Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
(Bob Martin) wrote in
om:

Shuttle is limited to one lauch and retreival site, Soyuz has numerous
launch sites and can land in many locations.

Numerous launch sites? Baikonur, Tyrutam (sp?),

One and the same. Baikonur is the name of the facility, Tyuratam is the
name of the closest village.

Plesetsk has four R-7 pads:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/plesetsk.html

That is your number two.

and the one possibly
going in at Kourou?

That will be number three.

Currently not planned to support the manned Soyuz.

Somehow I suspect a manned annoucement come soon.

Soyuz has the capability to land almost anywhere,

...the key word being "land". That's one big reason why the Kourou site
won't support the manned Soyuz, at least without some kind of upgrade to
allow water landings.

You do not need to land close to the launch site.

Supposedly Soyuz is prepared for an emergency water landing. Which proved
necessary in flight 23:
http://astronautix.com/flights/soyuz23.htm

On or about Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:02:08 -0700 (PDT), quasarstrider
made the sensational claim that:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
Currently not planned to support the manned Soyuz.

Somehow I suspect a manned annoucement come soon.

I can't imagine why. The russians have absolutely no reason to even begin
considering the thought of possibly supporting manned missions from Korou.
Where would they launch to?
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

(dave schneider) wrote:
[...]
I have also received additional information
via email that payloads on the shuttle are very restrictive in terms
of what they can and cant do and the interfaces they require. Again it
seems soyuz offers much more flexability in this area than I had
thought off.

Well, if you don't attach to anything, you don't require interfaces.
Soyuz is not a science platform, just a taxi, so science apparatus is
just cargo it takes somewhere.

Hmmm, I think I should have used the word "luggage" to be more accurate.

The Shuttle has specific interfaces
for power, data, and control (just like both sides of ISS have
specific interfaces for those). To use these interfaces, you have to
be able to meet the specs.

And the Shuttle does have restrictions on hazardous cargos...surprise.
I bet Soyuz crews don't get to take squibs and sparklers, either
(pyrotechnics for entertainment ).

[...]
For the record, many here are also fans of Soyuz. It has one of the 2
best records for safety over time, has shown resilience of design, and
doesn't have wings. But for the purposes of the disussion, it is
marginally more flexible in terms of launch sites, marginally more
flexible in terms of landing sites, carries fewer people and less
cargo, so its overall flexibility rating would strike me as being
lower.

/dps

You are quite correct there. I did indeed misspeak. The lion's share
is indeed for shuttle return to flight. But in effect, that makes it
worse. For an initiative that will cost billions of dollars, the
paltry amount set aside in the increase is far from what is needed to
fully fund the new initiative. If they're really going to follow
Bush's "plan", where do you think the remaining money will come from?
Existing programs.

That is a *feature*, not a bug. There is *no* political support, either in
Congress or the public at large, for huge increases in NASA's budget.
Indeed, Congress is appearing to balk at the relatively paltry 5.6%
increase proposed for *this* year. You claim to "dearly love to see us go
back to the Moon and onward someday to Mars." You also claim to want "a
plan that's backed by both parties". Well, the only plan that can satisfy
both of those constraints is the one on the table right now.

To be politically viable, *any* new NASA initiative *must* "fit within the
moldlines" of the existing NASA budget. By definition, that means at the
expense of existing programs: OSP and SLEP now, the space shuttle in 2010,
and ISS in 2016. Since the bulk of the funding "wedge" is not freed up
until the shuttle retires, that forces the new initiative to follow a "go
slow" approach until then. *That's* a feature, too - it means that Bush's
successor can reverse it, and preserve the shuttle program if he so
chooses.



After looking around a bit, I have to admit that I was unable to find any
hard and factual evidence (budgets, etc) that would show that budgets are
going to be cut. However, something that I also did not find, which I admit
surprised me, was any real enthusiasm on the part of most Republicans in
Congress to really push for Bush's "plan". This though is a good thing! It
means that even they do not really know where the money will come from, if
the "plan" is to be fully implemented. Heck, even Bush himself has been
pretty much totally silent about it even since he made his one speech about
it! I kind of wondered, at the time, why he never really bothered to say
ANYTHING much about it in his State of the Union speech.



Based on very little evidence. The proposed FY05 budget *increases*
funding
for space science, biological & physical research, and education. The
overall budget for exploration, science, and aeronautics is down
slightly ($7.831 billion to $7.76 billion), but only due to the
elimination of $287 million in Congressional earmarks (read: pork)
from the previous budget.

Only time will tell. What is "pork" to one person might not be to
another.

By definition, earmarks are appropriations that the agency in question
(NASA in this case) did not ask for. NASA definitely considers them pork.



Another perspective is that the people that Bush put into power in NASA
considers them "pork" for the purpose of pleasing Bush.



No, I am judging his "plan" based upon about 20 years in the aerospace
industry, working on, and helping design, major launch vehicle
programs such as Atlas, Titan and Shuttle.

Well, that sure trumps my 17 years in the space shuttle program. Not.



LOL I never said that you did not have any experience on which to base your
opinions. I was merely pointing out that MY opinions were not simply based
on partisanship, as you were suggesting.



I think I have a better
idea of what it takes to create a man-rated vehicle than Bush.

Bush doesn't need to know how to create the vehicle, any more than Kennedy
needed to know how to create Apollo/Saturn. Bush is asking NASA to create
it. Or more precisely, he will have NASA ask industry (most likely the
same
companies you and I have worked for) to create it.



Of course Bush need not know how to create the vehicle! But it WOULD be
nice if he had the level of intelligence and common sense to understand the
"big" picture, and not simply blindly accept the one-sided opinions of his
"advisors". Yes, I realize that I am making assumptions, based upon my
perceptions of what I have heard him say, and how he has said it. You're
certainly entitled to disagree, as I'm sure you will.



Granted, the Apollo program also did not start out with a great deal
of substance. That's probably a good reason why we had a lot of false
starts and failures early on, developing vehicles. We also ended up
throwing a TON of money into it, which is something we can not afford
to do now.

The main reason we ended up throwing a ton of money into Apollo was that
the program had a tight deadline, which trumped all other considerations.
"Waste anything but time" was the key phrase at NASA during that period.
It
forced a number of design decisions that made Apollo more expensive, and
less sustainable, than a slower, more deliberate approach would have been.
Bush's plan does not repeat this mistake. It is designed to fit within
NASA's existing budget, with no huge "spikes" in spending like the one
Apollo required in the 1964-70 period.

Aside from that, it's refreshing to see you at least acknowledging that we
cannot afford large NASA budget increases. Kinda hard to square with your
complaints above about the paltry increase Bush is requesting.



As I see it, it isn't hard to square at all. I still maintain that, if Bush
's "plan" is to be fully implemented, cuts will end up having to be made
somewhere, sometime, to programs that many will wish to be kept. The fact
that, as stated above, no such cuts have been made YET does not in any way
guarantee that they will not be. My guess is that the budget makers in
Congress will end up making a half-hearted effort to partially fund the Bush
"plan".



No, all budgeting and financial enactments have to originate from
Congress. That's the way it works. The President proposes a budget
and Congress can fully accept it, throw it out and write their own, or
do something in between. Congress gave Clinton some of what he wanted
during the first 2 years, but after that, not much.

This paragraph is, at best, a half-truth. Yes, Congress can completely
scrap the president's budget if they so choose. No, they do not generally
do so for NASA's budget, other than the aforementioned earmarks (which
account for 1-2% of NASA's budget). And the historical data shows your
last
sentence to be a complete falsehood. Congress tended to cut *more* from
Clinton's NASA budget requests during the first two years, *not* later.
See
page 104 of the CAIB report for historical tables and an example of how
this affected the space shuttle program.



Hmmm.but before you said that Clinton cut NASA's budget. Now you
acknowledge that it was actually Congress that did the cutting.



Clinton's first two budgets passed while the Democrats still
controlled both houses. Those two budgets cut NASA by 10.3%, adjusted
for inflation. The first two budgets *after* the Republicans took
control of Congress *increased* NASA by 3.5%, also adjusted for
inflation.

Again, the President does NOT make the budget. He merely proposes
one. All budgeting powers reside within Congress.

OK, fine, let's accept that premise for the moment. But we are left with
the historical fact that the Democrats who controlled Congress during the
first two years of Clinton's administration, and who supposedly cut NASA's
budget by 10.3% over that period, were largely the same folks who
*increased* NASA's budget 14.9% during the previous Bush-41
administration.

We are also left with the fact that the Republicans who controlled
Congress
during the last six years of the Clinton administration, and who
supposedly
cut NASA's budget 5.1% over that period, are largely the same folks who
have *increased* NASA's budget 8.6% over Bush-43's administration.

The data leave us two possible conclusions: that Congress (independent of
party) suddenly got hostile to NASA during the Clinton administration, or
that President Clinton had more to do with those NASA budget cuts than you
are willing to admit.



There is nothing more for me to "admit" about anything. You originally
stated (at least I believe you did. If not, my apologies) that "Clinton"
cut the NASA budget. I stated that, regardless of whether a budget it
ultimately cut or increased, it is Congress that does it. Not the
President.





But no, I did not start any flame war here. I originally stated my
opinion about something, and you came back calling it a cheap shot.

You were asked about space shuttle landing sites, and you responded with a
disparaging (and *provably* false) statement about Bush without even
correctly answering the original question. Yes, I call that a cheap shot.



Hmmm.then I stand corrected! I had indeed thought that abort landing sites
were located in Spain and Northern Africa, and a secondary landing site was
in California. If this is wrong, as you state, then I stand corrected. The
thing is, I know that those sites existed at SOME point. If they are not
now possible landing sites, what happened to them?



Again though, my statement was NOT disparaging.at least in my (and many
others) opinion. I'm sure that you too could find many others that agree
with you that it was "disparaging." Simply put, it's a differing opinion
from each of us. For one thing, I used the word "maybe" in my original
statement that you found so "disparaging." For another, I put the term
"vision" in quotes as a light-hearted jest, which you apparently didn't get.



It was not. It was a valid opinion based on many years of experience
in the aerospace industry.

Let me get this straight. You stated that Edwards may be mothballed as a
shuttle landing site due to Bush's budget cutbacks. When I responded that
Bush had increased NASA's budget, you claimed that most of the increase
was
for his moon-Mars initiative. When I proved that most of those increases
predated the initiative, and that seven-eighths of the proposed increase
since then was for the space shuttle program (including, ironically
enough,
*landing site upgrades*!) you acknowledged you misspoke but that you think
this somehow "makes it worse?"



If you bother to read the original "disparaging" comment, I said that if the
secondary site was no longer in use that "MAYBE" it was due to Bush's
"vision." Then I said that "BUT I DOUBT IT."



And you still think your original statement was a "valid opinion?"

Maybe you have even more experience than that.

I will concede your advantage in quantity. As for quality... at least *my*
employers have taught me the importance of providing references to back up
my statements.



Ooh my! Aren't you acting so nice and holier-than-thou"! I highly doubt
that "your employers are any better than mine. Sheesh! I've worked for
NASA, so I know what they're like. I've worked for General Dynamics and
Lockheed Martin, and know them very well as well. Of course, if you work
for Boeing, I know that they do NOT do a good job of teaching ethical
standards (at least in the past); they're one company I haven't worked for.



That's great! You're entitled to your opinion as well.

My opinion is that you are tying yourself into some incredible rhetorical
knots trying to resolve the contradictions in your beliefs. But that's
only
because I'm feeling unusually kind tonight.

No, no knots here! I'm not sure what past work experience you have to base
your opinions on. Yes, I realize that you also provided FACTS in the form
of current budgets and such, but conjectures on what will happen in the
future can only be opinions. If your experience is all on the engineering
side, very good. If you can add some good in-depth macro economics and
federal politics/federal budget knowledge into the mix, even better. But
KNOWING for sure whether Bush's "plan" will ever bear fruit is pure gut
opinion, and you can not in any way realistically claim the higher ground
for your opinion.



Let's face it..this was something of a stunt for Bush. If he was REALLY
behind it and wanted it to go forward and be a positive legacy of his
tenure, don't you think that he would have said something, ANYTHING more
about it by now? I'm sure that, as the campaign grows more and more
intense, he'll say something more about it eventually, but that again will
show it to be what it is, a purely politically driven agenda. (yes, this is
again an "opinion" of mine)

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:26:23 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
"Jorge R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Who knows? Maybe with all of the budget cutbacks due to Bush's
"vision" thing for the Moon and Mars, they may have mothballed the
California site.

Was the political cheap shot really necessary?

Yes, for some, no fantasy is too bizarre to attempt to make the Bush
administration look bad.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:48:22 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
"The Ruzicka Family" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

LOL I never said that you did not have any experience on which to base your
opinions. I was merely pointing out that MY opinions were not simply based
on partisanship, as you were suggesting.

Well. since none of your statements are backed up by fact or logic,
and most of them drip with intense dislike of Mr. Bush, it's hard for
any reasonable person to conclude that they can be based on anything
else, regardless of how many years you've spent in the aerospace
industry (and FWIW--almost nothing, I trump you by several in that
regard).

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

Well. since none of your statements are backed up by fact or logic,
and most of them drip with intense dislike of Mr. Bush, it's hard for
any reasonable person to conclude that they can be based on anything
else, regardless of how many years you've spent in the aerospace
industry (and FWIW--almost nothing, I trump you by several in that
regard).


Oh for God's sake, here we go again. No one asked you for more of your
inane drivel. As usual, anyone who has an opinion which differs from your
has, by YOUR "never-can be wrong" opinion, no "facts" or "logic" to back up
their opinion. And also, as usual, you are wrong. But I'll try mightily to
refrain from getting drawn in once again to any kind of flame ware dealing
with your rantings.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:26:23 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
"Jorge R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Who knows? Maybe with all of the budget cutbacks due to Bush's
"vision" thing for the Moon and Mars, they may have mothballed the
California site.

Was the political cheap shot really necessary?

Yes, for some, no fantasy is too bizarre to attempt to make the Bush
administration look bad.


ROTFL! Such a deep and learned opinion for one who lives in his own bizarre
fantasy world where his opinions are always facts and never wrong!
Please allow us to have our discussion in peace.

On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 10:35:35 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
"The Ruzicka Family" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..

Well. since none of your statements are backed up by fact or logic,
and most of them drip with intense dislike of Mr. Bush, it's hard for
any reasonable person to conclude that they can be based on anything
else, regardless of how many years you've spent in the aerospace
industry (and FWIW--almost nothing, I trump you by several in that
regard).


Oh for God's sake, here we go again. No one asked you for more of your
inane drivel.

The same people asked for my "inane drivel" that asked for your
irrelevant and baseless pot shots at the administration in the midst
of a discussion on space.

On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 10:38:05 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
"The Ruzicka Family" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Please allow us to have our discussion in peace.

Translation: "Please allow me to spout off-topic nonsense
unchallenged."