A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Minimum Number of Rocket Designs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 15th 04, 04:25 AM
The Ruzicka Family
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"The Ruzicka Family" wrote in
:

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? I do not believe it added
anything productive to the discourse here. Furthermore, it is a false
statement. For the record, Bush has *increased* NASA's budget each year of
his administration. *If* his proposed 5.6% increase for this year is
approved, he will have succeeded in restoring most of what Clinton *cut*
from NASA's budget, once inflation is factored in.


This was by no means a "cheap shot." Sure, the overall budget has been
increased, but the vast majority of it, as well as other funds, will be
directed towards the new initiative. Even O'Keefe has stated that some other
programs will need to be cut back or canceled, due to NASA's "new
direction." Many astronomers and other scientists have also voiced concern.
If we're not careful, it'll end up like Reagan's SDI dream. We'll pour huge
amounts of money into it and end up with little.

Don't get me wrong here. I'd dearly love to see us go back to the Moon and
onward someday to Mars. But Bush's vision is rather lacking in substance.
What needs to be done is put forward a plan that's backed by both parties,
so that no matter who's in office one, five, ten, or twenty years from now,
there might be a better chance of continuation. Bush didn't bother to do
that. He simply mouthed his grand vision of where he (or his advisors)
thinks we should go, to look cool, without much in-depth foundations.

As for the "cuts" that Clinton made to NASA, please remember where the
federal budget comes from: Congress. All any President can do is suggest
something and then either accept or veto the budget bill. And during a
significant portion of Clinton's presidency, it was the GOP that was calling
the shots in Congress, including allocations to NASA.

If I were to really want to make a cheap shot, I'd have called to attention
Bush's severe lack of intelligence or education. Maybe like surmise that
Bush would want us to launch during a full Moon, to increase our chances of
hitting the target!

Of course, I admit to being opinionated when it comes to Bush, and I truly
don't want to start a flame war. But just because you may not like my
opinion on something, that does not make it a "cheap shot."



P. Ruzicka

  #22  
Old June 15th 04, 05:10 AM
LooseChanj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

On or about Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:31:12 -0700 (PDT), Jorge R. Frank
made the sensational claim that:
...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.


What sort of upgrades would a soyuz need for a water landing?
--
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

  #23  
Old June 15th 04, 05:32 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

"The Ruzicka Family" wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"The Ruzicka Family" wrote in
:

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? I do not believe it
added anything productive to the discourse here. Furthermore, it is a
false statement. For the record, Bush has *increased* NASA's budget
each year of his administration. *If* his proposed 5.6% increase for
this year is approved, he will have succeeded in restoring most of
what Clinton *cut* from NASA's budget, once inflation is factored in.


This was by no means a "cheap shot." Sure, the overall budget has been
increased, but the vast majority of it, as well as other funds, will
be directed towards the new initiative.


Incorrect. I am talking about the increase in the NASA budget *since Bush
took office*. The first three Bush budgets *preceded* the initiative, so
the increases in those budgets are unconnected to it. And regarding the
proposed increase ($866 million) in *this* year's budget, fully *seven
eighths* of it ($757 million) is to cover space shuttle return-to-flight
modifications and ISS costs. Only the remaining eighth of it is additional
funding for the new initiative.

Source:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55524main_FY...mmary-2.31.pdf

Even O'Keefe has stated that
some other programs will need to be cut back or canceled, due to
NASA's "new direction."


So far, those cuts are mainly to the Shuttle Life Extension Program (SLEP)
and the Orbital Space Plane (OSP). Which makes perfect sense, since Project
Constellation will eventually replace both.

Many astronomers and other scientists have
also voiced concern.


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.

Source: ibid

Don't get me wrong here. I'd dearly love to see us go back to the
Moon and onward someday to Mars.


You sure don't behave that way. You are judging the plan based on your
personal prejudice against the president, not by any of the actual elements
of the plan.

But Bush's vision is rather lacking in substance.


Bush's plan is all of five months old. At this point, the plan has *far*
more substance than Project Apollo did five months after Kennedy proposed
landing men on the moon.

As for the "cuts" that Clinton made to NASA, please remember where the
federal budget comes from: Congress.


No, the *budget* comes from the president. During the Clinton years,
Congress generally gave Clinton what he asked for, and often added more.

All any President can do is
suggest something and then either accept or veto the budget bill. And
during a significant portion of Clinton's presidency, it was the GOP
that was calling the shots in Congress, including allocations to NASA.


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.

Sources:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/hist04z1.xls
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/hist10z1.xls

Of course, I admit to being opinionated when it comes to Bush, and I
truly don't want to start a flame war. But just because you may not
like my opinion on something, that does not make it a "cheap shot."


I don't call your opinions cheap shots just because I don't like them. I
call them cheap shots because they are mostly, if not completely,
unsupported by actual facts, and I've provided verifiable references to
prove it. You have provided no references to back up your assertions, nor
have you provided any refutation to mine. You respond only with venom
worthy of sci.space.policy rather than this so-called moderated group. You
are the one initiating the flame war here. If you truly don't want one, you
can either start backing up your assertions, or stop making them.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

  #24  
Old June 15th 04, 05:56 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

LooseChanj wrote in
om:

On or about Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:31:12 -0700 (PDT), Jorge R. Frank
made the sensational claim that:
...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.


What sort of upgrades would a soyuz need for a water landing?


Looking back over my reference, I probably misunderstood: the article
mentions only upgrades to search-and-rescue capabilities, not the
spacecraft. That doesn't mean that Soyuz wouldn't need mods, just that the
article doesn't say one way or the other.

http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd...rtrow=11&da t
e=2004-05-31&do_alert=0

"However, Russian experts see another more important disadvantage to
launching manned ISS missions from Kourou: it is unsuitable for search and
rescue operations. No matter how reliable a launch vehicle might be, an
emergency is always possible and Russian search and rescue techniques are
mostly for land operations. The emergency landing area for a spacecraft
launched from Kourou will most likely be at sea."
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

  #25  
Old June 15th 04, 10:01 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

Jorge R. Frank wrote:


...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.


It already has that capability, but the Russians consider it as a
emergency back-up for the more convenient land touchdown.
Soyuz cosmonauts are given training for emergency water landing though.
Look what I found: http://www.spaceref.com/iss/soyuz/SCLSaB.edit.pdf
Emergency recovery instructions for a Soyuz if it comes down on U.S.
territory, or in U.S. coastal waters.

Pat

  #26  
Old June 15th 04, 02:04 PM
The Ruzicka Family
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

This was by no means a "cheap shot." Sure, the overall budget has been
increased, but the vast majority of it, as well as other funds, will
be directed towards the new initiative.


Incorrect. I am talking about the increase in the NASA budget *since Bush
took office*. The first three Bush budgets *preceded* the initiative, so
the increases in those budgets are unconnected to it. And regarding the
proposed increase ($866 million) in *this* year's budget, fully *seven
eighths* of it ($757 million) is to cover space shuttle return-to-flight
modifications and ISS costs. Only the remaining eighth of it is additional
funding for the new initiative.




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.




So far, those cuts are mainly to the Shuttle Life Extension Program (SLEP)
and the Orbital Space Plane (OSP). Which makes perfect sense, since

Project
Constellation will eventually replace both.




OSP is dead. With any luck, CEV will take its place, but NASA has a REALLY
bad track record in developing new vehicles.



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.
Again though, this points out that the President doesn't really make the
budget.




Don't get me wrong here. I'd dearly love to see us go back to the
Moon and onward someday to Mars.


You sure don't behave that way. You are judging the plan based on your
personal prejudice against the president, not by any of the actual

elements
of the plan.




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




But Bush's vision is rather lacking in substance.


Bush's plan is all of five months old. At this point, the plan has *far*
more substance than Project Apollo did five months after Kennedy proposed
landing men on the moon.




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.




As for the "cuts" that Clinton made to NASA, please remember where the
federal budget comes from: Congress.


No, the *budget* comes from the president. During the Clinton years,
Congress generally gave Clinton what he asked for, and often added more.




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.




All any President can do is
suggest something and then either accept or veto the budget bill. And
during a significant portion of Clinton's presidency, it was the GOP
that was calling the shots in Congress, including allocations to NASA.





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.


Of course, I admit to being opinionated when it comes to Bush, and I
truly don't want to start a flame war. But just because you may not
like my opinion on something, that does not make it a "cheap shot."


I don't call your opinions cheap shots just because I don't like them. I
call them cheap shots because they are mostly, if not completely,
unsupported by actual facts, and I've provided verifiable references to
prove it. You have provided no references to back up your assertions, nor
have you provided any refutation to mine. You respond only with venom
worthy of sci.space.policy rather than this so-called moderated group. You
are the one initiating the flame war here. If you truly don't want one,

you
can either start backing up your assertions, or stop making them.




Fair enough. I'll be happy to see what I can come up with. However, I do
not consider references from Bush (ie White House) to be totally unbiased.
Every administration tends to put a spin on things to make themselves look
better. Even Clinton's administration did this (oops! I guess I shouldn't
say that since I must be a total Bush-basher!).

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. It was not. It
was a valid opinion based on many years of experience in the aerospace
industry. Maybe you have even more experience than that. That's great!
You're entitled to your opinion as well.

The bottom line is: only time will tell if Bush's "plan" will go anywhere.
It's really easy for a president to say "let's go to Mars!" It's a lot
harder to actually do it reasonably.

  #27  
Old June 15th 04, 09:06 PM
spacelearner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

Jim Kingdon wrote in message ...
I understood that the one in california was no longer available and
the literature mentions no other landing sites. Can you give the names
of these sites so I can do some research.


Well the highlights a

Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Now the most commonly used site, but
in the early days of shuttle few shuttles landed here, as the runway
is concrete and of limited size (contrast with the dry lakebeds, which
are rather more forgiving if you overrun them). Landing here means
you don't need to ship the shuttle across country, which adds about $1
million in the case of an Edwards landing.

Edwards Air Force Base, California. Has been used for dozens of
landings, including most of them in the early years.

White Sands, New Mexico. One shuttle has landed he
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/chron/sts-3.htm
The gypsum that it landed on turned out to gum up the works more than
expected.

Here's a list of possible landing sites from 1993:
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/Jacqmans/landing.html

Here's a list of TAL sites from 2001 (and a description of what TAL
is): http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/tal.htm

There's a nice page
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...ty/sts-els.htm
Undated, but seems to roughly match the KSC page where they overlap.

Nice page at:
http://yarchive.net/space/shuttle/sh...ing_sites.html
which claims that the list of emergency sites is confidential (! - I'm
curious about what "confidential" would really mean here).

(Most of these were the top hits from a web search for "shuttle
landing sites", so you wouldn't have had to look very far, just FYI).


I wasnt after potential capabilities but designated landing sites, but
thank you for yor response.

  #28  
Old June 15th 04, 09:06 PM
spacelearner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

(Bob Martin) wrote in message . com...
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?), and the one possibly
going in at Kourou? Soyuz has the capability to land almost anywhere,
but that means you have to have the stuff to go out, retrieve and
possibly treat the crew, and bring them back.


And Australia as well, via Christmas island. That's at least four.
Sure you have to go and get soyuz just if as you have to go get the
shuttle. The question was related to flexibility, your comments
confirm the flexability of soyuz.


True, the shuttle is limited to one launch site today, but one other
site was completed at Vandenberg (though never used). As for
recovery, the primary landing site is the SLF runway at Kennedy, and
the first alternate is Edwards AFB. Additional sites can be used as
necessary; one of the early flights landed at White Sands because
Edwards was flooded (or at least all muddy). The abort landing sites
mentioned in other posts are also avalible, though they would probably
not be used in any situation besides launch abort.


Therefore it suggests that soyuz if much flexible in landing sites.

Soyuz can be reconfigured to progress configuration for delivery of
fuels and various cargoes etc, while shuttle can only carried those
items considered safe.


True, progress can deliver fuel and other "hazardous" cargo, but the
shuttle can bring a lot more of the "safe" items,


I think the amount of goods is of second order relevance to
flexability, I think the ability to carry a wide and varied cargos
provide much more flexability.

replenish the water from the fuel cells,


Soyuz can carry water, shuttle can get water from fuel cells (although
the documentation I have says it is vented). Not sure it has anything
to do with the topic.

and it can ferry up equipment racks (in the MPLM)


Progres/Soyuz can ferry equipment as well.

and other large hardware.
It can also return larger amounts of stuff,
which the progress can't really do.




Soyuz has capabilities such as automated docking the shuttle does not.


The automatic docking capability for the Soyuz was originally
implemented because the Soviets did not trust their cosmonauts to do
the docking manually... many missions had to abort because system
failed and the cosmonauts were not trained to make dockings manually.


Still a valuable capability and provides alot of flexability. I wont
comment on your nationalistic perspective as to why that is.
The ability to not be a fully trained docking pilot is another point
of flexability that I had not thought off for soyuz.


The soyuz launcher can launch payloads to heo or interplanetary
missions, whereas the shuttle is limited to the leo.


The shuttle has launched several payloads into other-than-LEO space...
such as TDRS, various comsats into GEO, Magellan, Galileo, Ulysses,
and Chandra. All of these required various combinations of PAMs,
Star-48's, and IUS's, but they did get there. This capability has
been all but retired now, since the remainder of the missions will be
dedicated to ISS support.


So it no longer has that flexability.


The shuttle operates for weeks in space while soyuz can operate for
months if not more.


If you define "operating for months if not more" as being virtually
shut down while docked to a space station, then yes. However, the
shuttle has flown missions in excess of two weeks (theoretically
capable of up to a month with EDO kits), whereas the current Soyuz
models can only operate independently for a couple of days. The last
independent Soyuz flights were back in the 70's, IIRC, and I don't
think they lasted much longer than a week or so.


Again proving significant mission flexability with soyuz.


Availability of soyuz transportation system is dependant on customer
money available whereas shuttle is dependant on bureaucracy,
scheduling also interrupted by military payload requirements.


The shuttle has not flown dedicated DOD flights for at least 10
years... original plans called for at least one shuttle to be
dedicated to the DOD, but after STS-51L the military decided to move
back to expendibles (Titan III, etc) and only fly the payloads that
were already committed on the shuttle.


However, payloads are stilll bumped for military cargos, at least that
is the information I have from people who have shipped scientific
payloads on the shuttle. 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.

Please note: I was not critizing the shuttle merely pointing out that,
in my amateur opinion only, Soyuz seem much more flexible and why.
The responses particularly those received by email act as though I
have attacked the shuttle when all I wanted was information to correct
or validate my thoughts on flexability.

I can see that this is not a group for such discussions and will seek
such information elsewhere in future.

For the record I believe that any spacecraft that has achieved as much
as the shuttle can only be praised, the same can be said for soyuz.

  #29  
Old June 16th 04, 02:09 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

"The Ruzicka Family" wrote in
:

This was by no means a "cheap shot." Sure, the overall budget has
been increased, but the vast majority of it, as well as other
funds, will be directed towards the new initiative.


Incorrect. I am talking about the increase in the NASA budget *since
Bush took office*. The first three Bush budgets *preceded* the
initiative, so the increases in those budgets are unconnected to it.
And regarding the proposed increase ($866 million) in *this* year's
budget, fully *seven eighths* of it ($757 million) is to cover space
shuttle return-to-flight modifications and ISS costs. Only the
remaining eighth of it is additional funding for the new initiative.


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.

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.

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.

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.

But Bush's vision is rather lacking in substance.


Bush's plan is all of five months old. At this point, the plan has
*far* more substance than Project Apollo did five months after
Kennedy proposed landing men on the moon.


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 for the "cuts" that Clinton made to NASA, please remember where
the federal budget comes from: Congress.


No, the *budget* comes from the president. During the Clinton years,
Congress generally gave Clinton what he asked for, and often added
more.


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.

All any President can do is
suggest something and then either accept or veto the budget bill.
And during a significant portion of Clinton's presidency, it was
the GOP that was calling the shots in Congress, including
allocations to NASA.


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.

Fair enough. I'll be happy to see what I can come up with. However,
I do not consider references from Bush (ie White House) to be totally
unbiased. Every administration tends to put a spin on things to make
themselves look better. Even Clinton's administration did this (oops!
I guess I shouldn't say that since I must be a total Bush-basher!).


NASA Watch has published NASA's budget figures every year since the site
was established. The historical numbers that Bush is publishing now are
perfectly consistent with Clinton's.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

  #30  
Old June 16th 04, 11:33 PM
dave schneider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Minimum Number of Rocket Designs

(spacelearner) wrote:
[...]
And Australia as well, via Christmas island. That's at least four.


There's a Soyuz launch site in Australia?

[...]

Therefore it suggests that soyuz if much flexible in landing sites.


From the usage, it appears that Soyuz is not able to land near

permanent facilities that can provide care and maintenance of vessel,
crew, or cargo.

[...]

I think the amount of goods is of second order relevance to
flexability, I think the ability to carry a wide and varied cargos
provide much more flexability.


Compare the variety of cargo that the shuttle has carried with that
carried by Soyuz: MPLMs (with *whole* equipment racks, food supplies,
etc inside), Spacehab, satellites (a whole range: TDRS, Hubble,
Galileo, various comm sats, LDEF), Synthetic Apeture Radar for mapping
missions), ISS components, ....

[...]
Soyuz can carry water, shuttle can get water from fuel cells
(although the documentation I have says it is vented).


The documentation is no doubt referring to stand-alone flights. For
MIR and ISS flights, the shuttle has unloaded far more water per
flight than either a Soyuz or a Progress flight, which is one of the
reasons the current ISS crew is limited to 2.

Not sure it has anything to do with the topic.


Oh boy. Well, if being able to delivber water to customers is
evidence of flexibility, then maybe it does have something to do with
the topic.

and it can ferry up equipment racks (in the MPLM)


Progres/Soyuz can ferry equipment as well.


Compare the amount of equipment per flight, and the limitations on
size of that equipment. Kinda like asking a MiniCooper to deliver
furniture, instead of using a delivery van...it can be done, but is
that really what you want to do?


and other large hardware.
It can also return larger amounts of stuff,
which the progress can't really do.

[...]
[autodock discussion here]
Still a valuable capability and provides alot of flexability. I wont
comment on your nationalistic perspective as to why that is.


Well, aborting missions does add a *lot* of flexibility.

The ability to not be a fully trained docking pilot is another point
of flexability that I had not thought off for soyuz.


I think you may actually have gotten this one right.

[...]
So it no longer has that flexability.


No, it has the flexibility; the user is declining to take advantage of
the flexibility because other options have greater priority.

[...] whereas the current Soyuz
models can only operate independently for a couple of days. The last
independent Soyuz flights were back in the 70's, IIRC, and I don't
think they lasted much longer than a week or so.


Again proving significant mission flexability with soyuz.


What, removing a feature makes the Shuttle less flexible, but removing
a feature makes the Soyuz *more* flexible?
[...]
However, payloads are stilll bumped for military cargos, at least that
is the information I have from people who have shipped scientific
payloads on the shuttle.


Cn you cite some examples? Anything post STS-51L, since policy
changed dramatically after that flight.

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. 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 ).


Please note: I was not critizing the shuttle merely pointing out that,
in my amateur opinion only, Soyuz seem much more flexible and why.
The responses particularly those received by email act as though I
have attacked the shuttle when all I wanted was information to correct
or validate my thoughts on flexability.

I can see that this is not a group for such discussions and will seek
such information elsewhere in future.


Oh, this is an excellent group, but you seem to have some interesting
criteria for deciding on flexibility.

For the record I believe that any spacecraft that has achieved as much
as the shuttle can only be praised, the same can be said for soyuz.


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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.