home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Path: sparky!uunet!hela.iti.org!aws
- From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
- Subject: Re: Sabatier Reactors.
- Message-ID: <1993Jan26.030319.11373@iti.org>
- Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
- References: <1jutp0INNacf@digex.digex.com> <24JAN199320503892@judy.uh.edu>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:03:19 GMT
- Lines: 78
-
- 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----------------------+
-