Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Mon, 12 Nov 1990 02:54:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 12 Nov 1990 02:54:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #536 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 536 Today's Topics: Galileo Update - 11/06/90 Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station) New Ames Research Center Deputy Director to head Ames-Dryden (Forwarded) Call for new news group : sci.space.seds Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Nov 90 20:31:12 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update - 11/06/90 Galileo Status Report November 6, 1990 A NO-OP command was sent yesterday to the Galileo spacecraft to reset the Command Loss Timer to 216 hours. A MAG (Magnetometer) instrument science memory readout was also successfully completed. Today, two delta DOR (Differential One-way Ranging) navigation activities were completed successfully. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 6 Nov 90 18:39:10 GMT From: usc!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucsd.edu (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station) In article <70202@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> jkonrath@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jon) writes (with regard to manned Delta): >its not just vibration load (which is probably too bad) its also the >acceleratation. Most of the payload rockets made have way too high >acceleration rates for humans....even with gsuits/seats/etc.. >sure, a chunk of metal and silicon can take it, but not a human.... >one of the reasons most manned flights are liquid powered or use >way more advanced solid boosters.... Advanced solid boosters? Wow, sort of like a power-hungry libertarian, I guess... Phil ------------------------------ Date: 6 Nov 90 19:26:14 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: New Ames Research Center Deputy Director to head Ames-Dryden (Forwarded) Sarah Keegan NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. November 5, 1990 (Phone: 202/453-2754) 4 P.M. EST Del Harding Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif. (Phone: 415/604-9000) Nancy Lovato Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, Calif. (Phone: 805/258-3448) RELEASE: 90-149 NEW AMES RESEARCH CENTER DEPUTY DIRECTOR TO HEAD AMES-DRYDEN Arnold D. Aldrich, NASA Associate Administrator for Aeronautics, Exploration and Technology, today announced an organizational change at NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif., designed to reinforce and strengthen national flight research capabilities at the Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility (DFRF), Edwards, Calif. A new Ames Deputy Center Director position will be located at Dryden and will serve as the Director of the Dryden facility. All administrative and operational organizational elements of Dryden will report to this individual. In announcing the change, Aldrich said "This updated management structure at Ames will take advantage of Ames' institutional capability to conduct research along a full continuum, ranging from computation through validation flight test. It simultaneously will provide enhanced recognition for the unique capabilities of Dryden for conceiving and executing national flight-test programs." Kenneth J. Szalai has been selected as the Ames Deputy Director who, under the new Ames' management organization, will be located at Dryden and will direct Dryden's research and operations, effective Dec. 3, 1990. The appointment was announced today by Dr. Dale Compton, Ames Director. "This appointment recognizes the importance of flight research to the nation's aeronautics program and underscores Dryden's importance as a national asset for conducting this research," said Compton. "Szalai is an internationally recognized expert on flight control and flight systems and has extensive experience with flight research. He is particularly well qualified to take this leadership position." Martin A. Knutson, Director of the Flight Operations and Research Directorate, will return to the Ames Mountain View site to direct flight operations there. "Knutson has done an excellent job at Dryden and the additional experience he has gained will add to the already close coordination between the two sites," Compton said. Szalai, 48, previously served as Chief of the Research Engineering Division at Dryden. He joined NASA in 1964 and held various research and systems engineering positions of increasing responsibility before moving into management as a branch chief. He also was principal investigator on the first digital fly-by- wire aircraft. Szalai has authored over 25 technical papers and reports. He is a fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Szalai has received numerous awards including the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal and the Presidential Rank of Meritorious Executive. Szalai received a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from the University of Wisconsin in 1964 and a master's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Southern California in 1970. He and his wife reside in Lancaster, Calif., with their three children. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Nov 90 19:39:28 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!ccserver!zmapj36@uunet.uu.net (M.S.Bennett Supvs= Prof Pendry) Subject: Call for new news group : sci.space.seds SEDS is one of the largest space student organisation in the world- USSEDS was founded 10 years ago to put pressure on congress to uncancel a number of probe missions - in this it was successful. Now SEDS is growing into a multi-national organisation with branches across the world (Italy, Tiwan, Canada). We have links with the ISU and Eurasia (the European Space student group). We clearly need some means of giving people an easy mode of access other than BITNET mail servers - NEWS would be an excelent method. I await your responses, if any - (would that mean you did not object?) Yours M.S.Bennett -- /------ ------- -----\ /------ | ====================== | | | | \ | | M. Sean Bennett | \-----\ |---- | | \-----\ | UKSEDS TECH.OFF. | | | | / | | Janet:SEDS@CC.IC.AC.UK | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 12:05:39 -0500 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap Newsgroups: sci.space This is becomming less a discussion of LLNL's plan and more of the problems with Freedom. In addition, it is clear that Freedom as currently envisioned will never be built. Congress will not pay for it. Therefore this will be my last reply (nothing new is being said anyway). Mr. Radley is welcome to have the last word. In article <2658@polari.UUCP> crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes: >+1. Using the LLNL as a Freedom replacement is NOT part of the >+ Great Exploration. >- >Many people are touting LLNL as a replacement to Freedom. My preference is to let them fight it out. Fund both until one is up and working then kill the other. A little competition goes a long way. >+1. The price of large new engineering projects cannot be predicted >+ in advance. >I never said that. I said LLNL has no track record, so their >projections are questionable. BTW, how many space stations has your employer built? If the answer is not at least 3 then I would say you don't have a track record either. >+Again, according to the original schedule, Freedom was to be >+permanently crewed in 91 (next year) at a cost+ of $8B. >You quote feasibility study estimates as guarantees, which they never >were. No I quote the original cost and schedule as provided to Congress in 1984. >+ Maybe the schedules havn't changed, but that doesn't mean they can >+be met. Example: Freedom will use 27 Shuttle flights for assembly >+over five years. You don't seriously think that can be done do you? >First element launch date is not dependent on flight rates, and that >date is very realistic. The Shuttle manifest has about 40 flights on it before Freedom. They are assuming a flight rate of 10 per year. Nobody outside NASA seriously thinks this is possible. If flies in the face of the past ten years experience. A realistic rate would be four per year which means that when Freedom FEL comes up there will be TWENTY flights ahead of you. Is Freedom going to tell those people to take a hike? >At least Freedom's schedule is based on >a vehicle which exists, No. Freedom's schedule is based on a hypothetical reusable spacecraft which flies ten times a year for $200M per flight. That vehicle does not exist in any form. It will not exist when Freedom is launched. >LLNL is making extravagent promises based on >an HLV which has not even been designed, let alone flown. The HLV on the other hand has 90% of its design completed. A number of experts have said it was viable and they had no doubt that MDAC and Martin could build them. For example, when Mr. Charles Radley was asked what doubts he had about these vehicles he said: "I have no doubt MDAC and Martin can deliver those [HLVs].[1]" [1] Article <2658@polari.UUCP> toward the end >+They have been political because NASA didn't listen to Congress >+in the design. Congress wanted a microgravity research facility. >Really ? Yes. >If so then why in other posts do you talk about providing >artifical gravity on LLNL ? That makes microgravity research >impossible ! Actually, it makes micorgravity better. By putting the microgravity facility in a crew-tended free flyer it won't be subjected to the vibration which Freedom will subject it to. >It also makes studies of biological effects of zero-g impossible. You could add a zero-G module in the middle if you want. Or if the LLNL station demonstrates the viability of the concept you can build large 0G stations for a very very small amount of money. >Micro-g and life sciences are Freedom's forte'. Louis J. Lanzerotti, of the Augustine commission, recently said in testimony before the Senate space subcommittee [2]: I feel it is my responsibility to advise [Congress] of our continuing concern about the utility of the space station if it proceeds as currently planned. Current proposals for space station Freedom suggest that it may not be of oprimum use to the two primary communities for which it is intended - life science and microgravity sciences. [2] Avation Week, Oct. 22,1990 page 25 >+Question: Congress is mandating that Freedom's dependance on the Shuttle >+and unrealistic launch rates end in the next redesign. Is this a political >+or technical reason? >Can you substantiate that statement ? David Anderman says you are >mistaken. Nothing in the current session language mandated that. Oh yes. See the above quoted Avation week article or the front page of Space News from the same week. You will be directed to do a redesign in 90 days to minimize dependance on Shuttle, use expendables, and assume reasonable Shuttle launch rates. They are recommending that you build a set of smaller modules which can be integrated on Earth and launched in one piece. A crew-tended microgravigy facility will be first followed by a small habitation module, a life science module, and finally another habitation module. I hear the Europeans are going the same route. This will be the final form of Freedom. If you go with something much different, Congress won't pay for it. Some will call this micromanagement but here it is needed. To quote Thomas Paine: The space station project faces mounting technical problems, soaring costs, unrealistic dependence on regular shuttle flights and declining public support. The program's basic assumption that regularly scheduled, economical high capacity shuttle launchings can be counted upon is no longer reasonable. The current space station program is no longer endorsed by most scientisis and is delaying, not advancing, the Presidents SEI goals. Now if this redesign happens, I would tend to support it (provided commercial needs are met). >Space qualifying and man-rating are not the same. They are not >subjective, but are clearly defined methodologies. So tell me, what is the value of man rating when man rated systems end up being no safer but four times as expensive as the non-man rated ones? >You mean they will design, build and fly twelve precursor (Gemini) >spacecraft to develop the technology, Yep. Those missions have already been flown (the program was called Gemini). That knowledge didn't just erase itself you know. >then fly five unmanned >prototypes, then four incremental manned mission before deciding >to GO FOR IT.....in three years and all for $ 1 B, right ? The station flies up unmanned and inflates itself. When the environment is OK, people go on board. What's wrong with this? >+Yep it has. Tell me, in 90 $$ how much does an Apollo capsule >+cost? >The tooling for Apollo has been destroyed, and there are very few >drawings left. Apollo's cannot be built for all the tea in China. >You will have to build a new vehicle. You didn't answer my question. How much in 90 $$ does an Apollo CM cost? Please provide a source. After all, how can we estimate the true cost of developing a suitable capsule without looking at past experience? >200 M gives you Titan-III. Titan-IV is $ 300-400 M. Nope. A Titan III costs $125M list (Avation Week Jan 8, 1990 page 43). A Titan IV is less than 200M (150M according to Tech. Review). >Shuttle estimates depend on launch rates, highest I have seen is $ 600 M. That's on the low end of reasonable. Still three times the cost of the Titan IV which lifts just as much. >+Again, can you be more specific? When McDonnell Douglas says they >+can cluster Deltas to lift a 100K pound payload for $500M in three >+years on what do you base your belief that it can't be done? When >+Martin Marrietta makes similar claims about the Titan, why are they >+wrong? What error in costing did they make? >- >I have no doubt MDAC and Martin can deliver those. Well I'm glad to see we did close one issue. We agree that the HLV is a pretty low risk thing to do (otherwise you would have doubts). >Two Titans gives a very small assembly, compared to Freedom, it gives >you a rather expensive Skylab equivalent. Two Titans gives you more interior room than Freedom. >Interesting idea, unfortunately four of the five references you >posted appear to be internal LLNL and contractor reports, which I >cannot obtain through University of California library system. Why not write LLNL and ask them? >Pads 40 and 41 are already in use by USAF and commercial users. The >launch rates you quote require at least one new additional pad. Yes the pads are in use. That doesn't mean they are unavailbe all the time. According to OTA, no new pads are needed to achieve this launch rate. At current launch rates we have way more expendable capacity than we have Shuttle capacity. That's why Congress in mandating the use of expendables. Finally, I note that Mr. Radley has not made any major points against the LLNL approach. His only complaint, testing, is invalid because LLNL does do testing using methodologies considered adaaquate for Apollo. Mr. Radley has given no detailed assessment of why LLNL testing methodology is flawed for the level of risk assumed and his other comments indicate that he doesn't understand how the program works. Since I have not doubt that Mr. Radley is an honorable and intelligent person, I would hope he would take the trouble to read up on the LLNL approach. Read what they have published and ask them your questions. You may be suprised at the answers. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation | | aws@iti.org | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it | | | works or not? - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts | ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #536 *******************