🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1jutp0INNacf@digex.digex.com>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes...
> 
> 
>|From: redin@lysator.liu.se
> 
>|-In sci.space you write:
>|Freedom decided not to use methane thrusters.  so instead they are
>|-throwing out waste CO2  and importing hydrazine.  failure oriented
>|-management wins again.  someone thought methane thrusters were
>|-too risky.
>|Methane more risky then hydrazine? but, but, but, oh well :-(
>|I simply dont understand the US pork barrels. Couldent they have
>|launched 4-5 miniature stations with single shuttle flights to test
>|things out? The first 1-2 is junk and cannot be habitable and are
>|scuttled after the shuttle flight, next 3-4 can be manned between
>|two flights or more and number 5 - n can be bolted to a truss and
>|you have your tested, safe freedom with bells and whistles that _work_.
>|You will get at least as much pork and much more space station.
>|Why in hell are they stuck inside CAD simulations and paperbins?
>|Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
>|Mail: Magnus redin, Rydsv{gen 240C26, 582 51 LINK|PING, SWEDEN
> 

I wonder if people like this are just trying to provoke me? The last I heard
was that SSF was going to use LOX/H2 thrusters for orbit maintainance.
Am I wrong? If so, then they are MORE risky than hydrazine.

Also for your information, NASA has been flying station precursors for
over ten years now. They are called Spacelab.  Also the new SpaceHab will
be flying on STS-57 in April.  These are dependent on Shuttle for
utilities, but are doing the most important SSF precursor work, which is
the experiments for microgravity.  Also NASA has sponsored COMET, which will
fly in March, which is a free flying microgravity laboratory with a return
module for returning samples that have been through their process cycle.


So NASA, who you think is stupid, IS doing what you are saying there, and
for a lot more money than a full up program of throwing away hardware.
All of the Spacelab and Spacehab experiments can be used again for very
minimal costs, as well as the experiments returned from the COMET module.

These experiments are all important as precursors to SSF because we can get
all of the bugs out of the experiments and the experiment process before we
fly them on SSF where they can be run in an effective manner, having all of t
eh bugs worked out on less expensive platforms.  See there NASA ain't half
as dumb as the average poster to sci.space.


>The problem is not that methane is risky.  We have been using methane
>industrially for 150 years.  but that SSF management said, no-one has ever
>space qualified a methane oxygen thruster so damn if we will.
>Failure oriented management.   
> 
>and as for the other idea,  i guess that's what skylab was.  of course
>now NASA is such an arthritic bureaucracy, i dont think they really want
>to fly packages so much as study them.  actually  who needs to build
>mini stations.  for small items test them in the shuttle cargo bay,
>for longer duration, test them on MIR.
> 
>but that would be too easy, i guess.
> 
>pat

It is also easy to criticize before you find out the facts. I suggest that
you might take the time to do a little research to find out exactly what is
going on in NASA before you are so blith in your criticism.

There are many problems at NASA, but there is also a lot of good things
going on.

Dennis, University of Alabama  in Huntsville

     *
     *********
     *********
     *********
     *    0
           *
	    *
             *
              *
	      *
 	      *
	       *
		*
		 *
		  *
		 ***
		 ***

**************************************************************************

Delta II/Small Expendable (Tether) Deployer System (SEDS) flight
configuration during deployment, circa March 1993.

**************************************************************************

In article <24JAN199320503892@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>I wonder if people like this are just trying to provoke me? The last I heard
>was that SSF was going to use LOX/H2 thrusters for orbit maintainance.
>Am I wrong? If so, then they are MORE risky than hydrazine.

Freedom will use hydrazine. The original plan was to use hydrogen/oxygen
rockets, with long-term fuel storage made possible by storing water
and electralisizing (sp?) it as needed. Unfortunately, the available
power was less than expected, so hydrozine will be used instead.

>Also for your information, NASA has been flying station precursors for
>over ten years now. They are called Spacelab.  Also the new SpaceHab will
>be flying on STS-57 in April.  These are dependent on Shuttle for
>utilities, but are doing the most important SSF precursor work, which is
>the experiments for microgravity.

If the initial microgravity experiments on Freedom were a failure,
they could be redesigned and replaced. If the station can not provide
power, life support, utilities, etc..., the station will be a failure.
Therefore, the mission critical parts of Freedom haven't been flown or
tested.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

In article <24JAN199320503892@judy.uh.edu>, wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
[Spacelab, Spacehab, and COMET as precursor facilities for SS Fred]
> 
> So NASA, who you think is stupid, IS doing what you are saying there, and
> for a lot more money than a full up program of throwing away hardware.
            ^^^^
Uh-oh, Dennis, I don't think that's what you *meant* to say...

> All of the Spacelab and Spacehab experiments can be used again for very
> minimal costs, as well as the experiments returned from the COMET module.

I thought not.
 
> These experiments are all important as precursors to SSF because we can get
> all of the bugs out of the experiments and the experiment process before we
> fly them on SSF where they can be run in an effective manner, having all of t
> eh bugs worked out on less expensive platforms.  See there NASA ain't half
> as dumb as the average poster to sci.space.

It is all I can do to resist the urge to comment.

Except to say...


> Delta II/Small Expendable (Tether) Deployer System (SEDS) flight
> configuration during deployment, circa March 1993.

GO SEDSAT!!!!!  Huzzah!

Of course, what Shakespeare        | Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey
ORIGINALLY wrote was "First thing  | Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  
we do, let's kill all the EDITORS."| Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  
But for some reason it didn't      | Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  
survive past the first draft.      | SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  
-- David D. "Laserdave" Levine (davidl@ssd.intel.com)

In article <24JAN199320503892@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

>I wonder if people like this are just trying to provoke me? The last I heard
>was that SSF was going to use LOX/H2 thrusters for orbit maintainance.
>Am I wrong? If so, then they are MORE risky than hydrazine.

Yes you are incorrect. According to a friend of mine at the Reston Program
Office they will be using hudrazine thrusters. BTW, these thrusters are the
single heviest items to be returned to Earth. They must be returned intact
since it would be too dangerous to re-fuel them in orbit.

>Also for your information, NASA has been flying station precursors for
>over ten years now. They are called Spacelab.

Spacelab is an experiment carrier. It will tell us nothing about
building large scale structures in space and cannot be considered a
station precursor.

>Also NASA has sponsored COMET, which will
>fly in March, which is a free flying microgravity laboratory with a return
>module for returning samples that have been through their process cycle.

NASA is buying launch services from COMET. NASA woldn't have been able
to build the COMET system itself.

>So NASA, who you think is stupid, IS doing what you are saying there, and
>for a lot more money than a full up program of throwing away hardware.

Since you agree that the NASA program costs a lot more money, why don't
you thing we would be better off with the cheaper program of throw away
hardware?

>All of the Spacelab and Spacehab experiments can be used again for very
>minimal costs,

Buying launch services at three times the price the private sector
pays cannot be considered 'minimal cost'.

>These experiments are all important as precursors to SSF because we can get
>all of the bugs out of the experiments

I would rather get the bus out of the station first and then worry about
the experiments.

>See there NASA ain't half as dumb as the average poster to sci.space.

Dennis, The Wake Shield facility would cost NASA $93 million to build
(according to their cost model). A private company is building it for
$11 million. Spacehab would have costed NASA $1.1 billion (again,
with their costing model). A private company is doing it for $153
million. NASA would have taken eight years and $1 billion to build
the same DCX vehicle which McD is building in two years for $60 million.

Apply those ratios to your everyday life. Would you pay $20 for a
Whopper from Burger King? NASA would. Would you pay $100,000 for
a Ford Escort? NASA would.

Do you consider this intelligent behivior?

>It is also easy to criticize before you find out the facts. I suggest that
>you might take the time to do a little research to find out exactly what is
>going on in NASA before you are so blith in your criticism.

We have Dennis. We have.

>There are many problems at NASA, but there is also a lot of good things
>going on.

Absolutely. But they are overshadowed by the bad things and will continue
to be as long as people ignore the problems.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------141 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

In article <1993Jan26.030319.11373@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <24JAN199320503892@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>>Also for your information, NASA has been flying station precursors for
>>over ten years now. They are called Spacelab.
> 
> Spacelab is an experiment carrier. It will tell us nothing about
> building large scale structures in space and cannot be considered a
> station precursor.

So what?  You are wrong on this one, Allen. Fred is supposed to be
some kind of laboratory.  Therefore it's important to develop a
program of experiments and useful techniques, make mistakes, etc. Then
when experiments are flown aboard Fred, they won't be starting from
scratch and they will have a greater chance of success. Spacelab has
been the testbed for Americans, Japanese, and Europeans to gather
experience in microgravity and space science experiments.  In that
sense it is certainly a precursor to the space station.

Does Spacelab cost too much to operate?  Sure.  Does it give
experience in assembling large-scale structures?  No. But your
assertion that it "cannot be considered a station precursor" is
erroneous.

>>These experiments are all important as precursors to SSF because we can get
>>all of the bugs out of the experiments
> 
> I would rather get the bus out of the station first and then worry about
> the experiments.

Launchers and payloads must develop together; without abundant
payloads and a user community, new launchers (such as you-know-what)
don't have a chance of succeeding financially.  If the Revolution ever
happens, those lucky people flying *more* payloads *more* often are
going to be very glad to have Shuttle, Spacelab, Salyut, Mir, and
Skylab experience to guide their engineering.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
Fermilab                          | until I write the song
Bitnet:      HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | that makes the guys in Detroit
Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | who draw the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine

>Also for your information, NASA has been flying station precursors for
>over ten years now. They are called Spacelab.  Also the new SpaceHab will
>be flying on STS-57 in April.  These are dependent on Shuttle for
>utilities, but are doing the most important SSF precursor work, which is
>the experiments for microgravity.  Also NASA has sponsored COMET, which will
>fly in March, which is a free flying microgravity laboratory with a return
>module for returning samples that have been through their process cycle.

Do you know where on Internet I might find people discussing microgravity
research in detail? What's the state of such research right now? Who's doing
it, where, and how long has it been going on, that kind of thing...

thanks...

  - Roger    ralex@lclark.edu