Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 19:06:50 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8807160206.AA16815@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #275

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 275

Today's Topics:
			     Re: Pegasus
       Re: Hawaiian spaceport? (Was: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221)
		     Re: Space Shuttle Black Box
			   Re: Mir elements
			  Fusion Power Info
			     Re: Pegasus
	   advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus!
		   NASA news - Tony England; Senate
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 88 23:02:05 GMT
From: hplabsb!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Pegasus

In article <4772@hplabsb.UUCP>, dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes:
> Since no one else has, I thought I'd point out the article on p.10 of
> US News & World Report for June 13.  It said that Orbital Sciences Corp.
> and Hercules Aerospace announced a plan to develop Pegasus, a 50-foot

Wouldn't you know it, posting this was the library's cue to finally put
out the June 6 AW&ST, which has Pegasus on the cover.  Let that be the
primary reference, I guess.  So now it's doubly surprising to me that,
with all the oddball, exotic, and trivial stuff that gets discussed in
this forum, Pegasus hasn't stirred more comment.

			David Smith
			HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
-- 

			David Smith
			HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com

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

Date: 16 Jun 88 19:32:22 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hawaiian spaceport? (Was: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221)

> ... and what are the relative pros and cons of sea ditching versus
> land ditching as regards safety to crew and others? ...

As for others, you are less likely to hit something when you come down
in the sea because people don't build houses there very often.  As for
the crew, it makes no real difference because the orbiter is too fragile
to survive a ditching.
-- 
Man is the best computer we can      |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 16 Jun 88 19:38:15 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Black Box

> I heard that a court case last year ordered NASA to release the 
> cockpit black box tape from Challenger.  This was around June or
> so of last year.  There was a reported 2-3 minutes of tape *AFTER*
> the explosion.
> 
> Anyone know any details on this...

The only incident like this that I know of was a successful attempt to
make NASA release the tape from an on-board voice recorder.  This was
*not* a "black box" in the usual sense of an armored flight recorder --
the shuttle does not carry one of those.  As I recall, the only thing
that was on the tape beyond what was heard over the radio was someone
saying "uh-oh" at about the time the shit hit the fan.  Nothing was
recorded after the breakup of the orbiter.  (I don't remember why, but
the obvious reason would be loss of power.)  There were some earlier
odds and ends on it that didn't go out on the radio, but nothing with
any relevance to the accident.
-- 
Man is the best computer we can      |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 Jun 88 03:17:00 GMT
From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Mir elements


Goddard *still* hasn't come out with a reliable set of Mir elements.
What *are* they doing since Soyuz TM-5 went up?

Fortunately, the old Progress 36 ones are still usable.  I observed
Mir visually this evening; it appeared roughly twenty seconds behind a
prediction using the SGP theory.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to confirm the elements visually any
more during the mission; that was the last overflight of my location
on this precessional cycle.

Clear skies to those of you who have overflights yet to observe, and
good luck on seeing the Soyuz separation (I didn't see any other
objects during this overflight, but could have missed the Soyuz; there
was still a lot of twilight).

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

Date:     Fri, 17 Jun 88 14:40:06 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
Subject:  Fusion Power Info

There used to be an Internet "Energy" mailing list to which I could have
directed this query, but it isn't listed in the List-of-Lists any more, so
I suppose it is gone. Therefore, I ask this of Space, hoping that some of
the readership there will be familiar with this subject:

I just finished reading a book called THE MAN-MADE SUN, by T. A. Heppenheimer,
dated 1984, which is a survey of the research into generating fusion power.
Unfortunately, since it had to cut off in late '83, it left many then-current
developments hanging, and I would like to find something to read that would
bring me up-to-date on the subject, in general pop-science terms.

Can anyone recommend any recent books, or magazine articles, that would
provide a general discussion of where things are now in fusion research?
I would particularily like to know what happened to Bussard and Inesco
with regard to Riggatrons; that seemed an interesting and promising area.

By the way, I found Heppenheimer's book interesting and it seemed to be a
good introduction to the field. Unfortunately, it shifted its emphasis
in the latter portion away from the technical developments to devote
inordinate amounts of space to the details of the funding process and
the personality clashes between people at DOE and OMB; while this is
important in fact, because it determined how much money there was to put
into the technical research, it wasn't what I wanted to read about. I
would have preferred that those details be put into footnotes, or
compressed into a paragraph or two, instead of having chapters devoted
to them. 

To tie this to Space, there is a bit of discussion of research into
fusion-powered spacedrives. At the time of writing, it seems there was a
still-classified paper in the Livermore archives that worked out quite a
lot of the problems and presented a feasable design for such a craft.

The book is currently being remaindered; I saw it in the latest Strand
catalog, and then found it at the library. Due to its faults, I would
recommend you read a library copy first rather than buy one.

Regards,
Will Martin
wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA   (on USENET try "...!uunet!almsa-1.arpa!wmartin")

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

Date: 17 Jun 88 20:13:23 GMT
From: att!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: Pegasus

In article <4774@hplabsb.UUCP>, dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes:

						...Orbital Sciences Corp.
and Hercules Aerospace announced a plan to develop Pegasus, a 50-foot
stub-winged rocket.  Air launched from a B-52 or converted airliner at
40,000 ft., it would put an 850-pound payload into a 250 mile high orbit.
Expected to fly in mid-1989, at $6 million per launch...

 				...it's doubly surprising to me that,
with all the oddball, exotic, and trivial stuff that gets discussed in
this forum, Pegasus hasn't stirred more comment.

<end of quotes>

What's the surprise?  At $6 million to launch 850 lbs (over $7000/lb), the
per-pound cost of Pegasus will be:

	23.5 times that of Energia ($300/lb),
	 9.4 times that of Proton (750/lb),
	 2.2 times that of Delta (3275/lb),
	 1.4 times that of Titan 4 (5100/bl), and (indignity of indignities)
	 4% higher than the Shuttle (6800/lb).


That ain't too exciting.

[Note on sources:  Cost/lb to orbit estimates are from the infamous Newsweek
article, which has been accused of *over* estimating the costs of launching
on Shuttle and Titan.  I did not compare with the Soviet "A" booster, which
can be yours for a mere $13 million (according to a recent article on this
network), because I don't know the exact payload capacity--but if it's 
even equivalent to the Delta (~5 tons), Pegasus is a good 5 times more costly.
Anybody out there want to compare to Ariane or Long March?]

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

Date: 17 Jun 88 05:31:32 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: advance space news from June 6 AW&ST -- Pegasus!

[As you have probably noticed, I am behind on AW&ST summaries.  I will
try and catch up a bit before I leave for Usenix.  However, this one
won't wait.  The June 6 issue just arrived, and the lead story is the
best news in years.  So here's a special out-of-sequence report.]

New launcher:  Pegasus, a winged three-stage design that will be air-
launched from a B-52.  It's a joint effort of Orbital Sciences and
Hercules, with Rutan building the wing.  Payload is 600lb into low
polar orbit, 900 into low equatorial orbit.

Now the GOOD news...  Pegasus is 100% private, although the first customer
is DARPA.  Total funding is $40-45M, about a third of it already spent.
It has been underway about one year, they are already bending metal on
the first one, and it flies NEXT YEAR!  There is already a lineup of
customers.  Cost to orbit will be half or less that of similar-sized
payloads on existing launchers.

[At **LAST**, a launcher being built by sensible people!  Note the modest
size, the rapid schedule -- two years from startup to launch -- and the
miniscule budget.  Not to mention the lack of any attempt to force the
taxpayers to fund it.  This is how commercial launchers OUGHT to be done;
thank all the gods that somebody had the guts to try doing it right!]

DARPA is in the final stages of becoming the first customer, with a
contract expected to be signed next week.  The nature of the payload has
not been released, but it is thought to be a small experimental comsat.
Launch is set for July 1989.  DARPA is buying launch services only, no
funding for development is involved.

Second launch will probably be another DoD payload from "a different
agency" [betcha it's SDI] in Oct 1989.  A NASA science payload is a
candidate for number three in Dec 1989.

OSC and Hercules are splitting the development cost 50-50 and will split
profits the same way.  Funding is entirely from internal resources and no
outside capital is involved.  Contractors have been picked, staff has
been hired, parts are being built.

Pegasus uses three new-design Hercules solid motors.  Use of existing
motors was considered, but new motors looked like a better bet.  Cases
are graphite composite, as is the wing, being developed by Burt Rutan.
The thing is 49 feet long with a wing span of 22 feet, total weight
40klbs.  These numbers are almost identical to those of the X-15, and
the X-15's old B-52 will be the initial carrier aircraft.  Gordon
Fullerton, NASA research pilot and former astronaut (two shuttle missions)
will command the B-52 for the first launch.  Pegasus will pay NASA for
the use of the aircraft for commercial launches.  Up to 15 launches
might be made from the NASA B-52, after which transition to a commercial
heavy transport is expected.  The aircraft has been picked but its
identity is proprietary as yet.

[Now why would they keep the identity of the aircraft secret?  I mean,
the 747 is the obvious choice.  Unless... you don't suppose they're
going to use an Airbus A340?!?  Congress will be livid.]

Drop will be at 40,000 ft.  The first stage will light and fly a shallow
wing-borne trajectory to Mach 8.7 at 208,000 ft.  The wing is on the
first stage, so the second and third stages fly more conventional
upper-stage trajectories into orbit.

The first launch will be into polar orbit, starting offshore from
Vandenberg.  Using air launch, of course, launch site and direction are
pretty much arbitrary.  It also means that Pegasus does not have to
fight for access to launch facilities.  [And they don't have to deal
with the government, or mortgage their mothers to pay for insurance
against launch-site damage.]

Pegasus develoment is considered 50% complete; OSC+Hercules will hold
a major engineering review this week.  Late this month they will start
using Ames's supercomputers for aerodynamic simulation -- Pegasus will
not be wind-tunnel tested.  They are already working with Ames people.
[Eugene?  You involved in this?]

OSC+Hercules expect to price a Pegasus launch at under $10M.  They
forecast 10-12 per year and believe that it can support itself with
half that.  Breakeven will be reached after 16-18 launches, and with
luck this will be two or three years after the first flight.  Lots
of people are interested, and a relatively diverse mix of customers
is likely.  This should give a fairly stable customer base.

Pegasus's payload shroud is relatively large for the payload mass, 72in
long by 46in wide, permitting a wide range of payload designs.  Pegasus
is being built for minimum prelaunch handling; eventually it is hoped
that only 6-7 technicians will be needed for final assembly and launch.
This will help costs a *lot*.  Minimal ground hardware will be needed;
no cranes.

Also of interest, especially to Ames, is hypersonic flight testing at
high altitudes and Mach numbers.  The early Pegasus flights will carry
quite a bit of Ames instrumentation to gather data relevant to the
Aerospace Plane.  1500 lbs could be carried on a dedicated suborbital
flight.

Air launch turns out to give a 10-15% reduction in the necessary delta-V.
The forward speed of the aircraft helps a bit.  Launching at 40,000 ft
helps much more:  it reduces drag, reduces stress on the structure,
reduces aerodynamic heating, reduces pressure loss in the exhaust,
and permits a higher expansion ratio in the first-stage nozzle.  The
horizontal launch and the wing permit flying a much flatter and more
efficient trajectory, and also greatly reduce the angle of attack
needed for an air launch (a wingless air-launched rocket would have
to make a sharp turn upward).  The excellent supersonic wing (L:D 4:1)
gives better performance than a similar weight of rocket fuel.  (The
wing will actually start to char just before first-stage burnout, but
it doesn't matter since Pegasus is not reusable.)  The net result is
twice the payload mass fraction of a ground-launched booster.

[Like I said, this is the best news in years.  I hope OSC and Hercules
make a bundle from this:  they deserve it.]

[Hmmm...  900 pounds, 42 inches.  Kind of tight, and the upper-stage
accelerations look uncomfortably high, but I bet you could man-rate it
if you really tried.]
-- 
Man is the best computer we can      |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
put aboard a spacecraft. --Von Braun | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 19 Jun 88 07:52:39 GMT
From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu  (Eric Behr)
Subject: NASA news - Tony England; Senate

=====================================================================

ASTRONAUT ENGLAND TO LEAVE NASA

June 15, 1988

RELEASE: 88-80


     NASA astronaut Anthony England, Ph.D., will leave NASA in
October 1988 to accept a position with the University of Michigan
as professor of electrical engineering.  England will head the
university's space remote sensing research for the Electrical
Engineering and Computer Sciences Department at Ann Arbor.

     England was selected as an astronaut in August 1967.  He
served as support crewman for Apollo missions 13 and 16 before
taking a position as research geophysicist for the U.S.
Geological Survey in 1974.

     In 1979, he returned to the Johnson Space Center and was
subsequently assigned to Shuttle mission STS-51F (Spacelab-2) as
a mission specialist.  During that flight, which featured
experiments in astronomy, solar physics, life sciences, and
atmospheric research, England was responsible for operating the
Spacelab Instrument Pointing System.  England logged 188 hours in
space on that mission.

=====================================================================

NOTE TO EDITORS: NASA RESPONSE TO SENATE APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE MARK-UP

June 16, 1988


     The following comment was made today by NASA Administrator
Dr. James C. Fletcher in response to the Senate Sub-Committee on
HUD/Independent Agencies Committee on Appropriations mark-up of
the NASA FY 1989 budget request:

     "It's not unexpected but it's near disaster for the space
program, particularly the Space Station.  We hope our friends on
the Hill will reconsider."

=====================================================================

                                                       Eric

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #275
*******************