Arthur Schnitt: Minimum Cost Design columns again available

By arrangement with Arthur Schnitt, a series of columns by him on the
subject of "Minimum Cost Design" for rockets is now available at
www.dunnspace.com

The columns date from January 26, 1997 to June 4, 1998, but are sill
highly relevant. Mr. Schnitt is active in discussing the content of
these columns with interested parties - E-mail to him about the columns
would be welcomed. His address is listed on the introductory pages to
his columns.

--------------

Personal note:
In September 2002, I lost my wife of 32 years in a single vehicle
automobile accident, when she was driving alone on the Alaska highway.
Since then, I have been mainly absent from the sci.space newsgroups as I
have been rebuilding my life. I will be once again reading the groups,
and participating on a limited basis.

Bruce Dunn

Bruce Dunn wrote:
Mr. Schnitt is active in discussing the content
of these columns with interested parties

Good news... He was so sick a few years ago that
he could not handle emails.

It seems that one file: http://www.dunnspace.com/970505.html
(Column dated May 1, 1997 is missing.)

Arthur Schnitt columns on www.dunnspace.com

Andrew Nowicki wrote:

It seems that one file: http://www.dunnspace.com/970505.html
(Column dated May 1, 1997 is missing.)

The column for May 1 1997 originally had a file name of 970505.html,
incorrectly implying a date of May 5. It was renamed to 970501.html for
the current presentation of the columns, and links to it were adjusted
accordingly.

Thus the column isn't missing, it simply has a different file name:
http://www.dunnspace.com/970501.html.

However, I still may have made mistakes in editing the columns - please
let me know of any problems.

Arthur Schnitt's columns are also available at
http://www.tothink.com/mcd/
Mind you, some of the images are missing ... hopefully not for long.

More importantly, the 1987 Newsweek article by Gregg Easterbrook "Big
Dumb Rockets" is also available online at
http://www.tothink.com/bdb/

It's a must read for anyone who wants to know why, how and when MCD
was squashed. It's also a good introduction to MCD for lay persons.

I also have a hard copy of a report Schnitt wrote for a commercial
metal working company. The company commisioned Schnitt to write the
report after reading Easterbrook's article.
However, when they realised building an MCD booster consists of more
then just welding, they backed out, refused to pay Arthur for his work
and suggested he give them the (already finished) report for free, but
Arthur's no rube.

Their loss is our gain as most of the material in the report ended up
being used in the columns.

Yossi Preminger

P.S.
I can't take credit for uploading the material to tothink.com, nor for
the fine job of cleaning up the scanned article.

Bruce Dunn wrote in message news:LhOwc.689399$Ig.499335@pd7tw2no...
By arrangement with Arthur Schnitt, a series of columns by him on the
subject of "Minimum Cost Design" for rockets is now available at
www.dunnspace.com

the 1987 Newsweek article by Gregg Easterbrook "Big
Dumb Rockets" is also available online at
http://www.tothink.com/bdb/
I read the whole thing and, much as I love CATS, I found it boring.
Too bad it is not about a BDFB, Big Dumb Flyback Booster. There's no gain to
promoting big fat cheap, throwaway rockets. It just ain't cool.
^
//^\\
~~~ near space elevator ~~~~
~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~

(Allen Meece) wrote in message ...
the 1987 Newsweek article by Gregg Easterbrook "Big
Dumb Rockets" is also available online at
http://www.tothink.com/bdb/
I read the whole thing and, much as I love CATS, I found it boring.
Too bad it is not about a BDFB, Big Dumb Flyback Booster. There's no gain to
promoting big fat cheap, throwaway rockets. It just ain't cool.

First thing first:
The BDB was actually designed for sea recovery of the first stage.
Not exactly flyback but the shuttle doesn't exactly 'fly' back either
...

The other important thing is this:
COOL is a four letter word.
Landing in the atlantic ocean may not be very elegant but it's very
practical.
I urge you to read the following article: "Shuttles -- What Price
Elegance?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...utput=gpla in

You should also consider the following analogy:
Rate the following items in order of 'coolness': A (red) Sports car,
an SUV (with ru-bar), trailer truck (with grease on the windshield).
Most people would say the sports car is the coolest and the truck is
the least cool.
In the real world everything is different: the sports car is expensive
and impractical, the SUV is gas guzzling and it's ru-bar is a deadly
weapon, while the truck is a vital part of the american economy. When
was the last time you saw a sports car with FEDEX written on the side
?

Now consider the coolness of the following machines: X-33, the shuttle
and the Soyuz launcher.
The X-33 is so cool ... so cool that it doesn't exist (even though it
cost a *very* cool billion).
The space shuttle is as cool as a red sports car and at least as
deadly.
The Soyuz is so uncool and so old - 47 years old to be exact.
It's also the closest thing to a space truck we have.
Not surprisingly it's made of steel, like the BDB or the truck, and
likewise is mass manufactured on an assembly line.

Don't get me wrong, I think airplanes are cool. I also think space
elevators are cool. I also think Imac's are cool but I own a wintel
machine.

Yossi Preminger