, and threat-based NSS budget requirements will exert increasing pressure on the AF EA in response to increasing capabilities needs. At the same time, the AF determination to execute its traditional roles and missions - as well as modernize - will exert at least equal pressure on the same leadership. There is no doubt that AF leaders understand and appreciate the critical role of that our space supremacy plays in America's security. However, they also understand that when the President tasks a mission to a Combatant Commander he expects that AF weapons delivery on target and other traditional AF missions will be the first Service priority. In consideration of traditional priorities there will understandably be less willingness to resource space capabilities that only indirectly contribute to the AF primary mission, especially when done at the expense of that primary mission. Nor will there be urgent concern for the warfighting opportunities and strategic advantages to be gained in space in the future that require long-term, robust investment in space, when those tangible benefits cannot be perceived now. Therefore, while investment in continued space supremacy is in the nation's best interest, it is not, by itself, in the AF's best interest. The Department of the Air Force budget likely won't keep pace with the two distinctive sets of costly aerospace needs. As a result, the aggravation and competition between the air and space communities within the AF can be expected to become even more severe. Faced with what could amount to zero-sum-gain AF funding constraints, space is likely to suffer first. This dilemma is not the fault of either AF aerospace community. Instead, it lies in a National Security Act and in Title 10 authorizations that are out-of-date. It is also understandable that an Aviation-oriented leadership might tend to appreciate and advance air capabilities over those required for space security. It would be folly to sacrifice the strategic and tactical qualities that maintain our U.S. Air Force as the world's most advanced and capable, but it would be as great a folly to lose or fail to reinforce our nation's tenuous hold on military space superiority. Considering the dilemma, a next step in NSS organization and management may be in order, namely the establishment of a separate, Title 10 empowered Space Service. 20th Century history provides some useful insights relevant to this issue . During the years immediately following the WWI Armistice, U.S. Army General William (Billy) Mitchell strongly advocated the establishment of an Air Force, separate from and outside of the Department of the Army. Military aviation was truly in its infancy at that time, and it was during WWI that General Mitchell had executed the first primitive versions of massed aerial bombardment. As a visionary, he accurately predicted the future potential of strategic air warfare that would become evident some two decades later. But any independent air force concept would have competed with the military tradition and resources of Army and Navy at the time, and his views met the strongest institutional resistance. He was chastised, and the U.S. missed an opportunity to comprehend and preemptively act on the direction that military technology and strategy were moving. Innovations within Naval Aviation and unbridled American aircraft invention and industry allowed us to react to the strategic surprises of the Axis Powers that appeared later. But the victorious outcome was never guaranteed, and it is worth asking what could have been gained by the earlier establishment of an empowered Air Force. Perhaps the U.S. could have fielded a jet powered air superiority fighter of a technology vintage comparable to Messerschmidt 262 or a longer range and more survivable strategic bomber like the B29 much earlier. In the case of these and other opportunities, the war in all theaters could have been brought to an earlier conclusion once America entered WWII. Hindsight is always clearer, and General Mitchell's vision was finally vindicated in 1947 with the establishment of the Title 10 empowered USAF. In the years hence, the existence of a AF has been and remains crucial to our national security, but the lost opportunities prior to and during WWII could not be recovered. A more recent and perhaps equally relevant example involved the accelerated establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. Admittedly, it was already a conceptual entity well on its way to debate and consideration prior to the Global War on Terrorism. However, if some semblance of its fully synchronized organizational functions had been in place years ago when it was first envisioned, perhaps the events preceding Sept 11, 2001 could have been interpreted, and the tragic results prevented. Again, like Billy Mitchell's vision of an Air Force, this assumption can only be made in hindsight, but historical examples and their relevance to current trends can provide us good templates to prepare for the future, in this case, the inevitability of space warfare. If history serves to guide our future preparedness, then NSS should now perhaps consider a military department to guard against surprise from any space-related event that places us at a strategic disadvantage Objections Space is merely an information medium, as space warfighting is restricted by past treaties (such as no orbital nukes) and current pressure from UN to ban all weapons in space. This objection runs counter to current geopolitical movements and world events. As the gentlemanly regard for the United Nations and other treaties relating to space and other environmental realms continues to deteriorate, the self-imposed restraint of many nations evident during the Cold War will also dissolve. Furthermore, the loathing for the U.S. and its national security interests by morally unconstrained adversaries could cause these or newer treaties to be tools of deceit to hinder U.S. military space capabilities while proceeding with their own. The old Soviet Union's signing of the 1972 treaty banning biological weapons production and stockpiling, while covertly advancing their programs, comes to mind as an example. Similarly, the desire by those adversaries to maximize civilian casualties has become a favored asymmetric tactic against our nation and the few allies who feel morally constrained to employ precision. When combined with the world-wide proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), the ease of access to space by adversaries - potentially facilitated by the lower cost of competitor launch - will make space a preferred medium for weapons delivery platforms, frustrating U.S. defense efforts even further. No competitor or adversary anywhere in the world is close to our level of sophistication in space capabilities. Our comprehensive U.S. military space exploitation capabilities have been ramping down, while those of other nations have been ramping up. For example, our ability to cost-effectively place large payloads into orbit is steadily declining. Our Titan IV vehicles are nearing or have achieved total depletion. Our only heavy lift alternative in advance of the troubled EELV Program is the currently grounded and aging Shuttle fleet. At the same time Russian Proton, Chinese Long-March, and European Arianne lift capabilities are robust and relatively inexpensive, and they are becoming the most attractive means of orbiting larger commercial and military systems worldwide. We are also dependent on Russian engines for one of our own homegrown medium lift vehicles, namely Atlas. This represents loss of both a U.S. launch market and a critical sovereign national asset, one that cannot be easily rejuvenated. There is no identifiable martial mission for a Space Service comparable to weapons employment from manned and unmanned platforms of the other traditional Services. Senior Army leaders no doubt remained skeptical of the military cost-effectiveness of massed bombing even after Billy Mitchell assembled 200 primitive biplanes into a formation during the Meuse-Argonne campaign. Similarly, it is difficult to present a case for an unprovable future space capability to those who are only familiar with space as an information medium. However, the historical precedent of the U.S. Army Air Corps' transformation into the USAF should serve to increase that faith. As with aircraft, space access and other technologies will drive forward to gain any and all warfighting relevance, application and advantage from the space medium, quite independently of any nation's unilateral will to prevent it. Technological advancement and proliferation is no different from WMD proliferation as an expression of state and non-state potency and independent will. Space is an exposed U.S. flank, and an immediate Service martial mission exists for its defense. Offensive or defensive U.S. Space Service missions relating to space control, global strike, missile defense, transport, assault support, and other capabilities will necessarily follow. The existence of a new, separate Service will require severe offsets from the other Services, and the total cost increase may not be politically acceptable. The key proto-Space Service organizations and personnel positions are already in existence since the Space Commission, and would largely fulfill the initial Service resource needs. For example, positionally, the Under Secretary of the Air Force (USECAF) is a Space Service Secretary candidate, and the Commander of Air Force Space Command is a Service Chief candidate. Similarly, the AF Professional Space Community can immediately form the core of a Space Service. This core could be augmented with members of the civilian and military space cadres of the other Services by means of permanent inter-service transfers. In terms of creating new organizations with non-space compensation, the initial DoD impact would be modest. The National Aerospace Initiative (NAI) could immediately be programmatically empowered, absorbed (along with selected space resources and civilian cadres of the Service Labs), and renamed as the Service Science and Technology (S&T) organization. NAI is currently a space-related technology effort intended to coordinate and influence the activities of DoD, NASA, and Industry in the three pillar areas of High Speed/Hypersonics, Space Access and Space Technology. Following absorption of NAI, non-NASA space S&T would be solely 'owned' by the new Space Service, and not subject to S&T trade-space starvation of other NSS S&T stakeholders, such as the NAI is today. The AF Space and Missile Systems Center could be absorbed as the Service acquisition arm. The National Reconnaissance Office could likewise be absorbed as-is, along with its specialized functions and personnel mix. The precise nature of the initial Service organization can be debated, and there are several alternatives that the Space Commission evaluated. An entirely separate Space Service model, the Department of the Navy model (i.e. an Air Force and a Space Corps/Force beneath a Secretary of Aerospace), and the SOCOM model all had distinctive advantages and disadvantages. But the evolved solution to the on-going dilemma must insure from the outset that the Service be Title 10 and Title 50 empowered, and that it have full Joint Chiefs of Staff and Joint Requirements Oversight Council membership. The Service would grow rationally in accordance with newly assigned roles and missions. It would submit its budget separately, and its requests would compete equally with those of the other Services and be balanced against all other national defense priorities. Finally, as a reinvigorated NASA begins again to reach out to the moon and Mars, the Space Service would serve as a non-duplicative and fully complementary entity. The technologies developed in both distinctive mission areas would overwhelmingly crossover through such mechanisms as the NAI (or its S&T successor) without violating the sanctity of the exclusive military and scientific charters of each. It also would enable the successful transition from NASA demonstration to national security operationalization of space transportation and other pivotal capabilities. The creation of a Space Service may drive other nations to militarize space in a way they had not intended to previously. With or without U.S. prompting, capable competitors and adversaries will militarize space to their own advantage. However, it is the speed with which the U.S. can respond to the future national security challenges posed by space that will serve as its greatest psychological strength, so long as we allow the lead-time to do so. Potential military capabilities in space could serve to intimidate competitors to inaction rather than antagonize them to action. A prime example of this was the impact that the sincere dedication of U.S. resources to the Strategic Defense Initiative had on the Soviet Union. Instead of leading to a renewed arms race, the projected cost of responding to the U.S. intimidated the USSR into a position of negotiation, and relative inaction. Furthermore, others have recently relearned that when the U.S. puts its mind to reinvigorating national security it is a formidable and even dangerous opponent. That too can serve as effective NSS deterrence, but only if our space capabilities are real. A Way Ahead The Space Commission considered these issues as they relate to our relative loss of space dominance, and the possibility that the U.S. could experience a Pearl Harbor in space due to a lack of preparedness. The Final Report of the Commission made concrete recommendations that have led to great strides in the DoD and National Communities to unify a previously fragmented space community under the AF EA for NSS. AF acting as EA certainly represents a significant improvement over the balkanized and unintentionally duplicative state of previous NSS affairs. In the person of the USECAF we have achieved unity of NSS efforts, singular Space Advocacy, and - most importantly - a single Milestone Decision Authority and oversight for NSS resources. The establishment of U.S. Strategic Command operationally complements the programmatic empowerment of the EA. However, in the months and years since implementation, the new NSS organization and management has served as a revealing test of the capacity of the Department of the Air Force to balance traditional Air Force Title 10 responsibilities with those of space. The strain of two distinctive missions and technology identities, having equally distinctive investment strategies, beneath the same Service Chief and Secretariat is evident. In the past, AF-managed space programs were frequently mortgaged to finance terrestrial AF programs. Since the Space Commission, the invisibility of that practice has largely disappeared, so that any competition between air and space warfighting resource equity regimes presents an even starker contrast than before. Recent discussions related to the NAI, as well as military interest in manned space flight serve as relevant examples of the cultural mutual exclusivity of air and space interests within AF. The favorable outcome of both topics was a tribute to the desire of some within AF to fully assume and execute the role of NSS EA as it was intended. At the same time, those and other examples of the larger AF space versus air cultural conflict forewarn that the incompatibility of space within AF will grow, with a need to establish a separate Space Service sooner rather than later. The Space Commissioners, Congress, and SECDEF had carefully considered the merits of other models before settling on AF EA assignment as an intermediate NSS solution. However, they did not dismiss the possibility that a further evolution to a Space Service, Force, or Corps, might be required for effective national defense in the future, and the time for such evolution appears to be now. As a relevant example, in recent Congressional Testimony, the Marine Corps has presented a compelling emerging need to overcome the constraints of thick air travel and non-permissive airspace for responsive expeditionary transport and insertion. As an emerging Joint requirement, it recognizes that Marine, SOCOM, and other Joint Forces will require heretofore-unimaginable assault support speed, range, and altitude in order to achieve strategic surprise in the future. The link to space is clear. It also illustrates how the Corps' vision of inevitable future Joint requirements are largely predictable through the projection of current technical possibilities, just as it was for General Billy Mitchell almost a century before. This should encourage a revisitation of a National Security Act that does not reflect the impact emerging NSS technological opportunities will have on the nature of warfare. Conclusion The existing cultural dilemma is unfair to the Department of the Air Force, and will lead to the delay of our national preparations for the comprehensive role that space will play in the future of warfare. Unlike America's energetic recovery and entrance into WWII, strategic surprise in the realm of NSS could cause damage to our national security from which we cannot recover. We will be wise to learn history's lessons and take the initiative, while we still have the initiative. Establishment of a Space Service now is a sound preparation for an uncertain, yet imaginable future. From VM Mon Nov 24 10:02:22 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["313" "Sunday" "23" "November" "2003" "21:37:19" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "l_parker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "starship-design: VASIMR" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 313 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAOHj6Yl018663 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:45:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAOHj6CG018662 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:45:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (stevev@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAOHj6Yl018645 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:45:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAOHj5SD018643 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:45:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAO3ehYl003765 for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:40:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from user201.net343.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.28.201] helo=broadsword) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AO7ac-0002Bh-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:40:43 -0800 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design" Subject: starship-design: VASIMR Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:37:19 -0600 In relation to previous postings regarding VASIMR, I just found this from my ALMA MATER... http://www.inspi.ufl.edu/gcr.pdf It would appear that someone is taking VASIMR one step further than a simple ionized hydrogen gas and working on combined cycle. This is getting back to micro fission/fusion again. Lee From VM Mon Nov 24 17:04:33 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11383" "Monday" "24" "November" "2003" "20:02:26" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "352" "starship-design: NASA's new culture - Touche feely??!!!" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 11383 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP12vRB018586 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:02:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAP12vli018584 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:02:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m06.mx.aol.com (imo-m06.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.161]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP12uRB018528 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:02:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id 4.41.3720f506 (16484); Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:02:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41.3720f506.2cf40422@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: l_parker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: NASA's new culture - Touche feely??!!! Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:02:26 EST http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/10/12/nasa.reformers.ap/index.html Managers aim to cultivate new NASA culture 'I care about people's feelings,' one says Sunday, October 12, 2003 Posted: 6:46 PM EDT (2246 GMT) JOHNSON SPACE CENTER, Texas (AP) -- In the land of rocket science, where numbers count for everything and hunches are scorned, two men are on a mission more difficult than plugging a hole in the space shuttle. They're trying to make NASA's shuttle program a warmer, fuzzier place by recrafting the culture that doomed Columbia, and Challenger before that. To these reformers, that means being super-sensitive about their words, their tone, their height, even the shape of their conference table. "None of this is too touchy-feely for me," says Bill Parsons, an ex-Marine who took over NASA's decimated shuttle program following the Columbia accident. Parsons knows his 6-foot-5, 222-pound frame is intimidating, so he tries not to tower over anyone. He's recruited a colleague to critique his meetings with employees, to make sure he sends the right message and sets an encouraging tone. His hand-picked deputy, Wayne Hale, a shorter, stouter fellow, is stocking up on sociology books and reshaping the team that oversees each shuttle flight, along with the team's conference table. "We talk about the shape of the table and everybody giggles," he says. Hale hasn't hit the furniture store yet. But he's trying to figure out "how to deal with the human question, the human element in these communication issues." This is all penance for Columbia's final flight. Columbia accident investigators blasted NASA for creating an environment in which engineers were too afraid to speak up about potential dangers and managers were too caught up with flight schedules. The space agency's broken culture, along with a ripped slice of insulating foam, proved deadly for Columbia and its seven astronauts. For Challenger and its seven astronauts 17 years earlier, it was a decayed culture combined with cold-stiffened O-rings. New Age NASA? The flight director who guided the Apollo 11 moon landing and the Apollo 13 rescue finds the space agency's new, soft, mushy approach distasteful -- and flat-out wrong. "Look, these people are professionals. They're being paid a professional wage. If they have a problem, I expect them to stand up and speak up. Period," says Gene Kranz, the subject of the recent History Channel documentary, "Failure Is Not an Option." The title is borrowed from his 2000 autobiography. "We've got 19- and 20- and 21-year-olds over in Iraq right now who have to make daily decisions. It's no ambiguity. I don't think we should expect anything less of the people who are working in the space program. Daily decisions, no ambiguity," the 70-year-old Kranz says, his words clipped as short as his lifelong crewcut. Kranz isn't the only old-timer complaining about the New Age NASA. Retired space program veterans from the 1960s and '70s are asking Hale how he, as chairman of the mission management team for all future shuttle flights, will make potential life-and-death decisions if there is an overload of opinion, gut feelings and hunches -- and no consensus. Do what we did, they tell him. Hale shudders at the thought. "They were dealing with all-white males, and there was a lot of in-your-face, militaristic almost (communication)," says Hale, 49, a former shuttle flight director. Soft-spoken and bald with a storyteller's voice and a fondness for space-motif and stars-and-stripes ties, he says: "I'm still a student at this, but if you want to inhibit communication, that's a good way to do it these days." Even Parsons, 46, a former Marine infantry officer, disapproves of nose-to-nose yelling matches. "To be honest, there are a lot of people I thought were much more qualified to do this job than myself. But I think the reason I was picked is because I can nurture a team. I can help that team grow confidence in itself," he says in a thick Mississippi accent. Parsons was director of NASA's Stennis Space Center in his home state when the space agency asked him to move to Houston for the top shuttle job last spring, three months after the Columbia tragedy. He replaced Ron Dittemore, the face and voice of NASA in the wake of the disaster. A one-time sub-six-minute-miler, Parsons maintains a runner's physique under natty dress suits. He knows he can't escape his big Marine image. "But I've spent my life trying to make sure that I didn't intimidate people. I don't like to walk up to people and tower over them. I know how that feels," he says. "I care about people's feelings." 'In God we trust, all others bring data' NASA spaceflight officials never used to worry about the emotional ramifications of their actions or fear among the working masses -- "the working-level devils," as Kranz affectionately calls them. The opinions of technicians and engineers, no matter how low on the ladder, were not only respected, but sought by flight directors like the legendary Kranz. He practiced "defense in depth," so that if a technical problem slipped past one group, it would be caught by the next, or the next. He demanded toughness, competence, confidence. He contends the NASA of yesteryear would not have allowed the Columbia accident. The system would have fixed the recurring launch problem of breakaway fuel-tank foam, he says. Midlevel management -- gutted during the 1990s to save money -- is where Kranz would turn to hear about workers' gut feelings. If two or three workers had the same hunch -- even without data to back it up -- then that would be enough for Kranz to call a halt and investigate, and to collect more data. The framed plaque from that era still hangs in the Mission Evaluation Room at Johnson Space Center, downstairs from Mission Control: "In God we trust, all others bring data." With Columbia, engineers had no data, just a sick, sinking feeling when they saw the video and film images of the chunk of foam smacking the ship's left wing during liftoff in January. Their repeated requests for spy satellite pictures were ignored or overruled, so no one knew Columbia had a mortal gash that would let in scorching atmospheric gases when the spacecraft headed home. To his everlasting regret, Hale -- who initially pursued the request for satellite photos -- ultimately came down on the side of mission management team leader Linda Ham, who nixed the pictures. Hale grows quiet when asked if the episode was a good lesson in his new role as Ham's replacement: "It's a lesson that was too dear to learn ... the price was too high." Columbia was lost over Texas that Saturday morning in February, when the ship ripped apart just 16 minutes short of a Florida homecoming. Hale was waiting at the Kennedy Space Center landing strip, along with other agency bigwigs and the astronauts' families. Timetable pressure By summer, Ham was shoved into a lower-ranking engineering job and Hale was moving back to Houston from Cape Canaveral. Parsons needed him. Not only does Hale live every day with the pain of being wrong, he also knows firsthand what it's like to be too afraid to speak up. Last year, he was angry when NASA headquarters in Washington issued computer screen-savers to shuttle managers counting down in days, hours, minutes and seconds to the February 19, 2004, launch date for the final U.S. segment of the international space station. Hale vowed to write NASA boss Sean O'Keefe that the screen-savers were sending the wrong message by stressing flight deadlines and putting pressure on everyone. But he didn't. "I was inhibited for sociological reasons. He's way up there, I'm way down here. He didn't want my advice and he didn't know who I am. "Now you talk about guilt." In its final report in August, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board cited the screen-savers as evidence of the timetable pressure that contributed to the tragedy. There were other signs that troubled Hale long before the Columbia breakup, yet he never complained to the people who mattered like O'Keefe or NASA's previous chief, Daniel Goldin. Throughout the 1990s, shuttle managers kept being pressed from the top to make do with less money -- and to even do more. Hale penny-pinched along with the rest. "It's the frog in the pot of water story," Hale says. "You try to put a frog in a boiling pot of water, he'll jump out. If you put him in a pot of cold water and turn the heat up, slowly by degrees, you can cook the frog. Well, I think we were in the pot of water that slowly got turned up by degrees and didn't realize what we were up against." No whining, no denying Now, Parsons, Hale and everyone else at NASA vow to carry out all 29 recommendations made by the Columbia investigators, regardless of cost or consternation. Half the new measures are to be fulfilled before shuttle flights resume a year or more from now. As the mission management chairman, Hale is doubling the team members to more than 30, insisting on daily meetings that run as long as necessary during flights, requiring thorough briefings on the fuel tank, booster rockets and other critical components, bringing in outside experts for group decision-making advice, and putting everyone through training sessions that mimic emergencies. The Columbia investigators insisted on expanded training for mission managers, following their dismal performance in January. As part of the catharsis -- for him and the entire shuttle program -- Hale is also readily accepting blame for the disaster. No whining. No denying. "We fouled up," he says. According to Hale, some at NASA still believe there isn't much to fix, just a tweak here and there. Others wonder what the culture fuss is all about. "Culture. I don't know exactly what that word means. I'm going to find out, I'm sure, in the next year or so what it means," says Milt Heflin, an Apollo veteran who heads NASA's flight director office. At the opposite extreme are those calling for radical, revolutionary change. "The truth probably lies somewhere in between, as it generally does," Hale says. Parsons already sees a shift in attitude and a desire to learn from mistakes. But he says it will be a gradual process. "I don't want to give the impression that people are different and they've changed, and now we've seen the light," Parsons says. "We are working on it." Everyone knows, deep down, that failure is no longer an option. "I'm kind of surprised that the program didn't end when Columbia crashed," says Hale. "Before, I would have told you one more shuttle accident and we'll be done. "The country right now is giving us another chance, and we can't get it wrong this time." Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. From VM Mon Nov 24 17:04:33 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["12293" "Monday" "24" "November" "2003" "20:02:22" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "286" "starship-design: NASA Feared Myopic on Space Future" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 12293 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP138RB018740 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:03:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAP138ZJ018734 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:03:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m02.mx.aol.com (imo-m02.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP137RB018642 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:03:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.16a.26e4e824 (16484) for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:02:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <16a.26e4e824.2cf4041e@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: starship-design: NASA Feared Myopic on Space Future Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:02:22 EST NASA Feared Myopic on Space Future Aviation Week & Space Technology 10/27/2003, page 27 Frank Morring, Jr. Washington (Embedded image moved to file: pic12287.gif) Experts, lawmakers worry NASA isn't alert enough to what comes after shuttle, ISS Business as Usual NASA and the White House are too focused on the short-term goal of returning the space shuttle to flight to give thoughtful consideration to how and, more importantly, why to replace it, according to a growing group of U.S. lawmakers and the experts who advise them on space issues. In meetings last week with leaders of the congressional panels that oversee NASA, Vice President Dick Cheney kept his counsel on the state of play in internal White House deliberations on future U.S. space policy. Although participants said the Cheney meetings were "a good first step" toward including Congress, the White House discussions have been cloaked in secrecy so far. President Bush will make a decision on his vision for future space exploration and announce it when he is ready, according to his NASA Administrator, Sean O'Keefe, who has hinted that Bush will choose options supporting exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. Chairmen and ranking Democrats on the Senate and House NASA authorizing committees urged Cheney to open up the process and spark a "national debate" on space policy, but received no commitments. THAT HAS LEFT Congress to consider on its own possible space futures. The basic outlines of a long-term exploration policy have been refined in studies inside and outside the government for years, but the policy is stalled without political agreement on priorities and technical details, according to key lawmakers. "Any consensus has to be arrived at jointly by the White House, the Congress and NASA," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Science Committee. "NASA needs to do its part by coming up with credible cost estimates and schedules for projects--something that has been sorely lacking in recent decades and something that has not been done yet for the next major human spaceflight project, the Orbital Space Plane." The space plane, intended both as a transport/rescue vehicle for ISS crews and as the basis for meeting future crew transport needs, has been greeted with skepticism at home and abroad (see story p. 28). But the attitude toward the long-term future of the space shuttle transcended skepticism at a House Science Committee hearing this month. "The shuttle has never been and never will be the launch vehicle that NASA wants it to be, yet the agency appears determined to return to business as usual," said Alex Roland, a former in-house NASA historian who is chairman of the History Department at Duke University. Roland recommended that NASA should "scrap or severely curtail shuttle operations." He echoed the view of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) that "it is in the nation's interest to replace the shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting humans to and from Earth orbit." Yet to build a new human space transport, it is necessary to know where it is going. So far the Bush administration has avoided a destination-driven space exploration policy, opting instead for the nuclear space power and propulsion technology effort it has named Prometheus. That effort, a spinoff of long-term NASA planning from previous administrations, won praise from witnesses before the House panel, but there were also calls for a more focused approach. "We need a national vision that sets a destination for human exploration and systematically pursues its fulfillment with both robotic and human spaceflight," said Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., director of the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and a former associate NASA administrator. Cheney got a similar answer from senators when he asked for their views on the issue of robotic versus human spaceflight, according to one participant who said "the message was quite clear" that the U.S. must continue to back human spaceflight. And in the House hearing, the message was equally clear that Mars is the destination. "The geography of the solar system shows us the way," said Michael D. Griffin, a former NASA associate administrator for exploration. Griffin listed Mars, the Moon and some near-Earth and main-belt asteroids as reasonable goals "in the next several generations." (Embedded image moved to file: pic27753.jpg)(Embedded image moved to file: pic10383.pcx) Credit: IAA CONCEPT Griffin also listed orbital "waypoints" where humans can learn to survive in space, including low- and geostationary Earth orbits and the lunar Lagrange points, where the gravity of the Moon and Earth negate each other. His views track those of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), which has proposed a stepping-stone approach to Mars in the next 50 years (shown). As presented by Huntress at the House hearing (and earlier at the International Astronautical Congress in Bremen, Germany), the IAA approach would tackle Mars as "the most scientifically rewarding and the one place that can galvanize human interest like no other." To get there, precursor missions to the Moon, asteroids and the dark-side Sun-Earth Lagrange point (SEL2), where scientists already plan a flotilla of space telescopes, would shake out the needed technology. House Democrats led by Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Tex.), who represents NASA's Johnson Space Center, have drawn on the IAA work and its predecessor studies in a bill that sets a goal of eight years for reaching both solar Lagrange points with human crews, 10 years to rendezvous with an Earth-crossing asteroid, 15 years for a "human-tended" lunar base and 20 years to demonstrate the technology for a Mars landing. Committee members of both parties see an advantage in the step-by-step approach to Mars in that it fits within the eight-year U.S. political cycle bound by the two terms allotted a given president. But all of the goals in the Democrats' bill start at low-Earth orbit, and Huntress said near-term decisions on how to get humans there will have long-term effects on space exploration. "Our ultimate ability to reach these destinations requires that architectures developed today for transportation from the Earth's surface to orbit have a top-level requirement to consider the future needs for space transportation to deep space," he said. "Otherwise, it is likely that a solution will be derived that is useless for the next step beyond Earth orbit." From VM Mon Nov 24 17:04:33 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["13231" "Monday" "24" "November" "2003" "20:02:35" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "307" "starship-design: Russia Charts Course to Moon, Mars" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 13231 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP139RB018767 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:03:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAP139Zo018763 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:03:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m04.mx.aol.com (imo-m04.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.7]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP138RB018645 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:03:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.25.414bf71d (16484) for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:02:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <25.414bf71d.2cf4042b@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: starship-design: Russia Charts Course to Moon, Mars Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:02:35 EST Russia Charts Course to Moon, Mars Aviation Week & Space Technology 10/13/2003, page 29 Frank Morring, Jr. Bremen, Germany (Embedded image moved to file: pic06359.gif) Cash-strapped Russia charts course to Moon, Mars after completing its station components Big Plans Russia may or may not have the money to keep supplying the International Space Station while NASA's space shuttle is grounded, but it has big ideas for future human space exploration that would follow some of the same technology tracks the U.S. space agency is pursuing. Those include a nuclear-assisted Mars landing by 2025, with a permanent base on the red planet by mid-century, and construction of a polar-orbiting human-tended space station for Earth monitoring and microgravity research. A permanent lunar base is also on the drawing boards at the Russian space agency Rosaviakosmos (RKA), as are plans to complete Russia's half of the ISS by 2009. "It is possible to consider flights to the Moon and Mars," RKA Director General Yuri Koptiev told the 54th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) here Sept. 30. "We believe that technology is available to permit us to do that, and we also believe that an organization similar to the one for the ISS should be the basis for implementation of such ambitious projects." Koptiev endorsed the exploration-technology strategy adopted by NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, who is pushing nuclear energy for both power production and propulsion in space under "Project Prometheus." O'Keefe argues that nuclear-electric propulsion would enable a host of space exploration activities, including a rapid transit to Mars that would reduce the time a crew is exposed to space radiation. Russia already supplies the U.S. with the plutonium fuel it uses for its deep-space radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), and has sold an unfueled Topaz space reactor to the U.S. Energy Dept. for study. Like O'Keefe, Koptiev argued that advances in space nuclear power are needed to move human explorers beyond low-Earth orbit. "The really important thing is the development of new technologies, especially in the propulsion areas, which will allow us to step considerably forward in space exploration," Koptiev said. "I have in mind electric jet propulsion technology and nuclear power used for these purposes." President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed space cooperation during a September summit at Camp David, Md. Among items on the space agenda was the ongoing discussion in the White House about next steps for human exploration, which would have a heavy dose of international cooperation (AW&ST Oct. 6, p. 49). Among objectives Bush is believed to be considering is a return to the Moon, which would mesh with Russian plans. (Embedded image moved to file: pic27624.jpg)(Embedded image moved to file: pic20537.pcx) Russia has plans to complete its half of the International Space Station and move on to ambitious missions beyond low-Earth orbit. International cooperation on the ISS model would be a key element of any future efforts. Koptiev presented a slide that called for building a permanent base on the lunar surface "in cooperation with the U.S. and other countries." One suggested objective of such a project would be mining the fusion fuel helium 3, which is believed to permeate the lunar regolith. NASA has also studied the idea over the years, but left it on the back burner because there are no fusion reactors to burn helium 3. Russia, too, did not list a date for a permanent lunar base. For Mars exploration, however, Koptiev presented a schedule that would see human missions spending 15-60 days exploring on the surface and from orbit in 2025-35. After that would come missions of as much as a year on the surface or in Martian orbit, leading to a permanent base for detailed exploration of Mars and as a jumping-off point for missions to more distant planets. In addition to space nuclear power, Koptiev called for more work on closed-loop environmental control and life support systems, and on robotic aids to human explorers. He said his agency already has plans "to investigate how an interplanetary mission would be implemented." Koptiev's remarks came at an IAC plenary session on the space station, where heads or representatives of the principal ISS partner agencies unanimously predicted completion of the orbiting laboratory despite the obstacles caused by loss of the shuttle Columbia Feb. 1. NASA's O'Keefe praised Russia in particular for its commitment to the ISS partnership in the wake of the disaster, and Koptiev--while stressing the need for more "balance" in funding the stop-gap resupply measures that rely on Russian hardware--reiterated Russia's plans to stay the course. "We believe that by the year 2008 the ISS core will be completed, and the operational lifespan will be not less than until 2016," he said through an interpreter. "Our main objective here is to reach a permanent crew of six at a minimum, as soon as possible." The Russian space chief said he expects his agency will get a $100-million budget boost in 2004, which is significant in Russian terms. Koptiev joked to reporters that it's Russia's "secret" how it can accomplish the feats it does in space with a relatively tiny budget, although most observers consider that a function of low space industry salaries and Soviet-era investments. Russia's plans for the ISS include development of a multipurpose laboratory module for the nadir docking port of the Zarya module, which could be attached as early as 2006. Russia and the European Space Agency have discussed joint development of the facility, which would provide a second docking port for a Soyuz rescue vehicle for three crew-members, allowing the ISS crew size to grow from its nominal three to six (AW&ST June 16, p. 190). Other ISS elements in the Russian pipeline include the science and power module, a Russian-side solar array planned for 2007. A research module for the nadir port of the Zvezda module could be ready by 2009, according to Koptiev. Harking back to the old Space Station Freedom, the non-Soviet predecessor to the ISS, Koptiev suggested a two-module space station that would orbit with an inclination to the Equator of at least 73 deg. for Earth observation, and be visited only periodically by humans to minimize disturbances to the microgravity environment on board. Although Russia has sent two non-professional space tourists to the ISS, Koptiev said he did not expect that to be a significant space activity in the future, at least at Russia's reported $20-million fare. "We don't believe that this area of space exploration is the main one, because there are no queues occurring in the tourist bureaus around the world so far," he said. From VM Mon Nov 24 17:06:08 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["855" "Monday" "24" "November" "2003" "20:02:30" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: The Military Space Service: Why It's Time Has Come" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 855 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP15CRB022656 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:05:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAP15Cb5022655 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:05:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.101]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP15BRB022365 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:05:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id 4.1a6.1d3b0038 (16484); Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:02:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1a6.1d3b0038.2cf40426@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: l_parker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: The Military Space Service: Why It's Time Has Come Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:02:30 EST Lee your back? Wondered where you went for so long. ;) Agree with the idea that there should be independant space command. Especially after the air Force moved the old AF Space Command under SAC. SAC has a reputation of defunding things that don't support their concepts for strategic bombing missions (They were the ones that sandbagged the SR-71 program.). With the airforce seing its future as a space force that does some air things -- folks in the AF who fly planes will be looking to slow down space command getting funds and missions. As to the missions. Currently is a safe transit zone for missles, which is really dumb. We ned to defend areaas of the earth from ICBM's, adn space assets from anti-sat weapons. And we will need to defend space assets and personel from more direct attack. Some space command is enevitable. From VM Mon Nov 24 17:08:14 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["595" "Monday" "24" "November" "2003" "20:02:32" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: VASIMR" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 595 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP131RB018627 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:03:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAP131jX018624 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:03:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.103]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP130RB018567 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:03:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.e.38dff484 (16484); Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:02:32 -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, JohnFrance@aol.com, dtaylor611@comcast.net, moschleg@rcn.com, TOSReports@aol.com Subject: Re: starship-design: VASIMR Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:02:32 EST GOOD!! As is VASMIR seemed underwelming. Basically a exotic ion drive with now defined power source. If it was to be powered by nukes, its a odd way to make a nuclear rocket. If solar, its a deepspace drive tied to a inner solar system power source. >In relation to previous postings regarding VASIMR, I just found this from >my > >ALMA MATER... > > >http://www.inspi.ufl.edu/gcr.pdf > > > >It would appear that someone is taking VASIMR one step further than a simple >ionized hydrogen gas and working on combined cycle. This is getting back >to micro fission/fusion again. > > > >Lee From VM Mon Nov 24 17:08:14 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["13334" "Monday" "24" "November" "2003" "20:02:29" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "314" "starship-design: O'Keefe Says OSP Will Cover Exploration Vision" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 13334 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP139RB018766 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:03:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAP139Vf018761 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:03:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com (imo-r03.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.99]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP138RB018644 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:03:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.ab.3547e19a (16484) for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:02:29 -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: starship-design: O'Keefe Says OSP Will Cover Exploration Vision Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:02:29 EST O'Keefe Says OSP Will Cover Exploration Vision Aviation Week & Space Technology 11/03/2003, page 28 Frank Morring, Jr. Washington (Embedded image moved to file: pic08281.gif) O'Keefe telling skeptical lawmakers OSP will cover exploration 'vision' Earth to Orbit NASA hasn't committed itself to accelerating its proposed Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program by two years, and it won't issue a contract on the project until Congress has a say on any long-term space-exploration plans the White House may propose, Administrator Sean O'Keefe has told members of Congress worried the space agency is getting ahead of itself on the $15-billion program. Two of the most influential NASA overseers on Capitol Hill--Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Science Committee, and that panel's ranking Democrat, Rep. Ralph Hall of Texas--last week urged O'Keefe to defer work on the OSP until there is a clear idea of where the U.S. is going in space. After an exchange of letters didn't settle the question, O'Keefe said he would discuss it directly with Boehlert. "The recent creation of an inter-agency space policy group in the White House is testimony to the fact that the nation has made no decision on the outline of its human space flight agenda," Boehlert and Hall wrote O'Keefe in a letter they released Oct. 27. "Therefore, neither the mission nor the benefits of the OSP are knowable at this point." The pair particularly questioned the validity of NASA estimates on the cost of accelerating development of OSP so it could start serving as a crew rescue vehicle for the International Space Station as early as 2008, two years ahead of the schedule in the current Integrated Space Transportation Plan. Dennis Smith, the OSP program manager, has told lawmakers it will cost $11-13 billion to build a down-only crew rescue version of OPS that could be stationed at the International Space Station (ISS) after launch on an expendable rocket. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate panel, said the overall OSP estimate was $15 billion, presumably including its two-way crew transport vehicle (CTV) variant. (Embedded image moved to file: pic04734.jpg)(Embedded image moved to file: pic00053.pcx) European engineers conceived this OSP winged vehicle with an escape pod for crew survivability on ascent. Lawmakers say policy should shape the craft.Credit: EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY "Given NASA's current cost estimates for the program, the OSP five-year budget plan that accompanied the FY 2004 NASA budget request is clearly no longer credible," Boehlert and Hall wrote. "Thus the credibility of the accelerated OSP program plan and cost estimate, formulated prior to decisions on the design of the OPS and in the absence of any cost estimates for NASA's other planned space transportation initiatives, also must be considered questionable." O'Keefe reminded Boehlert, Hall and the Senate panel that NASA won't issue a request for proposal for OSP until the end of this month at the earliest, and won't award a contract until next August. By that time, he said, Congress will have had time to consider the issues raised in the letter written by Boehlert and Hall. "The administration is reviewing the overall plan for a crew transfer vehicle to the International Space Station (ISS) in light of overall U.S. space exploration goals, as part of the FY 2005 budget process," O'Keefe wrote the two House members. "This planning horizon will permit ample time for Congress to fully consider this important endeavor." That didn't satisfy Boehlert and Hall, who released O'Keefe's letter and stated "it does not explain how the Orbital Space Plane fits into an overall vision for the human space flight program, but rather acknowledges that such a vision is still being developed." O'Keefe disagreed, and said late Thursday he would take the matter up with Boehlert. "We're making no contractual commitments that would preclude a mid-course correction," O'Keefe said of the OSP planning process. But as in the past, he would not speculate on whether the White House discussions would produce a better idea of what the mission of the OSP will be beyond transporting crew to and from the ISS, saying again that the ultimate decision will be made and announced by President Bush. "There is an interagency process underway, in which we are looking at various options for the vision objectives as well as the strategic modifications to the basic plan as presented," O'Keefe told Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.). Until Bush announces his space exploration "vision," O'Keefe said, the long-term U.S. space effort will continue to be focused on three exploration enablers--nuclear power and propulsion, human endurance in space, and broadband communications--outlined in the Fiscal 2004 budget request (AW&ST Feb. 10, p. 63). He said that work would support human exploration to any of the destinations under discussion--the Moon, Mars or the L2 Lagrange point where big human-services space telescopes could work with less heat interference from Earth and the Sun (AW&ST Oct. 27, p. 27). "WE ARE NOT committing the administration or the Congress beyond the scope of what is contained in the budget today," O'Keefe told Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). "That said, we are exploring the option to accelerate [OSP], and to the extent that that will be pursued, there will be ample opportunity to do that question and incorporate it as part of the president's [Fiscal 2005 budget] well before any [OSP] contract." Adm. (ret.) Harold W. Gehman, Jr., who headed the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, told the Senate panel that while his group did not endorse any design or destination for future U.S. space vehicles, it did urge a clear link between the vehicle and its "concept of operations." Regardless of what the ultimate destination of human space exploration is, in moving from the surface of the Earth to low-Earth orbit (LEO) the OSP will have to traverse the most difficult and dangerous leg of the trip, Gehman said. "We need some leadership to say that just getting into and out of low-Earth orbit without killing a lot of people is a goal worthy in and of itself," Gehman said. "That's hard to argue because it isn't very jazzy." After the hearing, Gehman said the best OSP design would be one that could evolve into a vehicle that goes beyond LEO, an argument European engineers made in recommending a winged OSP based on the Hermes spaceplane (AW&ST Oct. 27, p. 28). In a proposal likely to find interest on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are on the verge of directing NASA to study ways of improving crew survivability on the space shuttle, one European concept would even have an "ejectable cabin" lifting body within the winged vehicle that could eject in the event of an accident on ascent, or be used as an ISS lifeboat (see diagram). "I don't see any reason why the same vehicle which is used to get into and out of low-Earth orbit couldn't also go to other places," Gehman said, stressing that flight frequency requirements for a CTV are also likely to increase in the years ahead. "L2 is not much different from low-Earth orbit." From VM Tue Nov 25 08:06:48 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["526" "Monday" "24" "November" "2003" "21:10:29" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "17" "starship-design: L/M's OSP concept" "^From:" nil nil "11" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 526 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP2AnRB010866 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:10:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAP2AnGh010864 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:10:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m02.mx.aol.com (imo-m02.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.5]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP2AmRB010825 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:10:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id i.1c8.12534ede (16484); Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:10:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1c8.12534ede.2cf41415@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: JohnFrance@aol.com, dtaylor611@comcast.net, moschleg@rcn.com, TOSReports@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: L/M's OSP concept Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:10:29 EST > >And you can thank the folks at LM/Boeing/etc for the price tag on the OSP. >Seen the OSP design LM etc have put up yet? > Lockheed Martin > http://www.ast.lmco.com/osp/ > > You'll note it's got 'wings' though it will land by parachutes. Oh, just noticed that was a URL. Those arn't wings!! Its hardly a chine!! Its a cone with a flat side. It looks like, Dyna soar with the wings cut off. The requirements arn't real tight eiatrher. Assurence of safer then Soyoz or shuttle. Thats a lose rate of 1 out of 50. From VM Wed Dec 3 10:07:59 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["13566" "Tuesday" "2" "December" "2003" "21:14:38" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "454" "Fwd: starship-design: O'Keefe Says OSP Will Cover Exploration Vision" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 13566 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB32ElBA022127 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:14:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hB32Elfr022122 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:14:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m07.mx.aol.com (imo-m07.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.162]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB32EkBA022051 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:14:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.17e.23d21f8f (4214) for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:14:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <17e.23d21f8f.2cfea10e@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: Fwd: starship-design: O'Keefe Says OSP Will Cover Exploration Vision Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:14:38 EST In a message dated 11/24/03 5:08:58 PM, KellySt@aol.com writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > O'Keefe Says OSP Will Cover Exploration Vision > > > Aviation Week & Space Technology > > > 11/03/2003, page 28 > > > > > > Frank Morring, Jr. > > > Washington > > > (Embedded image moved to file: pic08281.gif) > > > > > > O'Keefe telling skeptical lawmakers OSP will cover exploration 'vision' > > > > > > Earth to Orbit > > > > > > > > > NASA hasn't committed itself to accelerating its proposed Orbital Space > >Plane > (OSP) program by two years, and it won't issue a contract on the project > >until > Congress has a say on any long-term space-exploration plans the White >House >may > propose, Administrator Sean O'Keefe has told members of Congress worried >the >space > agency is getting ahead of itself on the $15-billion program. > > > > > > > > > Two of the most influential NASA overseers on Capitol Hill--Rep. Sherwood > >Boehlert > (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Science Committee, and that panel's ranking > > > Democrat, Rep. Ralph Hall of Texas--last week urged O'Keefe to defer work >on >the > OSP until there is a clear idea of where the U.S. is going in space. After > >an > exchange of letters didn't settle the question, O'Keefe said he would > >discuss it > directly with Boehlert. > > > > > > > > > "The recent creation of an inter-agency space policy group in the White > >House is > testimony to the fact that the nation has made no decision on the outline >of >its > human space flight agenda," Boehlert and Hall wrote O'Keefe in a letter >they > > released Oct. 27. "Therefore, neither the mission nor the benefits of >the >OSP are > knowable at this point." > > > > > > > > > The pair particularly questioned the validity of NASA estimates on the >cost >of > accelerating development of OSP so it could start serving as a crew rescue > >vehicle > for the International Space Station as early as 2008, two years ahead >of the > > schedule in the current Integrated Space Transportation Plan. > > > > > > > > > Dennis Smith, the OSP program manager, has told lawmakers it will cost > >$11-13 > billion to build a down-only crew rescue version of OPS that could be > >stationed at > the International Space Station (ISS) after launch on an expendable rocket. > >Sen. > John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate panel, said the overall >OSP >estimate > was $15 billion, presumably including its two-way crew transport vehicle > >(CTV) > variant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Embedded image moved to file: pic04734.jpg)(Embedded image moved to file: > > > pic00053.pcx) > > > European engineers conceived this OSP winged vehicle with an escape pod >for >crew > survivability on ascent. Lawmakers say policy should shape the craft.Credit: > > > EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY > > > > > > > > > > > > "Given NASA's current cost estimates for the program, the OSP five-year > >budget > plan that accompanied the FY 2004 NASA budget request is clearly no longer > > > credible," Boehlert and Hall wrote. "Thus the credibility of the accelerated > >OSP > program plan and cost estimate, formulated prior to decisions on the design > >of the > OPS and in the absence of any cost estimates for NASA's other planned >space > > transportation initiatives, also must be considered questionable." > > > > > > > > > O'Keefe reminded Boehlert, Hall and the Senate panel that NASA won't issue >a > > request for proposal for OSP until the end of this month at the earliest, > >and > won't award a contract until next August. By that time, he said, Congress > >will > have had time to consider the issues raised in the letter written by >Boehlert and > Hall. > > > > > > > > > "The administration is reviewing the overall plan for a crew transfer > >vehicle to > the International Space Station (ISS) in light of overall U.S. space >exploration > goals, as part of the FY 2005 budget process," O'Keefe wrote the two House > > > members. "This planning horizon will permit ample time for Congress to >fully > > consider this important endeavor." > > > > > > > > > That didn't satisfy Boehlert and Hall, who released O'Keefe's letter and > >stated > "it does not explain how the Orbital Space Plane fits into an overall >vision >for > the human space flight program, but rather acknowledges that such a vision > >is > still being developed." O'Keefe disagreed, and said late Thursday he would > >take > the matter up with Boehlert. > > > > > > > > > "We're making no contractual commitments that would preclude a mid-course > > > correction," O'Keefe said of the OSP planning process. But as in the past, > >he > would not speculate on whether the White House discussions would produce >a >better > idea of what the mission of the OSP will be beyond transporting crew to >and >from > the ISS, saying again that the ultimate decision will be made and announced > >by > President Bush. > > > > > > > > > "There is an interagency process underway, in which we are looking at > >various > options for the vision objectives as well as the strategic modifications >to >the > basic plan as presented," O'Keefe told Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.). > >Until > Bush announces his space exploration "vision," O'Keefe said, the long-term > >U.S. > space effort will continue to be focused on three exploration >enablers--nuclear > power and propulsion, human endurance in space, and broadband > > > communications--outlined in the Fiscal 2004 budget request (AW&ST Feb. >10, >p. 63). > He said that work would support human exploration to any of the destinations > >under > discussion--the Moon, Mars or the L2 Lagrange point where big human-services > >space > telescopes could work with less heat interference from Earth and the Sun > >(AW&ST > Oct. 27, p. 27). > > > > > > > > > "WE ARE NOT committing the administration or the Congress beyond the scope > >of what > is contained in the budget today," O'Keefe told Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). > >"That > said, we are exploring the option to accelerate [OSP], and to the extent > >that that > will be pursued, there will be ample opportunity to do that question and > > > incorporate it as part of the president's [Fiscal 2005 budget] well before > >any > [OSP] contract." > > > > > > > > > Adm. (ret.) Harold W. Gehman, Jr., who headed the Columbia Accident >Investigation > Board, told the Senate panel that while his group did not endorse any >design >or > destination for future U.S. space vehicles, it did urge a clear link between > >the > vehicle and its "concept of operations." Regardless of what the ultimate > > > destination of human space exploration is, in moving from the surface >of the >Earth > to low-Earth orbit (LEO) the OSP will have to traverse the most difficult > >and > dangerous leg of the trip, Gehman said. > > > > > > > > > "We need some leadership to say that just getting into and out of low-Earth > >orbit > without killing a lot of people is a goal worthy in and of itself," Gehman > >said. > "That's hard to argue because it isn't very jazzy." > > > > > > > > > After the hearing, Gehman said the best OSP design would be one that could > >evolve > into a vehicle that goes beyond LEO, an argument European engineers made >in > > recommending a winged OSP based on the Hermes spaceplane (AW&ST Oct. 27, >p. >28). > In a proposal likely to find interest on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers >are >on the > verge of directing NASA to study ways of improving crew survivability >on the >space > shuttle, one European concept would even have an "ejectable cabin" lifting > >body > within the winged vehicle that could eject in the event of an accident >on >ascent, > or be used as an ISS lifeboat (see diagram). > > > > > > > > > "I don't see any reason why the same vehicle which is used to get into >and >out of > low-Earth orbit couldn't also go to other places," Gehman said, stressing > >that > flight frequency requirements for a CTV are also likely to increase in >the >years > ahead. "L2 is not much different from low-Earth orbit." From VM Wed Dec 3 10:07:59 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11956" "Tuesday" "2" "December" "2003" "21:15:50" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "279" "starship-design: NASA Feared Myopic on Space Future" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 11956 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB32FvBA024632 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:15:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hB32FvhM024631 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:15:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com (imo-m05.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB32FuBA024582 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:15:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.162.29200461 (4214) for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:15:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <162.29200461.2cfea156@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: starship-design: NASA Feared Myopic on Space Future Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:15:50 EST NASA Feared Myopic on Space Future Aviation Week & Space Technology 10/27/2003, page 27 Frank Morring, Jr. Washington (Embedded image moved to file: pic12287.gif) Experts, lawmakers worry NASA isn't alert enough to what comes after shuttle, ISS Business as Usual NASA and the White House are too focused on the short-term goal of returning the space shuttle to flight to give thoughtful consideration to how and, more importantly, why to replace it, according to a growing group of U.S. lawmakers and the experts who advise them on space issues. In meetings last week with leaders of the congressional panels that oversee NASA, Vice President Dick Cheney kept his counsel on the state of play in internal White House deliberations on future U.S. space policy. Although participants said the Cheney meetings were "a good first step" toward including Congress, the White House discussions have been cloaked in secrecy so far. President Bush will make a decision on his vision for future space exploration and announce it when he is ready, according to his NASA Administrator, Sean O'Keefe, who has hinted that Bush will choose options supporting exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. Chairmen and ranking Democrats on the Senate and House NASA authorizing committees urged Cheney to open up the process and spark a "national debate" on space policy, but received no commitments. THAT HAS LEFT Congress to consider on its own possible space futures. The basic outlines of a long-term exploration policy have been refined in studies inside and outside the government for years, but the policy is stalled without political agreement on priorities and technical details, according to key lawmakers. "Any consensus has to be arrived at jointly by the White House, the Congress and NASA," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Science Committee. "NASA needs to do its part by coming up with credible cost estimates and schedules for projects--something that has been sorely lacking in recent decades and something that has not been done yet for the next major human spaceflight project, the Orbital Space Plane." The space plane, intended both as a transport/rescue vehicle for ISS crews and as the basis for meeting future crew transport needs, has been greeted with skepticism at home and abroad (see story p. 28). But the attitude toward the long-term future of the space shuttle transcended skepticism at a House Science Committee hearing this month. "The shuttle has never been and never will be the launch vehicle that NASA wants it to be, yet the agency appears determined to return to business as usual," said Alex Roland, a former in-house NASA historian who is chairman of the History Department at Duke University. Roland recommended that NASA should "scrap or severely curtail shuttle operations." He echoed the view of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) that "it is in the nation's interest to replace the shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting humans to and from Earth orbit." Yet to build a new human space transport, it is necessary to know where it is going. So far the Bush administration has avoided a destination-driven space exploration policy, opting instead for the nuclear space power and propulsion technology effort it has named Prometheus. That effort, a spinoff of long-term NASA planning from previous administrations, won praise from witnesses before the House panel, but there were also calls for a more focused approach. "We need a national vision that sets a destination for human exploration and systematically pursues its fulfillment with both robotic and human spaceflight," said Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., director of the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and a former associate NASA administrator. Cheney got a similar answer from senators when he asked for their views on the issue of robotic versus human spaceflight, according to one participant who said "the message was quite clear" that the U.S. must continue to back human spaceflight. And in the House hearing, the message was equally clear that Mars is the destination. "The geography of the solar system shows us the way," said Michael D. Griffin, a former NASA associate administrator for exploration. Griffin listed Mars, the Moon and some near-Earth and main-belt asteroids as reasonable goals "in the next several generations." (Embedded image moved to file: pic27753.jpg)(Embedded image moved to file: pic10383.pcx) Credit: IAA CONCEPT Griffin also listed orbital "waypoints" where humans can learn to survive in space, including low- and geostationary Earth orbits and the lunar Lagrange points, where the gravity of the Moon and Earth negate each other. His views track those of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), which has proposed a stepping-stone approach to Mars in the next 50 years (shown). As presented by Huntress at the House hearing (and earlier at the International Astronautical Congress in Bremen, Germany), the IAA approach would tackle Mars as "the most scientifically rewarding and the one place that can galvanize human interest like no other." To get there, precursor missions to the Moon, asteroids and the dark-side Sun-Earth Lagrange point (SEL2), where scientists already plan a flotilla of space telescopes, would shake out the needed technology. House Democrats led by Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Tex.), who represents NASA's Johnson Space Center, have drawn on the IAA work and its predecessor studies in a bill that sets a goal of eight years for reaching both solar Lagrange points with human crews, 10 years to rendezvous with an Earth-crossing asteroid, 15 years for a "human-tended" lunar base and 20 years to demonstrate the technology for a Mars landing. Committee members of both parties see an advantage in the step-by-step approach to Mars in that it fits within the eight-year U.S. political cycle bound by the two terms allotted a given president. But all of the goals in the Democrats' bill start at low-Earth orbit, and Huntress said near-term decisions on how to get humans there will have long-term effects on space exploration. "Our ultimate ability to reach these destinations requires that architectures developed today for transportation from the Earth's surface to orbit have a top-level requirement to consider the future needs for space transportation to deep space," he said. "Otherwise, it is likely that a solution will be derived that is useless for the next step beyond Earth orbit." From VM Wed Dec 3 10:07:59 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["23172" "Tuesday" "2" "December" "2003" "21:16:13" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "343" "starship-design: The Outstretched Empty Hand of American Space Efforts" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 23172 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB32GSBA024839 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:16:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hB32GSU0024838 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:16:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB32GQBA024801 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:16:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.1a6.1d925b48 (4214) for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:16:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1a6.1d925b48.2cfea16d@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: starship-design: The Outstretched Empty Hand of American Space Efforts Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:16:13 EST http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=893 The Outstretched Empty Hand of American Space Efforts Dennis Wingo Tuesday, October 28, 2003 I had a dream the other night. I was in China, riding on a train. The train pulled into a station and I got off to take a break. In the lobby was a magazine advertising a major U.S. University and its academic programs. Across the page from the advertisement was a picture of a painting. The impressionistic painting showed a statue in a snowstorm of an American with an out stretched empty hand. The title of the painting was "American Efforts in Space, the Outstretched Empty Hand." I awoke from this dream and realized that the outstretched empty hand is a perfect metaphor for American human space efforts. How many times have we stretched out our hand with human spaceflight to open the space frontier and come up empty handed? From the fall of Apollo to the debris field of Texas and the quandary over the fate of ISS and its predecessors we cannot seem to get our act together or develop a vision for our space efforts. It is not as if visions (which in the biblical definition means a sense of purpose) do not exist. Indeed from the images and work of Von Braun, Bonestell, and Disney to the Gene Roddenberry world of Star Trek we have had visions of what the future could be like in space. All of these visions have the common thread that PEOPLE are involved, not just robots. The difficulty is that there is a serious disconnect between the visionaries view of the future and the implementation plan of our national space policy. A lot of people, both inside and outside of NASA realize the above. However, there seems to be confusion about how to rectify the situation. In the coming days Senator John McCain will hold hearings about the future of NASA where he in his honest way will seek to find answers to the question of "what is the future of our national space program". Mr. O'Keefe will give testimony about what he (and by proxy the Bush administration) sees what the future will be. Mr. Rick Tumlinson and Dr. Robert Zubrin will do the same and knowing Rick and Bob the themes will be private enterprise and Mars respectively. However, all of the testimony as well as Mr. McCain's question will miss what the real point, which is why we have a national space program. What must follow why if we are to not result in the outstretched empty hand. For the American populace the why is almost self evident and has been illustrated and promoted by the pioneers (including television) above. For space to be worth the effort and national treasure the answer to why must be "to benefit mankind here on the earth". Star Trek makes the argument in an almost backhanded manner. How many times did Kirk or Picard speak about how space eliminated poverty, disease, and provided opportunity for a richer life for all humans? This was also a fundamental premise of Disney, Von Braun, Ley, and the other pioneers of the factual (as opposed to our love of warp drives) development of the space frontier by humans. The difference today, and the Apollo and ISS programs are illustrative of this, is that the development of the space frontier has been separated from the scientific interest in space. Up through the 1960's the inherent assumption about our future in space was that this development would be of dramatic and permanent benefit to the earth and that people, lots of people would be involved, both on earth and in space. Indeed, president Kennedy himself cast the Apollo program as being "an important first step in the conquest of space". However, the Apollo program is where the shift began from a real space program to what we have today. Dr. Von Braun argued passionately yet unsuccessfully for the Earth Rendezvous method of going to the Moon that presumed that we would build a modular space station in Earth orbit. This station would be used to assemble the Lunar vehicle that would then fly from Earth orbit to the Moon. Von Braun argued that by utilizing the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous method we would be left without any meaningful infrastructure in space to carry on after the initial landings were made. This decision is what turned the Apollo program into flags and footprints and resulted in the outstretched empty hand in the first space age. In an effort to salvage Apollo Von Braun and NASA, with considerable congressional support developed the concept of the Apollo Applications program. I urge Senator McCain and all who are interested to read the document "The Space Program in the Post Apollo Period", A Report of the President's Science Advisory Committee, prepared by the Joint Space Panels and published by the White House in February 1967. It is instructive to read their recommendations and see how far we have diverged from them, back then as well as today. Here are their five recommendations that have as a fundamental precept the why of space exploration. 1. A limited but important extension of Apollo to exploit our anticipated capability to explore the Moon. 2. A strongly upgraded program of early unmanned exploration of the nearby planets on a scale of time and effort consistent with the requirements for planning future manned expeditions. 3. A program of technology development and qualification of man for long duration space flight in anticipation of manned planetary exploration. 4. The vigorous exploitation (by all appropriate agencies of Government) of space applications for national security and the social and economic well-being of the Nation. 5. The exploitation of our capability to carry out complex technical operations in near Earth orbit (and the Moon) for the advance of science, particularly astronomy. The why for space exploration is best laid out in 4. above: "for national security and the social and economic well-being of the Nation". This is what has been lost to the space program and it began and ends with science being the all consuming reason for having a space program that now the core value at NASA. By the early 1970's and the lack of follow through by congress and the president on the recommendations of the President's Science Advisory Committee NASA shifted gears to justify their budget and programs in terms of scientific return. If you read the post Apollo records of conferences and papers the change in emphasis is clear. This is also when the academic peer review process was formalized for the unmanned space program that put scientific value as the primary criterion for missions and made the project scientist the principal investigator for unmanned missions. This led to a shift to the new and uninvestigated phenomena in space and a shift from the 10% of the budget for unmanned missions in 1967 to the one third to one half share today. This is the reason that the Lunar Observer lost out to the Mars Observer mission. This is also the reason that, as a response, many private space advocacy groups came up with the Lunar Prospector mission. The name of this mission was specifically chosen in order to emphasize that prospecting for minerals is important to space development. First this is NOT an attack on science, only on relative priorities assigned to science at NASA and throughout the federal government's non defense space activities. Indeed space science has contributed to the social well-being of the nation, if for no other reason, the beautiful pictures that the Hubble telescope has produced. Space certainly contributes to the national security of the nation as has been demonstrated by the success of the GPS program and a plethora of other national defense space programs. Even the economic and social well-being has been enhanced by communications satellites, Direct TV, XM Radio, and other commercial services. However, as the favorite buzz words of the defense department illustrate, we have not had a transformation, or a revolution, in our lives as a result of the above recommendations and indeed very few of them have been truly addressed. It is quite evident at NASA in that we have an Office of Space Science as a core enterprise but no Office for Space Development. Today in the defense department we hear a lot about the need for transformational capabilities and for revolutionary change. The same is true in NASA and the rest of the U.S. government's approach to space. Again the International Space Station (ISS) is the poster child for both the problem and the opportunity. ISS, originally, Freedom was conceived as a permanent facility in space in many ways conforming with the Joint Panel's recommendations above. The space station as Reagan envisioned was originally conceived as a waypoint in space, where a large hanger would be used for assembling Lunar and Mars bound spacecraft. It would be used for technology development and research into long term manned spaceflight. It would also have been used for microgravity research. This is what president Reagan introduced to the nation in 1984. What we have now is a pale shadow of that great idea. The station was fought over in congress with the majority democrats taking money from the program at many crucial points. NASA, in response continually morphed the rational for the station toward a science oriented station in order to build congressional support. Finally, after all of the boiling down it became president Clinton's way of getting around Jesse Helm's foreign relation's committee's blocking of money going to the Russian government and for some microgravity and long duration humans in space research. Even most of this was stripped away when Dan Goldin, facing huge overruns and a skeptical congress, took all of the money from microgravity research, leaving almost nothing left of the long duration human research. When the microgravity research community protested, many leaders were forced into leaving. Tragically, recent reports from competent scientific authorities question the methodology of NASA's long duration human spaceflight research effort. This all brings us to today and the question of what and or why. We need to re-establish the development of space as a core value of national space policy. Science is wonderful and goes hand in hand with development but without a development as a core value of national space policy Senator McCain's committee and hearings will all go the way of all of the other tree killing efforts, the outstretched empty hand. Today you hear a lot of congress people and others in space advocacy such as Dr. Zubrin making the claim that ISS is just the U.S. going around in circles and is irrelevant to what the real goal should be which is Mars. Nothing could be farther from the truth. ISS is the jumping off point to Mars and the Moon and the rest of the solar system. ISS is a triumph of manned spaceflight in its construction and operation. Where it has a failing grade is in utilization. This can change. The simple fact is that we have a space station and we can turn it into that waypoint to the solar system that Von Braun, Disney, and the early visionaries meant it to be. From spacecraft construction to astronomy to human spaceflight testing ISS can be all that we dreamed it could be way back when. The how then becomes the question. Rick Tumlinson and the Space Frontier Foundation has pushed for years for the private development of space. The problem with this approach is that private enterprise, and more importantly space finance, when it comes to space is very skeptical. This is where Senator McCain and his committee and the Congress can help to enable the future. Here are four points that will make ISS into a waypoint and space in general into an economic engine rather than a playground for a couple of rich guys and government employees. 1. Enact a version of Dana Rohrabacher's "Zero G Zero Tax" legislation. 2. Make ISS and American commercial space stations an ITAR free zone. 3. Pass other legislation that enables the rapid licensing of suborbital and orbital tourists vehicles. 4. Pass a Public/Private partnership law similar to the ESA rules to lower the risk and provide incentives to entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Walt Anderson and others yet to come. The Zero G Zero Tax (ZGZT) legislation would be similar to the current embargo on taxes on Internet commerce that did so much to power the economic miracle of the 1990's. It was a good idea when originally introduced and still is. When scored by the joint taxation committee a few years ago its ten year impact on the treasury was estimated at $1 Billion dollars. Since commercial space covered by the act had zero revenue at the time that means that over five billion dollars in commercial space activity was estimated to be generated. The bill died because offsets were required but it should be obvious that with zero revenue going to five billion revenue there should be benefits to the nation beyond the mere corporate taxes involved. Making ISS an ITAR free zone would greatly simplify the process of getting payloads to an international space station inhabited by several different nations, all of which are covered by the current ITAR rules. This is a huge thing and far more important than can be simply described here. The "permission to fly" campaign started by the Space Frontier Foundation should be taken up by the government. In our post 9/11 world it is extremely difficult to get permission to launch people into space from U.S. soil for joyrides. Make this easier. Also, put in indemnification that covers these companies when people inevitably die during these adventures. Treat it the same way as people who climb mount Everest. ESA today has a great rule that provides matching funding from ESA member states through ESA to the country where the economic activity occurs. That is if I start a commercial space company and invest $20M dollars in this activity ESA, through their advisory committees and national governments will match that amount dollar for dollar. This is an incredible way to help reduce risk for commercial space efforts. This all comes back to the question of why? For science? For glory and national prestige? For the well-being of the nation? Well all of the above actually. Today we face some incredible problems in terms of our energy future. We simply cannot completely move to the use of fuel cells and the hydrogen economy without space. From the Platinum Group Metals (PGM) that make up the cells to the technology for efficient hydrogen production, space plays a central role. There are not enough PGM's on the earth to enable the hydrogen economy and the technology development in power systems and maybe even solar power satellites can help to deliver the power that we need for our future. Fusion, that ultimate power source for efficient space propulsion can be used for efficient power production on the earth. The larger reason for why is that space is as important today as the national railroad, the Panama Canal, and the interstate highway system has been over the last two centuries. The U.S. and our national space policy has the ability to transcend the problems that face the world today for our energy future and resources to help bring the rest of the world to the same level of affluence that environmentalists say is impossible. Recently the World Wildlife Federation proclaimed that we would need two extra Earth's to raise China and the rest of the world to an American level of affluence. Well as Dr. John Lewis has pointed out in his book "Mining the Sky", there are hundreds of thousands of worlds just waiting to be developed as well as the major planets, and dozens of Moons. I would recommend that Mr. McCain ask Dr. Lewis to testify as well as Dr. Bill Boynton, also from the University of Arizona who can tell you how much water really exists on Mars. We have a space station. Lets use it. We have the Delta IV and the Atlas V. Lets use them to send heavy payloads to ISS. We even have a Space Shuttle, an aging yet remarkable system. I am going to go against all of my advocate friends and advocate a second generation Shuttle to replace the current three remaining shuttles that can meet the criterion laid down by NASA for the Assured Access to Station program. A clean sheet design taking advantage of over twenty years of operational experience would be a much better and cost effective solution that would fulfill all of the Orbital Space Plane requirements as well as the Assured access program. Implement all of the upgrades and operational changes recommended by various committees over the years and you could build a very nice STS II that would be able to be semi-mass produced and later mated to a flyback booster, resulting in a fully reusable system. Boeing, in the form of the old Rockwell Downey, the Shuttle's original builder, has done some good work in this area. We have a tremendous future in space if we just shake loose the shackles of the last thirty years of post Apollo hand wringing. If we do not do this successfully we will certainly end up as the Portugal of the 22nd century and enable the construction of the statue memorializing the outstretched empty hand. From VM Wed Dec 3 10:07:59 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11382" "Tuesday" "2" "December" "2003" "21:15:58" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "351" "starship-design: NASA's new culture - Touche feely??!!!" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 11382 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB32G7BA024704 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:16:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hB32G7Eh024702 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:16:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB32G6BA024672 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:16:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.f3.3370c60a (4214) for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:15:59 -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: starship-design: NASA's new culture - Touche feely??!!! Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:15:58 EST http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/10/12/nasa.reformers.ap/index.html Managers aim to cultivate new NASA culture 'I care about people's feelings,' one says Sunday, October 12, 2003 Posted: 6:46 PM EDT (2246 GMT) JOHNSON SPACE CENTER, Texas (AP) -- In the land of rocket science, where numbers count for everything and hunches are scorned, two men are on a mission more difficult than plugging a hole in the space shuttle. They're trying to make NASA's shuttle program a warmer, fuzzier place by recrafting the culture that doomed Columbia, and Challenger before that. To these reformers, that means being super-sensitive about their words, their tone, their height, even the shape of their conference table. "None of this is too touchy-feely for me," says Bill Parsons, an ex-Marine who took over NASA's decimated shuttle program following the Columbia accident. Parsons knows his 6-foot-5, 222-pound frame is intimidating, so he tries not to tower over anyone. He's recruited a colleague to critique his meetings with employees, to make sure he sends the right message and sets an encouraging tone. His hand-picked deputy, Wayne Hale, a shorter, stouter fellow, is stocking up on sociology books and reshaping the team that oversees each shuttle flight, along with the team's conference table. "We talk about the shape of the table and everybody giggles," he says. Hale hasn't hit the furniture store yet. But he's trying to figure out "how to deal with the human question, the human element in these communication issues." This is all penance for Columbia's final flight. Columbia accident investigators blasted NASA for creating an environment in which engineers were too afraid to speak up about potential dangers and managers were too caught up with flight schedules. The space agency's broken culture, along with a ripped slice of insulating foam, proved deadly for Columbia and its seven astronauts. For Challenger and its seven astronauts 17 years earlier, it was a decayed culture combined with cold-stiffened O-rings. New Age NASA? The flight director who guided the Apollo 11 moon landing and the Apollo 13 rescue finds the space agency's new, soft, mushy approach distasteful -- and flat-out wrong. "Look, these people are professionals. They're being paid a professional wage. If they have a problem, I expect them to stand up and speak up. Period," says Gene Kranz, the subject of the recent History Channel documentary, "Failure Is Not an Option." The title is borrowed from his 2000 autobiography. "We've got 19- and 20- and 21-year-olds over in Iraq right now who have to make daily decisions. It's no ambiguity. I don't think we should expect anything less of the people who are working in the space program. Daily decisions, no ambiguity," the 70-year-old Kranz says, his words clipped as short as his lifelong crewcut. Kranz isn't the only old-timer complaining about the New Age NASA. Retired space program veterans from the 1960s and '70s are asking Hale how he, as chairman of the mission management team for all future shuttle flights, will make potential life-and-death decisions if there is an overload of opinion, gut feelings and hunches -- and no consensus. Do what we did, they tell him. Hale shudders at the thought. "They were dealing with all-white males, and there was a lot of in-your-face, militaristic almost (communication)," says Hale, 49, a former shuttle flight director. Soft-spoken and bald with a storyteller's voice and a fondness for space-motif and stars-and-stripes ties, he says: "I'm still a student at this, but if you want to inhibit communication, that's a good way to do it these days." Even Parsons, 46, a former Marine infantry officer, disapproves of nose-to-nose yelling matches. "To be honest, there are a lot of people I thought were much more qualified to do this job than myself. But I think the reason I was picked is because I can nurture a team. I can help that team grow confidence in itself," he says in a thick Mississippi accent. Parsons was director of NASA's Stennis Space Center in his home state when the space agency asked him to move to Houston for the top shuttle job last spring, three months after the Columbia tragedy. He replaced Ron Dittemore, the face and voice of NASA in the wake of the disaster. A one-time sub-six-minute-miler, Parsons maintains a runner's physique under natty dress suits. He knows he can't escape his big Marine image. "But I've spent my life trying to make sure that I didn't intimidate people. I don't like to walk up to people and tower over them. I know how that feels," he says. "I care about people's feelings." 'In God we trust, all others bring data' NASA spaceflight officials never used to worry about the emotional ramifications of their actions or fear among the working masses -- "the working-level devils," as Kranz affectionately calls them. The opinions of technicians and engineers, no matter how low on the ladder, were not only respected, but sought by flight directors like the legendary Kranz. He practiced "defense in depth," so that if a technical problem slipped past one group, it would be caught by the next, or the next. He demanded toughness, competence, confidence. He contends the NASA of yesteryear would not have allowed the Columbia accident. The system would have fixed the recurring launch problem of breakaway fuel-tank foam, he says. Midlevel management -- gutted during the 1990s to save money -- is where Kranz would turn to hear about workers' gut feelings. If two or three workers had the same hunch -- even without data to back it up -- then that would be enough for Kranz to call a halt and investigate, and to collect more data. The framed plaque from that era still hangs in the Mission Evaluation Room at Johnson Space Center, downstairs from Mission Control: "In God we trust, all others bring data." With Columbia, engineers had no data, just a sick, sinking feeling when they saw the video and film images of the chunk of foam smacking the ship's left wing during liftoff in January. Their repeated requests for spy satellite pictures were ignored or overruled, so no one knew Columbia had a mortal gash that would let in scorching atmospheric gases when the spacecraft headed home. To his everlasting regret, Hale -- who initially pursued the request for satellite photos -- ultimately came down on the side of mission management team leader Linda Ham, who nixed the pictures. Hale grows quiet when asked if the episode was a good lesson in his new role as Ham's replacement: "It's a lesson that was too dear to learn ... the price was too high." Columbia was lost over Texas that Saturday morning in February, when the ship ripped apart just 16 minutes short of a Florida homecoming. Hale was waiting at the Kennedy Space Center landing strip, along with other agency bigwigs and the astronauts' families. Timetable pressure By summer, Ham was shoved into a lower-ranking engineering job and Hale was moving back to Houston from Cape Canaveral. Parsons needed him. Not only does Hale live every day with the pain of being wrong, he also knows firsthand what it's like to be too afraid to speak up. Last year, he was angry when NASA headquarters in Washington issued computer screen-savers to shuttle managers counting down in days, hours, minutes and seconds to the February 19, 2004, launch date for the final U.S. segment of the international space station. Hale vowed to write NASA boss Sean O'Keefe that the screen-savers were sending the wrong message by stressing flight deadlines and putting pressure on everyone. But he didn't. "I was inhibited for sociological reasons. He's way up there, I'm way down here. He didn't want my advice and he didn't know who I am. "Now you talk about guilt." In its final report in August, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board cited the screen-savers as evidence of the timetable pressure that contributed to the tragedy. There were other signs that troubled Hale long before the Columbia breakup, yet he never complained to the people who mattered like O'Keefe or NASA's previous chief, Daniel Goldin. Throughout the 1990s, shuttle managers kept being pressed from the top to make do with less money -- and to even do more. Hale penny-pinched along with the rest. "It's the frog in the pot of water story," Hale says. "You try to put a frog in a boiling pot of water, he'll jump out. If you put him in a pot of cold water and turn the heat up, slowly by degrees, you can cook the frog. Well, I think we were in the pot of water that slowly got turned up by degrees and didn't realize what we were up against." No whining, no denying Now, Parsons, Hale and everyone else at NASA vow to carry out all 29 recommendations made by the Columbia investigators, regardless of cost or consternation. Half the new measures are to be fulfilled before shuttle flights resume a year or more from now. As the mission management chairman, Hale is doubling the team members to more than 30, insisting on daily meetings that run as long as necessary during flights, requiring thorough briefings on the fuel tank, booster rockets and other critical components, bringing in outside experts for group decision-making advice, and putting everyone through training sessions that mimic emergencies. The Columbia investigators insisted on expanded training for mission managers, following their dismal performance in January. As part of the catharsis -- for him and the entire shuttle program -- Hale is also readily accepting blame for the disaster. No whining. No denying. "We fouled up," he says. According to Hale, some at NASA still believe there isn't much to fix, just a tweak here and there. Others wonder what the culture fuss is all about. "Culture. I don't know exactly what that word means. I'm going to find out, I'm sure, in the next year or so what it means," says Milt Heflin, an Apollo veteran who heads NASA's flight director office. At the opposite extreme are those calling for radical, revolutionary change. "The truth probably lies somewhere in between, as it generally does," Hale says. Parsons already sees a shift in attitude and a desire to learn from mistakes. But he says it will be a gradual process. "I don't want to give the impression that people are different and they've changed, and now we've seen the light," Parsons says. "We are working on it." Everyone knows, deep down, that failure is no longer an option. "I'm kind of surprised that the program didn't end when Columbia crashed," says Hale. "Before, I would have told you one more shuttle accident and we'll be done. "The country right now is giving us another chance, and we can't get it wrong this time." Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. From VM Wed Dec 3 10:07:59 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["16157" "Tuesday" "2" "December" "2003" "22:23:25" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "371" "starship-design: X-15 stories" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 16157 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB33NlBA002808 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:23:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hB33Nl6v002807 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:23:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB33NjBA002767 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:23:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.12b.3684274d (25508) for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:23:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <12b.3684274d.2cfeb12d@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: starship-design: X-15 stories Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:23:25 EST From: Mary Shafer Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Post Mission Shuttle Transport Date: 14 Jan 2000 14:02:11 -0800 jamesstep@aol.comNO-SPAM (JamesStep) writes: > >It would be difficult, to say the least, > >to move the Shuttle by truck from California > >to Florida. > > Yes; I think it would be almost impossible! But not completely impossible. The early Orbiters were brought overland, on surface streets, from Plant 42, in Palmdale, to Edwards. The route was turn right out of the plant onto Ave M, go up to 10th St. East (now named Challenger Way) and turn left, take 10th east all the way through Lancaster to Avenue E, where the paving stops, ease it onto the gravel road across the west end of the base, turn right on Roasmond Blvd, come all the way into base, turn right on Lancaster Blvd (120th St. E off-base, I think), turn left onto the runway overrun, go down to the runway and turn onto the taxiway, and then stay on it down to the MDD. Only 35 miles or so and it only took about half a day. The X-15s were quicker, but they were also a lot smaller. > Not only do you have the problem of the width of > the shuttle (talk about a wide load!), but you also have > the problem of its height (it couldn't fit under any > underpasses). So you go on a route with no underpasses. It's rare that a load like this would go on the freeways. Instead, such loads go on the first or second class of road down from a freeway. > There would also be a tremendous security problem, as > they'd have to close the highways and provide a large > security escort for the entire journey. We only had about 20 cars in the cavalcade. One CHP car on point and one on drag, with the local forces handling traffic control (i.e. blocking the cross streets or doing a moving closure of the road at the appropriate time) Mentioning that the X-15s were brought overland long before the Orbiters were had reminded me of a story, which my husband heard from someone who was there. The X-15 had landed at one of the dry lakes under its trajectory, I think because the engine hadn't lit, and FRC (that's what Dryden was before it became DFRC) was recovering it with a tractor-trailer and an escort. They'd loaded it up in the early morning and were bringing it back slowly, with the California (or Nevada, I don't know which lake it was) Highway Patrol providing leading and trailing escorts, some a ways out in front or behind, with flashing lights. I believe it was dark, either because they were just starting out or hadn't quite gotten here. A pick-up with a camper on it came dashing up from behind and passed the slow CHP car back some distance, the close CHP car, the eight or ten escort vehicle, and began to pass the trailer with the X-15 on it. The X-15, being wider than the trailer, had its wings hanging over the side, sticking out some distance. Remember that it was dark and the X-15 is matte or semi-matte black, making it pretty much invisible, even though they'd stuck a light on each wingtip for this trip. Well, you've probably figured it out--about a third of the way past the trailer, the front corner of camper shell met the trailing edge of the X-15 wing, which sliced through it like a hot knife though butter. By this time, everyone had stopped and the CHP officers were out of their cars and asking the driver for registration and license. While that was going on, the mechanics managed to separate the X-15 and the camper and inspect the X-15 and its tie-downs. So far as they could see, there was no major damage, although the surface of the wing was slightly marred in one place, probably where it went through the corner of the camper. They got the driver's information, started back up, and went down the road with no further problem. The fellow who told Ken about this said that most of them spent the rest of the trip wondering just how that driver was going to explain the whole thing to friends, family, and, most importantly, insurance agent. -- Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html shafer@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA Lead Handling Qualities Engineer, SR-71/LASRE NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA For non-aerospace mail, use shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com please Search for Google's copy of this article From: Mary Shafer Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Post Mission Shuttle Transport Date: 19 Jan 2000 12:21:25 -0800 henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article , > Mary Shafer wrote: > >...the front corner of camper shell met the trailing edge of the > >X-15 wing, which sliced through it like a hot knife though butter. > >...the mechanics managed to separate the X-15 and the > >camper and inspect the X-15 and its tie-downs. So far as they could > >see, there was no major damage, although the surface of the wing was > >slightly marred in one place... > For those who find this a bit surprising, note that the X-15 was built to > go Mach 8 at a time when very little was known about hypersonic flight, > so the wing was built *strong*. The X-15 was made of high-nickel steel, Inconel-X, and heat-annealed frequently. It was beyond strong. A friend found a piece of Mike Adam's X-15 out in the desert and tried to cut it apart. Not only couldn't he cut it with anything he tried, he couldn't even scratch it with most of them. I've forgotten the list, but it included carbide and diamond files or drill bits. I think he managed a few scratches with a diamond drill bit, but that was about it. Another, unstated bit of information is that campers, particularly those that fit in the truck bed of a pick-up, are not built like X-15s. Rather, they're designed to be lightweight and inexpensive, as well as easy to manufacture. The usual construction at that time was thin aluminum sheeting over a wood frame, with the "big" frame members being something like 2x2". People used to modern RVs and fifth-wheels would be shocked at the lack of structural reinforcement. -- Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html shafer@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA Lead Handling Qualities Engineer, SR-71/LASRE NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA For non-aerospace mail, use shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com please Search for Google's copy of this article Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Post Mission Shuttle Transport Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:50:16 GMT In article , Mary Shafer wrote: >> For those who find this a bit surprising, note that the X-15 was built to >> go Mach 8 at a time when very little was known about hypersonic flight, >> so the wing was built *strong*. > >The X-15 was made of high-nickel steel, Inconel-X, and heat-annealed >frequently... Well, the wing internal structure, away from the high heat loads on the surface, was mere titanium. :-) Still pretty stubborn stuff, though, and used in generous quantities as a hedge against unknown conditions. >...The usual construction at that time was >thin aluminum sheeting over a wood frame, with the "big" frame members >being something like 2x2". People used to modern RVs and fifth-wheels >would be shocked at the lack of structural reinforcement. Admittedly, keeping the rain out is a bit easier than keeping an X-15 wing out... -- The space program reminds me | Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net of a government agency. -Jim Baen | (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu) Search for Google's copy of this article Newsgroups: sci.space.policy From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Why not X-33? Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 19:30:43 GMT In article <8moib3$iaa$1@news.netvision.net.il>, Bruce wrote: >Come to think of it, didn't the DC-X have just one prototype? Although this >contradicts my previous statement that might be a good example of the >consequences of building just one prototype. There was only one DC-X, and that was recognized from the start as a flaw in the program. (As indeed it was, terminating the program when that one was lost.) The X-15 program built three aircraft precisely so that it could run an efficient test program at a reasonable flight rate despite occasional major damage. Past experience had indicated that such a program could make good use of two aircraft; the third was explicitly a hedge against the possibility that one X-15 might sometimes be in the shop for a while, for modification or repairs. (And indeed, on two or three occasions North American had to put a badly damaged X-15 back together.) With three of them, the program could maintain something approaching a normal pace even though they got broken now and then. -- Microsoft shouldn't be broken up. | Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net It should be shut down. -- Phil Agre | (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu) Search for Google's copy of this article From: James A Davis Newsgroups: sci.space.policy Subject: Re: X-34 Slowdown Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:16:53 -0500 Pat Bahn wrote: > what follow-on could come from the X-15? In the 1950s it was believed that the speed of high performance military aircraft would continue to increase. It was expected that the 1960s would see fighters with top speeds of Mach 4 and 5. The X-15 was intended to provide data that could be used in the design of these aircraft just as data from the X-1 was used in the design of supersonic aircraft from the F-100 onwards. The X-15 was never intended to be the precursor of any particular design any more than the X-1 was. In the event, the 1950s saw top speeds reach a plateau that has lasted for 40 years. The X-15 program, although brilliantly conducted and spectacularly successful, was largely a waste of effort. But this could not have been foreseen when the program was started. Jim Davis Search for Google's copy of this article From: "Jim Davis" Newsgroups: sci.space.policy Subject: Re: X-34 Slowdown Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 07:49:49 -0500 Michael P. Walsh wrote... > > In the event, the 1950s saw top speeds reach a plateau that has lasted > > for 40 years. The X-15 program, although brilliantly conducted and > > spectacularly successful, was largely a waste of effort. But this could > > not have been foreseen when the program was started. > You mean all the data went away and was never used for such things > as the Space Shuttle? The data never went anywhere. The X-15 data was only marginally relevant to the shuttle program. The shuttle's speed range was well beyond that of the X-15. Data from the various ICBM, IRBM, reentry vehicle, ASSET, and PRIME tests were far more relevant to the shuttle than the data from the X-15. Just compare the leading edge radii of the X-15 and shuttle aero surfaces. Had the X-15 program never happened the impact on the shuttle program would have been nil. > One of the reasons advanced technology programs have trouble > getting started is because there is usually a requirement that a > follow-on application be in view. Regarding the X-15 as > "largely a waste of effort" is not good reasoning, in > my opinion. My characterization of the X-15 as "largely a waste of effort" is more of an observation than a conclusion. The rapid development of the ballistic missile in the 1950s pushed the X-15 program into the marginal relevance category. But let me ask you: if there had been no X-15 program could the shuttle have still been designed and built in the same time frame and at the same cost as it actually was? Or would NASA have had to delay any shuttle effort until an X-15-like program could have been carried out? Jim Davis Search for Google's copy of this article Newsgroups: sci.space.policy From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: X-34 Slowdown Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:19:30 GMT In article <39A46975.E2542129@primary.net>, James A Davis wrote: >In the 1950s it was believed that the speed of high performance military >aircraft would continue to increase. It was expected that the 1960s >would see fighters with top speeds of Mach 4 and 5... And in fact, it *almost* happened. The turbojet/ramjet F-103, well advanced in development when it was cancelled in 1957, was designed for Mach 3.7 and would probably have gone higher. There were other programs headed the same way. >In the event, the 1950s saw top speeds reach a plateau that has lasted >for 40 years. With minor specialized exceptions, like the Blackbird and Foxbat. The combination of increased technical difficulties (as turbojets and aluminum structure had to be replaced by fancier technology beyond about Mach 2.5), growing problems with cost, and a protracted squabble over aircraft vs. missiles in the late 1950s acted to stop the progression short of Mach 3. There was nothing inherent about this number, and things could easily have gone significantly farther. -- Microsoft shouldn't be broken up. | Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net It should be shut down. -- Phil Agre | (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu) Search for Google's copy of this article Newsgroups: sci.space.tech From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: suborbital vehicle for X-Prize Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:23:47 GMT In article <96ates$11rr$1@news.hal-pc.org>, Jon Berndt wrote: >The target altitude specified by the X-Prize of 100 km was chosen to >preclued the need for *exotic* heat shielding (what the heck does that >actually mean?). Look at the X-15 as a design case study: The X-15A-2 had >spray-on thermal ablator which proved to be barely sufficient, and in some >cases insufficient. The X-15 structure was made of Inconel / Titanium... The original X-15s reached circa 100km several times, without the ablator. However, the Inconel skin was specifically designed as thermal protection, of a kind ("heat sink") now considered an obsolete approach. -- When failure is not an option, success | Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net can get expensive. -- Peter Stibrany | (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu) Search for Google's copy of this article ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (rly-yh01.mail.aol.com [172.18.180.65]) by air-yh01.mail.aol.com (v97.10) with ESMTP id MAILINYH13-29f3fcbb3fe21f; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:35:26 -0500 Received: from maiss02h.gdls.com (maiss02h.gdls.com [192.136.15.144]) by rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (v97.10) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYH11-29f3fcbb3fe21f; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:34:56 -0500 Received: from maiss04h.gdls.com (maiss04h.gdls.com [136.180.1.4]) by maiss02h.gdls.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB1LYrn6028940; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:34:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from IS002023.gdls.com (is002023 [136.180.45.23]) by maiss04h.gdls.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB1LYrq23493; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:34:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from IS002018.gdls.com ([136.180.45.18]) by IS002023.gdls.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2003120116345209:153017 ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:34:52 -0500 Subject: X-15 stories To: kellyst@aol.com, LDRSSEOCliff@aol.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: starksk@gdls.com Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:34:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on STL01/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/01/2003 04:34:52 PM, Itemize by SMTP Server on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/01/2003 04:34:52 PM, Serialize by Router on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/01/2003 04:34:53 PM, Serialize complete at 12/01/2003 04:34:53 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-AOL-IP: 192.136.15.144 X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:XXX:XX X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 From VM Wed Dec 3 10:07:59 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["21508" "Tuesday" "2" "December" "2003" "22:23:09" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "370" "starship-design: Anger over NASA busness as usual direction" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 21508 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB33NKBA002562 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:23:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hB33NKKi002561 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:23:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.101]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB33NIBA002509 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:23:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.1f0.14b3658a (25508) for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:23:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1f0.14b3658a.2cfeb11d@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: starship-design: Anger over NASA busness as usual direction Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:23:09 EST http://www.qconline.com/archives/qco/sections.cgi?prcss=display&id=176163 November 30, 2003 11:03 PM New NASA looks like the old one The Orlando Sentinel , CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- The ``bold agenda for space exploration'' that the Bush administration has been crafting since August is expected to be long on rhetoric, but short on new goals and money. Internal NASA documents obtained by The Orlando Sentinel, and interviews with those close to the policy-making process, indicate the new vision being drafted for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration looks a lot like the old one. No final decisions have been reached. However, closed-door meetings of administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, appear to be developing plans committed to the status quo, with no major new programs or specific destinations, no timetables and, most importantly, no significant spending increases. NASA funding is expected to rise slightly in 2004, from just more than $15.4 billion in 2003 to about $15.5 billion. There are no concrete plans to go to Mars, return to the moon or otherwise extend manned space flight beyond low Earth orbit. In fact, NASA may squeeze existing programs to help raise the estimated $280 million needed to return the space shuttle to flight after the Feb. 1 Columbia disaster. NASA will continue with the same human-spaceflight programs that have been the agency's focus for more than a decade: the shuttle and the international space station. Likewise, incremental research will proceed on projects to develop nuclear rocket propulsion and a small orbital space plane that would ferry people and cargo to the station. This business-as-usual approach is cloaked in vague, soaring prose, such as the following ``Prospective POTUS (President of the United States) Vision Statement'' from an internal NASA document prepared for the White House: ``A house with no foundation falls, and a journey without a plan traps us in the wilderness. To move America and the world boldly into our greatest frontier, we must build the foundations of mind, technology and experience. Without them, our journey into space would be only a visit. With them, we can stay. Our children will lead us, and their adventure will have no end.'' ``I don't think they have the courage to candidly characterize the present situation,'' said John Pike, director of the public-policy research organization GlobalSecurity.org. ``Namely, that we have a precarious fingerhold in space, but we're not exactly sure where we're going to go next, or when we're going to go there.'' The administration's familiar road map follows a call by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board in August for a national debate on U.S. space goals. There also is renewed interest in Congress, on a scale not seen in years, to pursue a shuttle successor or other projects. Despite assurances from the White House and NASA political appointees that the president is deeply committed to space exploration, there is no indication President Bush is willing to spend money on new programs in a time of soaring budget deficits. The accident board noted in its final report that how well a program is funded is a direct reflection of the importance placed on it. ``A strong indicator of the priority the national political leadership assigns to a federally funded activity is its budget,'' the report said. ``During the past decade, neither the White House nor Congress has been interested in `a reinvigorated space program.'|'' Board chairman Harold Gehman summed it up this way during a Sept. 4 congressional hearing: ``Visions without resources are just dreams.'' One of the accident board's chief findings was that the United States lacked a national consensus on the goals of its civilian space effort. The result was ``an organization straining to do too much with too little.'' During the decade from 1993 to 2002, NASA's budget remained flat, going from $14.31 billion to $14.87 billion (after dipping as low as $13.6 billion in 2000). Adjusted for inflation, that represented a 13 percent drop in NASA's purchasing power. The shuttle program was hit much harder, absorbing a 40 percent loss. Nevertheless, plans taking form likely will call for little change in programs or funding. No specific near-term proposals are expected for big-ticket human visits to the moon or Mars. Instead, a Sept. 11 draft of NASA's ``Bold Agenda for Space Exploration'' describes a far more indefinite goal. ``At this point in time, the American public is focused on shuttle return to flight, and they seek greater clarity on the long-term future of the American spaceflight program,'' the draft said. ``The opportunity now exists to establish this bold new vision for space exploration: To enable permanent human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.'' How would NASA achieve this goal? The document calls for a ``steppingstone approach'' in which robotic missions would lead the way. The shuttle would resume flying to complete assembly and ``full utilization'' of the $100 billion space station this decade. The station would continue to do ``world class research'' on crew health and safety ``necessary to support the survival of humans traveling far from Earth.'' An orbital space plane would be developed to eventually replace the shuttle as transportation for astronauts to the station. Research would be conducted on new forms of propulsion, including nuclear power. This ``bold agenda'' outlined by the draft document is identical to NASA's plans before the Columbia accident -- plans universally criticized since as lacking a clear, coherent, core vision or purpose. One factor pushing the White House toward a ``steppingstone'' approach is an unprecedented budget deficit that is expected to top a half-trillion dollars in 2004 because of the Iraq war, U.S. economic woes and tax cuts. Another is the experience of Bush's father when the former president proposed a manned mission to Mars in 1989. The idea went nowhere when the cost was estimated at more than $400 billion. Current President George W. Bush ``saw his daddy try to pull that stunt,'' GlobalSecurity.org's Pike said. ``It had a high giggle factor.'' While NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe has repeatedly refused to discuss any details about what's being considered, he says it would be a mistake to assume anything yet about what the president will decide. O'Keefe passionately insists the White House is fully engaged in the debate. ``The administration, I think, has got a very strong interest in what's involved here,'' he said at a September media briefing. ``We are in the midst of working through, as an administration, a reasoned, thoughtful, thorough assessment of the U.S. space-exploration policy. That shouldn't be confused with indifference.'' Even so, during almost three years in office, the Bush administration's main focus at NASA has been limited largely to controlling costs. One of the White House's first acts in February 2001 was to kill two modules and an escape ship for the space station and limit the number of annual shuttle flights. A day after the station cuts were announced, NASA pulled the plug on the chronically over-budget, behind-schedule X-33 program to develop a shuttle replacement. Critics cite the November 2001 nomination of then-White House budget official O'Keefe to run NASA as further proof the administration has little interest in the agency beyond balancing its books. Bush made one of his few public statements about America's civilian space goals to a small gathering of reporters in late September, four weeks after Columbia investigators released their final report. ``We've got an interagency study going on now that will enlighten us as to the best recommendations necessary for NASA to proceed in a way that is a good use of taxpayer dollars,'' Bush said. ``I really don't have an opinion on Mars, but I do have an opinion that the more we explore, the better off America is I believe in pushing the boundaries.'' The administration has revealed little about its plans beyond that. The interagency study is being co-chaired by Margaret Spellings, assistant to the president for domestic policy, and Steve Hadley, the White House's deputy national-security adviser. A wide range of administration officials on the Domestic Policy Council and National Security Council are involved in the discussions, which are being held in secret. While insisting a variety of options are being considered, the administration has refused to publicly disclose even the most basic details about the group's work, when it will report its findings or the sensitive issue of money. There were rumors that Bush would unveil new space plans -- including a possible call for an eventual return to the moon -- at a Dec. 17 commemoration of the Wright brothers' first powered airplane flight at Kitty Hawk, N.C., or during January's State of the Union address. However, officials familiar with the process say it now appears unlikely any substantive proposals will be announced at the Kitty Hawk ceremony. Cheney has been dispatched to Capitol Hill in recent weeks to discuss space issues with lawmakers, who have grown increasingly dissatisfied with business as usual. U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., introduced a bill Nov. 5 that would create a national commission to develop new space policy. Two weeks earlier, a bipartisan group of 101 House members sent a letter to the White House urging Bush to show leadership in space and increase funding for NASA. A similar Nov. 14 letter from 23 senators noted: ``NASA has attempted to do too much with too little for too long. It is time to fix that funding shortfall.'' ``I believe that until you get that kind of leadership out of the White House, the space program will continue to drift along as it is or there will be this annual budget fight,'' said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who signed the letter. ``It's not on the radar scope of other senators who don't have a vested interest, and that's why the program limps along.'' U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, is pushing for the administration to set a firm date to retire the station and the shuttle before making any decisions on the proposed orbital space plane. ``We're not just going to go along as we have year after year, same-old, same-old,'' the New York Republican pledged. Boehlert has warmed to an idea, presented at an Oct. 16 committee hearing, that NASA could do a lot with a relatively modest budget increase to about $20 billion annually. ``The civil space program costs each person in the nation about $50 a year or less than 14 cents per day,'' Michael Griffin, a space-technology expert and former NASA manager, testified at the hearing. ``A really robust space effort could be had for a mere 20 cents a day from each person. We, as a nation, quite literally spend more on pizza than we do on space exploration.'' Boehlert, however, admits that the current fiscal picture is bleak. ``There's stiff competition for the limited dollars, so I'm not making book that we're going to get anywhere near the $20 billion,'' Boehlert said. ``But I'm not summarily dismissing the possibility that we will get more than the $15 billion.'' U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, chairman of the House Science Committee's space and aeronautics subcommittee, said it's unclear whether any major policy shift will happen. But, he added, it's time to stop having meetings and start making decisions. ``I think for this president to become a president who has a major effect on American policy concerning technology in space, he has to act sometime in the next two to three months,'' Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said. ``Otherwise, he will be left behind.'' ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xg05.mx.aol.com (rly-xg05.mail.aol.com [172.20.115.202]) by air-xg04.mail.aol.com (v97.10) with ESMTP id MAILINXG42-46c3fcbaa6f224; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:54:50 -0500 Received: from maiss02h.gdls.com (maiss02h.gdls.com [192.136.15.144]) by rly-xg05.mx.aol.com (v97.10) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXG52-46c3fcbaa6f224; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:54:08 -0500 Received: from maiss04h.gdls.com (maiss04h.gdls.com [136.180.1.4]) by maiss02h.gdls.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB1Ks5n6025741; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:54:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from IS002023.gdls.com (is002023 [136.180.45.23]) by maiss04h.gdls.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB1Ks5q18047; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:54:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from IS002018.gdls.com ([136.180.45.18]) by IS002023.gdls.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2003120115540406:151698 ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:54:04 -0500 Subject: Anger over NASA busness as usual direction To: starksk@gdls.com Cc: ben@b2foundation.com, casciola@mobil1.net, hanked@gdls.com, kathan_1@yahoo.com, kellyst@aol.com, kryswalker@aol.com, LDRSSEOCliff@aol.com, rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: starksk@gdls.com Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:54:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on STL01/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/01/2003 03:54:04 PM, Itemize by SMTP Server on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/01/2003 03:54:04 PM, Serialize by Router on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/01/2003 03:54:05 PM, Serialize complete at 12/01/2003 03:54:05 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-AOL-IP: 192.136.15.144 X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:XXX:XX X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 From VM Wed Dec 3 10:07:59 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["23897" "Tuesday" "2" "December" "2003" "22:23:15" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "435" "starship-design: Fwd: Hope for NASA dims. more busness as usual?" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 23897 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB33NXBA002712 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:23:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hB33NX50002710 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:23:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m07.mx.aol.com (imo-m07.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.162]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB33NVBA002641 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:23:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.a3.4d9fdf4f (25508) for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:23:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on darkwing See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html for details. $Revision: 1.139 $Date: 2003-09-07 10:14:23-07 X-Security: The postmaster has not enabled quarantine of poisoned messages. Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_a3.4d9fdf4f.2cfeb123_boundary" 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: starship-design: Fwd: Hope for NASA dims. more busness as usual? Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:23:15 EST --part1_a3.4d9fdf4f.2cfeb123_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=902 Bush to Charge NASA with Implementing Broad Space Vision to Dominate Cislunar Space Frank Sietzen, Jr. Sunday, November 30, 2003 WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush will propose a sweeping new vision of U.S. space leadership that will call for use of the Moon for technology development and partnerships between NASA and the Defense Department to make maximum use of existing or planned U.S. space systems, this column has learned from informed sources. NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe will be tasked with leading the effort, aimed at presenting Vice President Dick Cheney and the president with a roadmap to what some are calling "renewed U.S. space dominance" during 2004. Following a year-long review of U.S. space objectives, programs, and assets, the Bush administration was presented with a broad set of options during the summer's deliberations, a source indicated. O'Keefe "worked to build a consensus" for renewed U.S. manned spaceflight beyond shuttle and station. The return to the Moon by U.S. astronauts possibly by the end of the next decade became "by default" the least expensive and risky of the paths proposed for the U.S. space program. Bush will call for renewed U.S. activities leading to leadership of space exploration "in the Earth-Moon system" that could include manned lunar landings, the employment of a series of commercially-available launch vehicles and upper stages, new robotic lunar probes that will include orbiting communications and navigation relay satellites, and the development of a "flexible" manned spacecraft that is likely to be a form of the proposed Orbital Space Plane, but no new advanced launchers, large Apollo-style space vehicles or reusable replacements for the shuttles. Creation of a manned lunar base would evolve from more limited landings, if at all. Development of new, advanced space technologies that would reinvigorate the space program and industry has been more of a focus of the effort than the use of the Moon itself, the source said. Military use of space and military test beds were also key elements in gaining acceptance of the renewed space plan. Testing of the Prometheus atomic rocket would also be a part of the plan. The existing space shuttle fleet will play a crucial role in the plan by use of its heavy lifting capabilities in an unmanned form. Use of the existing U.S. expendable Delta and Atlas fleet as well as the remaining three shuttles was mandated early on, the source indicated. Part of this exercise has also been a parallel effort to arrive at a retirement date for the shuttle. That had yet to be agreed upon, this column has been told. NASA's budget will annually rise "no more" than seven percent, beginning in 2006, according to the source. This excludes the cost of the OSP and the shuttle's return to flight. Less than $250 million in new funding will be allocated in FY2005 for the space dominance implementation plan. A series of options studied this summer that could free up agency funding for the manned initiative included NASA ending whole areas of existing unrelated work and transferring the programs to other federal agencies. The study included ending NASA-funded aeronautics research, and earth science programs. But it was not clear if these transfers would be attempted as part of a reorganization of the space agency that was set in motion by the Columbia accident as well as the Bush space vision exercise, or delayed until after the 2004 Presidential Election. The idea was considered so controversial that many thought it would never go beyond the study phase. O'Keefe's view of the idea was also not clear. But other elements of the reorganization are going ahead, including creation of a new "Code X" at NASA headquarters to administer the exploration package, and a streamlining of operational codes and responsibilities. Space Architect Gary Martin would be a part of but would not lead the new exploration office, whose head is expected to be a former admiral. As this column goes to press, the source, not affiliated with the current U.S. space industry or agencies, indicated that eventual success in reaching a broad enough goal to gain political support within the administration was mostly the work of O'Keefe, and a small group of other Bush administration appointees and advisors. "Some were dubious that he (O'Keefe) could be a statesman, but look what has happened," the source said. "For someone without a space background, he did good, keeping people's feet to the fire. He clearly wants (the new vision) this to happen." "But they are still tinkering with what's in there, and nobody knows at all." There was-and still is-significant opposition to the effort, the source said. In the end, however, O'Keefe allegedly spent as much time gathering support within NASA itself as he did within the U.S. military, which continues to be skeptical about a new NASA-led manned program. "In a way he had to drag his own agency along to put up, or shut it. It was a close run thing, and still isn't a done deal" this column was told. Once the Bush White House chooses a venue for the announcement, attention will shift to NASA for the crafting of the implementation plan and the chronology. Some of this has already been assembled, allegedly and quietly, by O'Keefe working with a handful of NASA planners. Other elements will depend on how much of the final proposed vision actually gets into form by the White House. Support for any NASA-run manned space program was not uniform within the administration, the source complained. "But in the end he got most of them on board, and that's what counts." But when asked if the new space vision announcement is a certainty, the source joked. "In this White House, the only thing certain is they hate leaks." --part1_a3.4d9fdf4f.2cfeb123_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (rly-yd02.mail.aol.com [172.18.141.66]) by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v97.10) with ESMTP id MAILINYD32-1f63fcba82c2a6; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:45:07 -0500 Received: from maiss02h.gdls.com (maiss02h.gdls.com [192.136.15.144]) by rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (v97.10) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYD22-1f63fcba82c2a6; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:44:28 -0500 Received: from maiss04h.gdls.com (maiss04h.gdls.com [136.180.1.4]) by maiss02h.gdls.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB1KiGn6024557; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:44:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from IS002023.gdls.com (is002023 [136.180.45.23]) by maiss04h.gdls.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB1KiGq16147; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:44:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from IS002018.gdls.com ([136.180.45.18]) by IS002023.gdls.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2003120115441548:151210 ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:44:15 -0500 Subject: Hope for NASA dims. more busness as usual? To: casciola@mobil1.net, rhonda.elpers@mindspring.com, hanked@gdls.com, kryswalker@aol.com, kellyst@aol.com, ben@b2foundation.com, LDRSSEOCliff@aol.com, kathan_1@yahoo.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: starksk@gdls.com Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:44:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on STL01/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/01/2003 03:44:15 PM, Itemize by SMTP Server on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/01/2003 03:44:15 PM, Serialize by Router on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/01/2003 03:44:16 PM, Serialize complete at 12/01/2003 03:44:16 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-AOL-IP: 192.136.15.144 http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=902 Bush to Charge NASA with Implementing Broad Space Vision to Dominate Cislunar Space Frank Sietzen, Jr. Sunday, November 30, 2003 WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush will propose a sweeping new vision of U.S. space leadership that will call for use of the Moon for technology development and partnerships between NASA and the Defense Department to make maximum use of existing or planned U.S. space systems, this column has learned from informed sources. NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe will be tasked with leading the effort, aimed at presenting Vice President Dick Cheney and the president with a roadmap to what some are calling "renewed U.S. space dominance" during 2004. Following a year-long review of U.S. space objectives, programs, and assets, the Bush administration was presented with a broad set of options during the summer's deliberations, a source indicated. O'Keefe "worked to build a consensus" for renewed U.S. manned spaceflight beyond shuttle and station. The return to the Moon by U.S. astronauts possibly by the end of the next decade became "by default" the least expensive and risky of the paths proposed for the U.S. space program. Bush will call for renewed U.S. activities leading to leadership of space exploration "in the Earth-Moon system" that could include manned lunar landings, the employment of a series of commercially-available launch vehicles and upper stages, new robotic lunar probes that will include orbiting communications and navigation relay satellites, and the development of a "flexible" manned spacecraft that is likely to be a form of the proposed Orbital Space Plane, but no new advanced launchers, large Apollo-style space vehicles or reusable replacements for the shuttles. Creation of a manned lunar base would evolve from more limited landings, if at all. Development of new, advanced space technologies that would reinvigorate the space program and industry has been more of a focus of the effort than the use of the Moon itself, the source said. Military use of space and military test beds were also key elements in gaining acceptance of the renewed space plan. Testing of the Prometheus atomic rocket would also be a part of the plan. The existing space shuttle fleet will play a crucial role in the plan by use of its heavy lifting capabilities in an unmanned form. Use of the existing U.S. expendable Delta and Atlas fleet as well as the remaining three shuttles was mandated early on, the source indicated. Part of this exercise has also been a parallel effort to arrive at a retirement date for the shuttle. That had yet to be agreed upon, this column has been told. NASA's budget will annually rise "no more" than seven percent, beginning in 2006, according to the source. This excludes the cost of the OSP and the shuttle's return to flight. Less than $250 million in new funding will be allocated in FY2005 for the space dominance implementation plan. A series of options studied this summer that could free up agency funding for the manned initiative included NASA ending whole areas of existing unrelated work and transferring the programs to other federal agencies. The study included ending NASA-funded aeronautics research, and earth science programs. But it was not clear if these transfers would be attempted as part of a reorganization of the space agency that was set in motion by the Columbia accident as well as the Bush space vision exercise, or delayed until after the 2004 Presidential Election. The idea was considered so controversial that many thought it would never go beyond the study phase. O'Keefe's view of the idea was also not clear. But other elements of the reorganization are going ahead, including creation of a new "Code X" at NASA headquarters to administer the exploration package, and a streamlining of operational codes and responsibilities. Space Architect Gary Martin would be a part of but would not lead the new exploration office, whose head is expected to be a former admiral. As this column goes to press, the source, not affiliated with the current U.S. space industry or agencies, indicated that eventual success in reaching a broad enough goal to gain political support within the administration was mostly the work of O'Keefe, and a small group of other Bush administration appointees and advisors. "Some were dubious that he (O'Keefe) could be a statesman, but look what has happened," the source said. "For someone without a space background, he did good, keeping people's feet to the fire. He clearly wants (the new vision) this to happen." "But they are still tinkering with what's in there, and nobody knows at all." There was-and still is-significant opposition to the effort, the source said. In the end, however, O'Keefe allegedly spent as much time gathering support within NASA itself as he did within the U.S. military, which continues to be skeptical about a new NASA-led manned program. "In a way he had to drag his own agency along to put up, or shut it. It was a close run thing, and still isn't a done deal" this column was told. Once the Bush White House chooses a venue for the announcement, attention will shift to NASA for the crafting of the implementation plan and the chronology. Some of this has already been assembled, allegedly and quietly, by O'Keefe working with a handful of NASA planners. Other elements will depend on how much of the final proposed vision actually gets into form by the White House. Support for any NASA-run manned space program was not uniform within the administration, the source complained. "But in the end he got most of them on board, and that's what counts." But when asked if the new space vision announcement is a certainty, the source joked. "In this White House, the only thing certain is they hate leaks." --part1_a3.4d9fdf4f.2cfeb123_boundary-- From VM Thu Dec 4 09:58:13 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6389" "Wednesday" "3" "December" "2003" "21:03:53" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "97" "starship-design: NASA misses the mark -- Rep. Dana Rohrabacher," "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 6389 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB424BBA000438 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:04:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hB424BSp000424 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:04:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB4249BA029992 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:04:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id l.12a.368d8656 (4206); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:03:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <12a.368d8656.2cfff009@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 hB424ABA000343 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Kryswalker@aol.com, starksk@gdls.com, rhondakevans@charter.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, kathan_1@yahoo.com, Kath2go@yahoo.com, ben@b2foundation.com, PLove@SIKORSKY.COM, LDRSSEOCliff@aol.com Subject: starship-design: NASA misses the mark -- Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:03:53 EST Sounds like things are heating up to fix the mes in NASA. Hope it goes through. NASA misses the mark - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED NASA misses the mark By Dana Rohrabacher As a member of the House Science Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics for 15 years, I have witnessed time and again NASA's over-promising, over-marketing and underestimating costs. Whether it's the Space Shuttle or Space Station, it's a pattern. NASA goes for the grandiose, ignoring doable, more affordable alternatives. An Industrial Space Facility, reliant on remote-control robotics and infrequent visits by astronauts, was an alternative for a permanently manned station. This could have been done for a small fraction of the cost of the International Space Station, and we would have almost immediately benefited from space-based science experiments. America is now at a vital crossroads, struggling with choices, but with no quality vision on which to base those decisions. This mandate for decision has been forced upon us in large measure by the disintegration of the Space Shuttle Columbia. With the current grounding of the Shuttle fleet, America has lost the capability for manned space flight. We simply can't go on without the consensus of a unifying vision. Great treasure and lives are being expended; the nation must appreciate the great purpose of sending humans into space, or we will cease to do it. NASA has squandered money and lives insisting on mega-projects, and it has jeopardized its greatest asset: the faith of the American people. Yet, America's continuous support for a national space program is testimony to our people's national character, which is tied in so many ways to the conquest of frontiers: the expansion of freedom, hope and prosperity for the common man. Even now, as despair is evident in our public-sector space program, the commercially-focused space sector is confident and gearing up. Telecommunication and space services (like weather and space imaging and those relating to our Global Positioning System) have already changed our world. Now, space entrepreneurs are emerging to inspire us with their innovation and creativity and their willingness to take the next step up. Individuals like Burt Rutan, Dennis Tito and Elon Musk are pushing the boundaries, building affordable space hardware and investing where no investor has gone before.They are also changing the rules when it comes to the economics of space travel.If not dragged down by our own space bureaucracy, the new space entrepreneurs will no doubt make major advances toward affordable access to space. Their goals are not so grandiose: taking tourists into space and bringing them home alive. These private-sector endeavors will spawn spinoff technologies that will help our government efforts, especially in defense. There's a role reversal for you. And spinoffs notwithstanding, we may also see a foundation laid for ultra-rapid passenger and package delivery service to many points on the globe,aswellasspace tourism and other moneymaking ventures.All this is happening, let us note, when the NASA effort is thrashing around, as its huge programs collapse from their own contradictions. So, what must be done? Let's get government out of the way of space entrepreneurs and put in place policies that encourage such private-sector space initiatives. Congress should provide incentives for space investment.MyZero Gravity/Zero Tax proposal should be dusted off and implemented.NASA should agree to use private-sector alternatives in resupplying the Space Station.Government, of course, has more than a passive role to play.Like it or not, the space effort is by its nature tethered to the government.In the short term, we need to finish the work at hand, and that means getting the Space Station's laboratory working and showing results.Anything else will result in a huge loss of credibility with the American taxpayers and make them ever more skeptical about NASA. The Clementine mission, brought about by a group of rebels in the space community, discovered evidence of water at lunar poles in 1996.The Lunar Prospector project demonstrated that commercial lunar exploration missions are feasible. With evidence of water on the moon, we can make oxygen to breathe and hydrogen for fuel. The Moon/Earth arena beckons us.Helium-3, a rare isotope found on Earth, is in abundant supply on the Moon.Some believe that this element may in the future provide the basis for a clean-burning fuel if and when fusion reactor technology becomes a reality. So, let's quit talking about sending a person to Mars, and look a little closer at what we can do with water on the moon. Let us focus on this vast stretch of the near universe, and make sure we can use it to better the lives of our people and make them safer and more prosperous. On another front, while we remain mired in indecision and bureaucracy concerning what direction U.S. human space flight should take, the Chinese seem to have a clear understanding of why they are attempting human space flight: to enhance national prestige, technological advances and the promotion of high-tech exports. The success of China'sfirstastronaut launched into orbit in October could signal a fast-track space program that could very well leave us in the dust. Obviously, America has to get going.The president needs to lead the way with a major vision speech, and what day would be more perfect than December 17 — the 100th anniversary of human flight?He could, if he chooses, talk about encouraging Orville and Wilbur Wright-like projects with incentives like the Zero Gravity/Zero Tax proposal. With such empowerment, mind-boggling projects like the collection of solar power from arrays of solar panels hold the promise of an abundant energy source for humankind. Our president has the opportunity to excite a whole new generation about space. I implore him to do so. He has been a great leader since September 11. Now, he can make a historic mark on another great defining quest for our nation. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, is chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House Science Committee. From VM Mon Dec 8 10:24:23 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1938" "Sunday" "7" "December" "2003" "21:13:52" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "40" "starship-design: New simple concepts to orbit" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1938 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB82E3BA013181 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:14:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hB82E3Yd013180 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:14:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB82E2BA012787 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:14:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.45.c4eefc (4560) for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 21:13:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <45.c4eefc.2d053860@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: starship-design: New simple concepts to orbit Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 21:13:52 EST Ran into some info of Rascal, the Darpa project for a quick chep small TSTO. http://cism.jpl.nasa.gov/events/workshop/Preston_Carter.pdf http://www.darpa.mil/TTO/rascal/RASCAL_PS_Final.pdf http://hypersonic2002.aaaf.asso.fr/papers/17_5148.PDF Fond the programs a lot fartther along, and a lot of the technology issues we've ben debating have long been solved. Darpa has been doing tests on the engines the craft would need, and is designing the system around off the shelf parts. Their 0 to maybe up to Mach 6 craft can be powered by modified versions of the engines that have been flying in the F-15's for 30 yeras. No need for new rocket based commbined cyle engines (though they might be nice). They just spray water into the engine intake to cool the incoming air to save the turbojects from overheating, and spray some liquid oxegen ahead of the burners to make up for the thin air. Its like hot roding up a normal car engine for occasional stream racing. Its been increaseing the thrust, without hurting engines for short bursts. It will get the mother ship up to 200,000 feet or so where you drop of the upper stage. Their TSTO serves a wide range of small cargo needs from LEO to fairly high orbits. But if you do the math (fairly easy to do given the off the shelf parts) it hakes a black horse like HTOL SSTO possible. Or at the least a real off the shelfs HTOL TSTO. Also Andrews space is working a LOx/LH ystem that can mine all the LOx you would need to get to orbit out of the air. They are proposing a TSTo that would cruse in the air to a launch point filing its lOX tank on route. Its liquid hydrogen fueled, which makes it heavier and bulky. But the LOX minig gear was demonstrated in a lab, and got god extraction rates. So some good news in the pipe. http://www.andrews-space.com/en/corporate/projects(200311).html http://www.andrews-space.com/en/corporate/NGLT(200311).html From VM Tue Dec 9 16:25:32 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["18679" "Tuesday" "9" "December" "2003" "19:23:26" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "425" "starship-design: Fwd: A Sneak Preview of America's Air and Space Cathedral" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 18679 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBA0O70W016508 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:24:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hBA0O7Ei016507 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:24:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBA0O60W016387 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:24:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id z.79.1e60f960 (16484) for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:23:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <79.1e60f960.2d07c17e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on darkwing See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html for details. $Revision: 1.139 $Date: 2003-09-07 10:14:23-07 X-Security: The postmaster has not enabled quarantine of poisoned messages. Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_79.1e60f960.2d07c17e_boundary" 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: starship-design: Fwd: A Sneak Preview of America's Air and Space Cathedral Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:23:26 EST --part1_79.1e60f960.2d07c17e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/9/03 7:39:12 AM, starksk@gdls.com writes: > > >http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=904 --part1_79.1e60f960.2d07c17e_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-xl06.mx.aol.com (rly-xl06.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.76]) by air-xl01.mail.aol.com (v97.10) with ESMTP id MAILINXL13-73e3fd5ec71227; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:39:12 -0500 Received: from maiss02h.gdls.com (maiss02h.gdls.com [192.136.15.144]) by rly-xl06.mx.aol.com (v97.10) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXL64-73e3fd5ec71227; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:38:25 -0500 Received: from maiss04h.gdls.com (maiss04h.gdls.com [136.180.1.4]) by maiss02h.gdls.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB9FcNn6019682; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:38:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from IS002023.gdls.com (is002023 [136.180.45.23]) by maiss04h.gdls.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB9FcMm15710; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:38:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from IS002018.gdls.com ([136.180.45.18]) by IS002023.gdls.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2003120910382138:349254 ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:38:21 -0500 Subject: A Sneak Preview of America's Air and Space Cathedral To: casciola@sbcglobal.net, rhondakevans@charter.net, hanked@gdls.com, kryswalker@aol.com, kellyst@aol.com, ben@b2foundation.com, LDRSSEOCliff@aol.com, marrina@gdls.com, robnetta@gdls.com, kathan_1@yahoo.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: starksk@gdls.com Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:38:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on STL01/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/09/2003 10:38:21 AM, Itemize by SMTP Server on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/09/2003 10:38:21 AM, Serialize by Router on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/09/2003 10:38:23 AM, Serialize complete at 12/09/2003 10:38:23 AM Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-AOL-IP: 192.136.15.144 http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=3D904 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 A Sneak Preview of America's Air and Space Cathedral =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 Keith Cowing =20= =20 Monday, December 08, 2003 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 Last week members of the press were given a preview of the new Annex to the= =20 Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum: the Udvar-Hazy Center located adjacent=20= to =20 Dulles International Airport. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 Many have referred to the current National Air and Space Museum on the Mall= in =20 Washington D.C. as a shrine to achievements in air and space. If the origin= al =20 museum is a shrine (it is), then its new annex is a cathedral. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 Nothing is small about this place - the building, the exhibits, the scope o= f =20 achievements displayed. With this vast increase in display space virtually=20= all of=20 the Smithsonian's aviation and space collection can now be displayed- up un= til =20 now only 10% could be put on public view. There are a few things still lack= ing ? =20 National Air and Space Museum Director Gen. Jack Dailey made repeated menti= on of =20 the fact that the museum does not have a B-24 in its collection - yet. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 Unlike the downtown museum, everything is all together - and juxtaposed in=20= =20 provocative ways - small prop planes sit beneath a Concorde, Mercury and Ge= mini =20 capsules next to a Space Shuttle, wood and canvas next to titanium alloy. T= o be =20 certain, this can be said of the museum downtown - but here great attention= has =20 been given to making things accessible - unlike the downtown museum where m= uch of=20 the interesting stuff is 50 feet over your head. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 Here, according to Gen. Dailey, great care was taken in the design of the =20= =20 Udvar-Hazy Center, utilizing ramps, lighting, etc. such that you can get at= eye =20 level with nearly every item on exhibit. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 The museum is named after its prime benefactor, Steven Udvar-Hazy. The tota= l cost=20 for the facility will be $311 million - all of it raised from private funds= . =20 While a substantial amount has been raised, $90 million still remains to be= =20 raised to completely pay for its construction. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 In addition to the private construction funds, Congress paid for the planni= ng =20 activities and Virginia provided the new road infrastructure. In addition,=20= local =20 school districts are contributing to various educational activities that wi= ll be =20 a core feature of this museum's outreach mission. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 Dailey spoke fondly of the museum's construction contractor who has not onl= y =20 passed on 100% of all cost savings accrued during construction, but has als= o =20 rushed some tings to completion even though the contract does not call for=20= it- =20 the most visible example being the James McDonnell hangar which houses Spac= e =20 Shuttle Enterprise. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 There was one item in particular that I wished to see - Enterprise. Over th= e past=20 25 or so years I have seen all other shuttles - either as they were being =20= =20 assembled (I stood inside portions of Atlantis, Discovery, and what would =20= =20 eventually become Endeavor when I worked at Rockwell International) or when= they =20 were launched or landed. Yet I had never managed to actually see Enterprise= - =20 even though she has sat in a hangar 11 miles from my home the entire time I= have =20 lived in Virginia. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 Enterprise was used for a series of "Approach and Landing Tests" which were= =20 conducted at Edwards Air Force Base. These flights consisted of lofting the= =20 Enterprise on top of a modified 747 and then letting the Enterprise fly fre= e to =20 glide in for a landing as an unpowered glider. Enterprise flew only 5 missi= ons on=20 her own in 1976. While some consideration was given to modifying Enterprise= to =20 fly into space, cost and weight issues led to a decision not to make the =20= =20 modifications. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 After serving as a public relations centerpiece at a variety of internation= al =20 venues in the early 1980s, including the Paris Air Show, Enterprise was del= ivered=20 to the Smithsonian Institution on 18 November 1985. After being housed outd= oors =20 for a time, a special hangar was assembled around Enterprise. While Enterpr= ise =20 was protected from the elements, the hangar was cramped and not equipped fo= r any =20 maintenance or restoration. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 Enterprise brought back out of retirement briefly two years later to test s= ome =20 emergency landing restraint system hardware in 1987 developed in the afterm= ath of=20 the Challenger accident. Enterprise once again rose a call for service in 2= 003 =20 after the Columbia accident when portions of the leading edges from both wi= ngs =20 were removed for tests and inspection. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 When the Smithsonian takes possession of an aerospace artifact, it is resto= red to=20 a condition suitable for display. Sometimes things need to be totally =20= =20 disassembled and then rebuilt. While many artifacts are restored to =20= =20 flight-capable condition, they will never be flown again, per Smithsonian p= olicy.=20 Several of the items on display - the SR-71A, Concorde, and XV-15 arrived a= t the =20 Museum under their own power ? with only their fuel, hydraulics and other =20= =20 potential hazards removed. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 Often times an artifact arrives at the museum having served other uses afte= r it =20 fulfilled it original intent. Sometimes restoration can bring a plane back=20= to the=20 condition it was in when it was delivered from the factory. In other cases=20= a =20 decision is made to pick a moment in time as a guide for restoration. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 In the case of Enterprise, it was modified somewhat after its initial test=20= =20 flights were over. A paint job for the Paris Air show brought its original=20= paint =20 scheme a bit closer to what Columbia and the other operations shuttle had.=20= It =20 cockpit and other parts were also removed. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 I asked Dr. Valerie Neal, Enterprise's curator, what time frame in Enterpri= se's =20 life she was aiming for. She said that they had decided that they would see= k to =20 maintain the vehicle in 'as delivered' condition - i.e. as it looks right n= ow. =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 As part of this process, several of the leading edge units removed for use=20= in the=20 Columbia accident investigation will need to be reinstalled. In addition, w= hile =20 Enterprise was shielded from the weather, some corrosion needs to be dealt=20= with. =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 The process of getting Enterprise ready for formal display will take severa= l =20 months. Because of the cleaning process, the McDonnell Hangar where she sit= s will=20 be sealed off from public view until March 2004 when she will go on display= . =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 I asked the same question of Gen Dailey. He said that his team had been try= ing to=20 get a hold of some of the original avionics removed during the upgrade of t= he =20 orbiter fleet to the new, so called 'glass cockpit" avionics. If this is in= deed =20 the care that Dailey suggested that there might be a display along side of=20= =20 Enterprise. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 Unlike Enterprise's Soviet kin - the "Buran series" of shuttles, she will n= ot =20 have holes cut in her or be converted into a restaurant. Rather, she will b= e =20 exhibited for the trailblazer she represents. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 But Enterprise is but one of the marvelous artifacts in this museum. When t= otally=20 filled in more than 300 aircraft and spacecraft will be on display. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 There are a lot of fun things for folks to do as well. In addition to the l= arge =20 educational facilities, there is an immense IMAX theatre, a gift shop, and=20= plenty=20 of room to just sit and gaze at all of these wonderful machines. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 There is also three degree motion based simulator which takes you to the =20= =20 International Space Station. Alas, someone at the museum needs to talk with= the =20 NASA technical advisor and check the script for this ride: CSA stands for =20= =20 Canadian Space "Agency" - not "Authority". There will not be an X-38 CRV (a= s is =20 shown), nor is the TransHab going to be the final thing added to the ISS. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 That one minor nit aside, let me repeat - this new expansion of the already= =20 magnificent National Air and Space Museum is simply astonishing. I am certa= in =20 that in the years to come this place will become as popular - if not more s= o - =20 than its sister facility in downtown Washington, D.C. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 The museum opens to the public on 15 December 2003. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 Click on photo to enlarge. All photos copyright SpaceRef Interactive Inc.= All =20 Rights Reserved. =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 =20= =20 --part1_79.1e60f960.2d07c17e_boundary-- From VM Fri Dec 12 14:35:50 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2166" "Friday" "12" "December" "2003" "16:21:27" "EST" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "48" "starship-design: Fwd: space shuttles that could have been :(" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2166 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBCLLg0W013662 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:21:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hBCLLgvC013660 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:21:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from imo-m06.mx.aol.com (imo-m06.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.161]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBCLLf0W013592 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:21:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r4.8.) id z.99.40ec8d09 (25508) for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:21:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <99.40ec8d09.2d0b8b57@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on darkwing See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html for details. $Revision: 1.139 $Date: 2003-09-07 10:14:23-07 X-Security: The postmaster has not enabled quarantine of poisoned messages. Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_99.40ec8d09.2d0b8b57_boundary" 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: starship-design: Fwd: space shuttles that could have been :( Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:21:27 EST --part1_99.40ec8d09.2d0b8b57_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A cool site listing a lot of info and illistrations about other space shuttle and RLV concepts proposed over the last 40 years. A great site. >http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld001.htm --part1_99.40ec8d09.2d0b8b57_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-xg06.mx.aol.com (rly-xg06.mail.aol.com [172.20.115.197]) by air-xg02.mail.aol.com (v97.14) with ESMTP id MAILINXG24-7073fd8d4d814f; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:34:53 -0500 Received: from maiss02h.gdls.com (maiss02h.gdls.com [192.136.15.144]) by rly-xg06.mx.aol.com (v97.10) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXG69-7073fd8d4d814f; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:34:32 -0500 Received: from maiss04h.gdls.com (maiss04h.gdls.com [136.180.1.4]) by maiss02h.gdls.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBBKYUn6014102; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:34:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from IS002023.gdls.com (is002023 [136.180.45.23]) by maiss04h.gdls.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBBKYUm01450; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:34:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from IS002018.gdls.com ([136.180.45.18]) by IS002023.gdls.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 2003121115342971:430791 ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:34:29 -0500 Subject: space shuttles that could have been :( To: kellyst@aol.com, CliffMarko@aol.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: starksk@gdls.com Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:34:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on STL01/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/11/2003 03:34:28 PM, Itemize by SMTP Server on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/11/2003 03:34:29 PM, Serialize by Router on STLHUB/SRV/LS/GDYN(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 12/11/2003 03:34:30 PM, Serialize complete at 12/11/2003 03:34:30 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-AOL-IP: 192.136.15.144 http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld001.htm --part1_99.40ec8d09.2d0b8b57_boundary-- From VM Tue Dec 30 14:56:28 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4758" "Tuesday" "30" "December" "2003" "16:51:08" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "l_parker@cacaphony.net" nil "90" "starship-design: Wanted: 'Space Depot' For The Rocket Builders" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4758 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBUMsoqw023466 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:54:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hBUMsode023465 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:54:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBUMsnqw023457 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:54:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from user120.net181.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([209.26.189.120] helo=broadsword) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AbSlE-00063C-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:54:49 -0800 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design Mailing List" Subject: starship-design: Wanted: 'Space Depot' For The Rocket Builders Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:51:08 -0600 Wanted: 'Space Depot' For The Rocket Builders by Joe Latrell Colorado Springs - Dec 30, 2003 I am a builder. My family, have for generations built things. Homes, Offices, Retail Stores - you name it and we have built it. A straight laced blue collar family until I came along. Growing up, I worked along side my father and brothers doing what we did best, our finest work to build places for people to carry out their lives. Then I found computers and the rest is a strange tale that lead me down a different path than the one planned for me. But while I left the building trade, it did not leave me. To this day I still compare the work I do in the computer and engineering fields to the work I have done building a home. Do I have a solid plan? Is the work progressing correctly? Are there any changes that we need to make due to some unforeseen issue? Does everything work the way it should? The process is simple - start with an idea, create a plan and then build. Modify as needed. Test and check systems often, but not to the point where all you do is check. Before too long, you have a finished product. It works for houses, it works for computers and it should work for space companies. Not too hard of jump right? Well, that isn't quite how it works. Several things are missing. The biggest being infrastructure and I am not talking about launch complexes either. Getting good parts is not only difficult; it is downright impossible some days. Most of your time is spent running around finding things that will work that are not priced so high as to be outside your budget (namely for liability issues). What is a rocket enthusiast supposed to do? For the time being, there isn't a lot that can be done. But there is an opportunity for an individual (or individuals) to change this state of affairs. It is not glamorous but it is needed and could probably reap some nice profits. Someone needs to create a one-stop shop for parts and services for the rocket engineer. Someone needs to build the Home Depot of the space industry. A builder today has the advantage of a large number of suppliers for his design choices. If you need a faucet, just hop down to Home Depot. They have several designs that will fit your needs (and your plans). Want shingles for the roof? You can get a dozen different sizes and colors delivered to you. The system works great. The prices are reasonable and you can get what you need. There are plenty of materials for a builder to choose from so they don't have to create a sink from scratch. For the rocket guy or gal, these types of resources are hard to come by. Why isn't there a 'Space Depot' of sorts? A place where a company could buy whatever components they needed for their rocket projects, pay reasonable rates for the materials and get good quality for their money? A space superstore for the engineer to use? If you think this idea strange then consider the following: A large quantity of policy and position papers are written about what space flight should look like in the future. How we should be working on land use rights for the moon, flight regimes for tourists, etc. There are entire conferences on what we should do with the abundance of space resources. Lots of it seems to be just paper shuffling and rhetoric on what we should be doing instead of actually working on the issues. Why? Because the basic terrestrial resources needed to do the job just don't exist. I have attended the ISDC and the Space Access conferences and have seen a lot of wonderful concepts. Most of them revolve around needing hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars before they can start to produce results simply because you have to build everything from scratch. There is no 'Space Depot' to get parts from. For the record, I want to go to space. I created a company to start the ball rolling in that direction but I have found, like many others who have started aerospace firms that the resources needed aren't quite there yet. It is a sad state of affairs. If you want off the shelf parts, they are practically non-existent. For those parts that do exist, the companies that produce them fear selling them because of liability issues. If someone were to create a 'Space Depot' then many infrastructure problems would have easier solutions and we can get to space that much faster. So, how much for those 2,500 pound engines on isle 3? Joe Latrell is President and CEO of Beyond-Earth Enterprises, a space launch company based in Colorado Springs, CO. He is an avid space enthusiast and participates in a wide range of space related activities from discussion groups to systems development. He can be contacted via Joe Latrell Joe_latrell@NOSPAM@beyond-earth.com - replace @NOSPAM@ with single @ From VM Tue Dec 30 15:39:37 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2629" "Tuesday" "30" "December" "2003" "15:36:34" "-0800" "Curtis Manges" "clmanges@yahoo.com" nil "29" "Fwd: starship-design: Wanted: 'Space Depot' For The Rocket Builders" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2629 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBUNbQqw022847 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:37:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hBUNbQLx022846 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:37:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from web61110.mail.yahoo.com (web61110.mail.yahoo.com [216.155.196.112]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hBUNbPqw022810 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:37:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20031230233634.93346.qmail@web61110.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [206.216.145.121] by web61110.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:36:34 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on darkwing See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html for details. $Revision: 1.139 $Date: 2003-09-07 10:14:23-07 X-Security: The postmaster has not enabled quarantine of poisoned messages. Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-118567500-1072827394=:92110" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Curtis Manges From: Curtis Manges Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design Subject: Fwd: starship-design: Wanted: 'Space Depot' For The Rocket Builders Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:36:34 -0800 (PST) --0-118567500-1072827394=:92110 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Nice idea, but what's lacking are mass production and standardization, just to begin with. Need a new commode for your in-system cruiser? Make sure its plumbing connections match those of your current model ride, and good luck. Home Depot works because lumber, plumbing fittings, and electrical equipment are all standardized as of long ago; it doesn't matter who the manufacturer is, it'll fit. This standardization took a long time and a lot of market competition, which the space industry has -- how much of?? -- right, the same amount as it has of standardization. Don't worry, this booster nozzle fits all the common makes . . . ;-) "L. Clayton Parker" wrote: From: "L. Clayton Parker" To: "Starship-Design Mailing List" Subject: starship-design: Wanted: 'Space Depot' For The Rocket Builders Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:51:08 -0600 Wanted: 'Space Depot' For The Rocket Builders by Joe Latrell Colorado Springs - Dec 30, 2003 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --0-118567500-1072827394=:92110 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Nice idea, but what's lacking are mass production and standardization, just to begin with. Need a new commode for your in-system cruiser? Make sure its plumbing connections match those of your current model ride, and good luck. Home Depot works because lumber, plumbing fittings, and electrical equipment are all standardized as of long ago; it doesn't matter who the manufacturer is, it'll fit. This standardization took a long time and a lot of market competition, which the space industry has -- how much of?? -- right, the same amount as it has of standardization.
Don't worry, this booster nozzle fits all the common makes . . .  ;-)

"L. Clayton Parker" <l_parker@cacaphony.net> wrote:
From: "L. Clayton Parker"
To: "Starship-Design Mailing List"
Subject: starship-design: Wanted: 'Space Depot' For The Rocket Builders
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:51:08 -0600

Wanted: 'Space Depot' For The Rocket Builders
by Joe Latrell
Colorado Springs - Dec 30, 2003

Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing --0-118567500-1072827394=:92110-- From VM Tue Dec 30 16:07:30 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2022" "Tuesday" "30" "December" "2003" "17:02:42" "-0700" "ben franchuk" "bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca" nil "52" "Re: starship-design: Wanted: 'Space Depot' For The Rocket Builders" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 2022 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBV06bqw010585 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:06:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hBV06bGV010583 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:06:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from bach.ccinet.ab.ca (bach.ccinet.ab.ca [198.161.96.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBV06aqx010551 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:06:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from jetnet.ab.ca (gc-jet-207.jetnet.ab.ca [207.34.60.207]) by bach.ccinet.ab.ca (8.12.9p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBV07M5C018794 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:07:23 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca) Message-ID: <3FF21222.2050601@jetnet.ab.ca> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021005 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: 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 To: Starship-Design Mailing List Subject: Re: starship-design: Wanted: 'Space Depot' For The Rocket Builders Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:02:42 -0700 L. Clayton Parker wrote: > Wanted: 'Space Depot' For The Rocket Builders > by Joe Latrell > Colorado Springs - Dec 30, 2003 > For the record, I want to go to space. I created a company to start the ball > rolling in that direction but I have found, like many others who have > started aerospace firms that the resources needed aren't quite there yet. It > is a sad state of affairs. If you want off the shelf parts, they are > practically non-existent. > > For those parts that do exist, the companies that produce them fear selling > them because of liability issues. If someone were to create a 'Space Depot' > then many infrastructure problems would have easier solutions and we can get > to space that much faster. > > So, how much for those 2,500 pound engines on isle 3? I want to rent a few on Isle 3. The problem is there is no way to make $$ easy in space. You have to move to the moon or planets. Since the cost to get to space is about 10x ( ballpark figure ) I expect that a mature space transportion industry will transport a payload about 1/10 the than today's typical air travel. The other problem is the infrastructure on the planet earth is top-heavy in that it gets all the raw materals and energy cheap, unlike that in space. > > Joe Latrell is President and CEO of Beyond-Earth Enterprises, a space launch > company based in Colorado Springs, CO. He is an avid space enthusiast and > participates in a wide range of space related activities from discussion > groups to systems development. He can be contacted via Joe Latrell > Joe_latrell@NOSPAM@beyond-earth.com - replace @NOSPAM@ with single @ > So where is the 2004 Hardware catalog? Got any 6V6 vacuum tubes on isle #5, so I can have music on my Mars Estate? I got 3.125 selims I need to claim from the Lunar Embassy. What about rocket engine replacement, is it 100% repariable. What about information technology, I refuse to pay M$ any money for computer hardware. Is it open source? Ben. Gumpy space dreamer. From VM Wed Dec 31 14:17:44 2003 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1730" "Wednesday" "31" "December" "2003" "16:10:00" "-0600" "L. Clayton Parker" "l_parker@cacaphony.net" nil "32" "RE: starship-design: Wanted: 'Space Depot' For The Rocket Builders" "^From:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 1730 Return-Path: Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBVMDjqw011538 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:13:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hBVMDj19011536 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:13:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBVMDiqw011498 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:13:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from user120.net181.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([209.26.189.120] helo=broadsword) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1Abob1-00037q-00 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:13:43 -0800 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "Starship-Design Mailing List" Subject: RE: starship-design: Wanted: 'Space Depot' For The Rocket Builders Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:10:00 -0600 The more I think about this article, the more sense it makes. The invention of the aircraft did not happen overnight. In fact, taking into account the development of the "Airship" (see "The Spaceship and the Zeppelin", http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spacetravel-03j.html), there is a very strong parallel between the development of the infrastructure for space travel with the development of the infrastructure for air travel. Airships were costly and required years of government funding. Ultimately, they went nowhere, but much that was learned and the technology level that arose out of all of that spending (along with a lot of spending elsewhere that didn't seem related at the time) resulted in the development of modern aircraft by the civilian sector. Much the same process may be at work here. It may take some time for the technology to become "institutionalized", but once that has occurred, the cost of space access will drop, because it will be using "off-the-shelf" parts. An example that comes to mind is the development of the Laser. I wrote a research paper when the laser was first developed. I had access to lots of classified data and reports. Nothing I found then would ever have indicated the pervasive nature of the laser only thirty years later. Somewhere out there, a similar "key technology" may already have been discovered. But it will take time for it to work its way into the system and someone to make the "aha!" connection. Space travel, and space technology in general is still in what I would call the "premature birth" stage. Its alive, its viable, but only with continuing life support. It will continue to grow and mature until soon it will be able to leave the life support behind. Lee