Space Digest Thu, 22 Jul 93 Volume 16 : Issue 904 Today's Topics: cheap space computers Clementine (3 msgs) Cookiesat (was Re: COOKIE CUUTTER PROBES (WA) DC-X DC-X Prophets and associated problems (2 msgs) GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB) Jupiter names M31 Smallwood Memorial Spaceport (was: The 51 degree orbit) The 51 degree orbit Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:02:14 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: cheap space computers Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jul21.110257.11244@infodev.cam.ac.uk> sl25@pmms.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton) writes: >|> So back to my crazy idea - imagine an EISA compatible spacefhcraft bus, >|> so that any existing card could be just plugged in. >|> As pat says, sure, you have to check it for enviro etc, and probably >|> some won't work. But I believe most will. > >I think you're wrong. I think roughly NONE will. The space environment, >especially ine LEO (where you clip the Van Allan belts occasionally, let alone in >Jupiter orbit or Mercury orbit, is incredibly hostile to electronics... It's not that bad, actually. Note that quite a few off-the-shelf electronic systems, including commercial laptop computers, have been used quite successfully inside the shuttle cabin. The cabin has some shielding, but it's not that much. If you're willing to assume short missions and an occasional failure, the radiation environment is not that big a deal. Of course, "short missions" probably rules out anything beyond the Moon. A much bigger practical problem is that the off-the-shelf hardware is designed to be air-cooled. Unless you're willing to follow the Russian approach and pressurize the interior of your spacecraft -- which works, but introduces major new failure modes -- you can't use EISA anything on an unmanned spacecraft. -- Altruism is a fine motive, but if you | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology want results, greed works much better. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 15:59:00 GMT From: Tim Harincar Subject: Clementine Newsgroups: sci.space Some questions about the science objectives of the mission: How much of the surface is intended to be mapped? Poles included? Do the 10m resloution spot images include any 'artificial' features (ie Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, LM Ascent stage, S-IV stage impact sites)? I think the impact sites would be interesting because you have an object of known size, shape, mass, velocity and you can see what kind of dent it made. How about other artifacts - Apollo sites, Lunakhod sites, Surveyors, etc. Apollo & Lunakhod sould be easy since the astronauts turned up so much new soil with there boots & rovers, should be good contrast... Mostly, these images would be cool PR, I don't know how much science value they'd have. BTW, according to _Robot Explorers_ by kenneth Gatland, the Lunar Orbiter's cameras had resoultions of 487m (wide angle) and 60m (telephoto). According to what Jordin Kare of LLNL posted, Clementine's cameras are ~100m and about 10m resolutions - better in both cases. So the quality of data should be pretty good. -- tim harincar soc1070@vx.cis.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:12:37 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Clementine Newsgroups: sci.space In article <21JUL199310592311@vx.cis.umn.edu> soc1070@vx.cis.umn.edu (Tim Harincar) writes: >How much of the surface is intended to be mapped? Poles included? All of it, at the lower resolutions. Bear in mind, though, that lighting conditions at the poles are poor. >Do the 10m resloution spot images include any 'artificial' features >(ie Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, LM Ascent stage, S-IV stage impact sites)? I don't remember whether the spacecraft pointing is precise enough to let you pick and choose things to see at the 10m resolution. I doubt that you could see the impact crater from something as small as a Ranger or a Lunar Orbiter. I expect you could see an S-IVB crater, but I'm not sure how precisely the impact points are known. >How about other artifacts - Apollo sites, Lunakhod sites, Surveyors, etc. >Apollo & Lunakhod sould be easy since the astronauts turned up so much >new soil with there boots & rovers, should be good contrast... There isn't that big a contrast between the surface layers and the near-surface dust, and the astronauts didn't do *that* much digging. If you imaged those sites at a low Sun angle, you could probably see shadows from the bigger items; I seem to recall a Lunar Orbiter photo showing the shadow of a Surveyor. But even an LM descent stage isn't going to be more than a bright point at 10m resolution. -- Altruism is a fine motive, but if you | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology want results, greed works much better. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:18:25 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Clementine Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1416728cd@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes: >I am told that it's optics are inferior to the normal NASA optics in >several ways: > >sensitivity to radiation is high (meaning radiation in the space >environment will tend to degrade the images) Ah, but does this mean that transient radiation effects will mess up the images, or that radiation aging will give the instruments a short life? I can well believe that the instrument lifetimes are well below NASA standards, but so is the mission length -- Clementine doesn't have to operate for ten years. >and the resolution is comparable to a Lunar Orbiter (as in the Lunar >Orbiter from the 1960's). Not true, unless you use a very broad definition of "comparable". The surface resolution is a factor of several better, depending on exactly which numbers you compare, and the multispectral capability is likewise a considerable improvement. >... I don't want to get our hopes too high that this will be the Lunar >Orbiter that we have all waited 21 years for. It definitely won't be, if only because the 21-year orbiter :-) would definitely have a gamma-ray/neutron spectrometer, to resolve the vexing question of frozen volatiles at the poles. -- Altruism is a fine motive, but if you | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology want results, greed works much better. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1993 11:39 CDT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Cookiesat (was Re: COOKIE CUUTTER PROBES (WA) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jul20.191256.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes... >In article <1993Jul20.204911.15337@aristo.tau.ac.il>, zvikal@ccsg.tau.ac.il (Zvi Lev) writes: >> So back to my crazy idea - imagine an EISA compatible spacefhcraft bus, >> so that any existing card could be just plugged in. >> As pat says, sure, you have to check it for enviro etc, and probably >> some won't work. But I believe most will. Think what it would do >> for space development if one knew that most of what is available for >> desktop computers (hardware & software) can be plugged into your >> sattelite if you just want to use it. > >The first time I met Dennis Wingo, he was giving a talk insisting that >a lunar probe *must* have VME-bus computers, and strongly implying (at >least) that anyone who would advocate any other kind was a complete >idiot. > >Wasn't obvious to me, but I kept my mouth shut about it. > >That was many years ago, and I suspect it was before Dennis had built >any spacegoing hardware himself. > Bill methinks your memory is slightly faulty. I said (and I wrote a paper for IEEE SoutheastCon 89) Suggesting that you COULD you the VME bus as a spacecraft computer bus. This was for Lunar Prospector and the idea is exactly the same as you are speaking of here. BEFORE I ever gave that talk, I had been involved in the design of many computer systems and subsystems and was extending that into the aerospace realm. I will not elaborate more as we have given far too many free ideas to people that are going out and building commercial small sats based upon our ideas. >In some dream world where thousands of payloads are launched each year >(do I see a light down that tunnel marked "DC-X?") maybe Zvi's vision >will come true. Lower launch costs might make possible large >production runs of spacecraft buses and other components. Perhaps the >sky will be full of Oscars... > Also, Yea I know a lot more about building spaceflight hardware today than in 1989 in Houston. You also remember that a Lieutenant from the Air Force was there who stormed out of the room saying that you "can't use non qualified hardware!" There are problems with standard hardware and there are solutions to those problems but I ain't posting it here. Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:29:14 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: DC-X Newsgroups: sci.space In article <8s3y7B3w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> voss@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (stephen voss) writes: >1)Could DC-1 replace the space shuttle for all manned surface to orbit >needs at a much lower cost,if so how much lower Probably, yes, although it would mean redesigning some of the bigger payloads to go up in pieces, and establishing a small space station to handle the longer-duration missions. Just how much lower the cost could be is extremely difficult to give realistic numbers for right now. It's too early. It *could* be a couple of orders of magnitude lower, if you make all the optimistic assumptions. A factor of several is quite likely even if you're moderately pessimistic. >2)If DC-1 is going to be so much better than other programs then why >does Mcdonnel Douglas need govt backing at all . Im sure private >companies would be piling in to fund it... The problem is, where's the market? The optimistic predictions depend vitally on opening up new markets, whose exact size cannot be predicted very well. The bulk of the existing market is government payloads, and the government's reaction to a new private launcher is very hard to predict. The only predictable commercial market is comsats, which is too small to justify a large-scale development project. >3) Why should we be funding space programs at all when we have (fill in >your favorite social cause) here at home Why should your university be allowed to buy and operate computers when we have that needs the money more? Same answer: the costs are not large by comparison with the funding needed to really do something about , and it's a long-term investment aimed at improving the future rather than the present. -- Altruism is a fine motive, but if you | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology want results, greed works much better. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1993 15:35:28 GMT From: "Michael C. Jensen" Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems Newsgroups: sci.space Allen W. Sherzer (aws@iti.org) wrote: : Which claims are extravagent? Sure, it's moderately risky but it's : not extravagent. If it won't work, we will know after investing less : than the cost of a single Shuttle flight in the concept. : This is the famous "a project has failed therefore all projects must : fail" arguement. In the early 1900's you could have used this arguement : to 'prove' that we would never have airplanes based on Langly's failures. : This IS something to be concerned about but unless you can come up with : specific reasons, it shouldn't be veiwed as anything more than something : to monitor. The claim of "cheap, routine access to space" - which is the same comment made about the shuttle before it became operational. The exact numbers I'd have to look back into these news feeds, but I'm just trying to post a gentle "reminder" to use caution in claiming things about the operational details of the DC system before they are real. As for projects failing, that is not my point at all.. the shuttle certainly is no failure, and I hope the same is true of the DC. The "failure" comes in peopel' perceptions of the system.. the shuttle didn't live up to ALL of the inital claims, and so some label it a failure. The DC faces the exact same problem. I don't know where the thread of "a project that has failed dooms all others" comes from.. I certanly don't beleive it.. [re: man ratings] : For spacecraft that is true, for aircraft it isn't near as hard. Nobody : said it was trivial but it won't require unusual amounts of effort. Boeing : builds airplanes in spite of the difficulty associated with certification : and there isn't any reason spacecraft should be different. : Note that to manrate a spacecraft you add tens of millions of $$ in cost per : flight yet all that extra money doesn't improve the safety record one bit. : Un-rated launchers are just as safe as the rated ones. : Allen Aircraft have both a significantly less "dynamic" environment, and a significantly larger base of experience to draw from. Someday in the near future, spacecraft will indeed have little additional requirements over aircraft, but right now they still do. The reason why is due to two things.. the "newness" of the technology, and the requirements placed upon such things by NASA/FAA/Congress/DOD. Man-rating involved adding more redundancy and safety into a system than is required for a non-manrated system. Few people balk at the loss of one in thirty to fourty launches of a BDB (from PAM or stage failures for instance) but lose one man-rated system in 100 flights and people scream for blood. Look at what NASA was forced into thanks to STS-51L. Layers upon layers of redundancy and management oversight were added thanks to the Rogers Commission, many of which have caused the project cost problems NASA's had. These layers of management are now being pulled, and the systems streamlined to be more effiecient and reliable, but the requirmnts still exist (as well they should). Adding cost to a system usually comes in the terms of higher reliability or backup ability for systems, and when you are planning on flying people, I'd much rather see us lean on the side of too much caution than not enough. To get the DC system an rated WILL take money and time, and will not be a "trivial" task (as some (not nessesarily you Allen) have claimed). Redesign of control systems I see as being the first big hurdle. (You show me an astronaut who is wiling to fly inside a closed can with no control other than the ground, and I'll be significantly amazed. The shuttle theoretically could be operated this wa from launch to landing, but is NOT in deferece to those willing to risk flying into space, AND to improve the "saftey margin" of the vehicle. Mike -- Michael C. Jensen mjensen@gellersen.valpo.edu jensen@cisv.jsc.nasa.gov Valparaiso University - Electrical Engineering / NASA - Johnson Space Center "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky *** Windows NT -- from the people who brought you edlin.. *** ---The opinions expressed are my own.. not NASA's or VU's..--- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:44:14 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems Newsgroups: sci.space In article <22jno0$mbo@voyager.gem.valpo.edu> mjensen@gem.valpo.edu (Michael C. Jensen) writes: >: This IS something to be concerned about but unless you can come up with >: specific reasons, it shouldn't be veiwed as anything more than something >: to monitor. >The claim of "cheap, routine access to space" - which is the same >comment made about the shuttle before it became operational. Can you be more specific? Why are these claims outrageous? Dennis thinks the engines won't work. I don't agree but that is the sort of arguement you need to make. You look only at the claims made by DC and Shuttle. I look at the technology, design, and management and conclude it is likely doable. Shuttle had three separate types of engines each burning a different type of fuel. Each had their own plumming, fuel, and maintenance requirements. DC has one type of engine each using fuel from a common source and sharing most of the tankage and associated structure. Most of the Shuttle was custom designed and designed for max performance, not low cost. DC is using off the shelf components wherever possible and designing for low cost operations. Shuttle was built under the MacManara style government procurement. DC is designed with commercial procurement. Shuttle when from concept to vehicle in one step. DC is taking the 'build a little, fly a little' approach so problems are found and fixed early on. The differences are many and profound. Sure we need to insure the claims aren't overblown but at the same time, the claims being made ARE reasonable. We almost certainly can build a spacecraft which meets the DC goals for cost and availability. Saying we can't simply because another program made the same claims without addressing the differences just doesn't make sense. >perceptions of the system.. the shuttle didn't live up to ALL of the >inital claims, and so some label it a failure. Aside from payload, and maybe a few other minor requirements, Shuttle didn't live up to any of its claims. Calling it a failure is reasonable. >[re: man ratings] >Aircraft have both a significantly less "dynamic" environment, I disagree. Many aircraft are subjected routinely to stresses greater than a DC would experience. Not only are they subjected to greater stresses, they endure those stresses for far more time. Your putting the cart before the horse. FAA certifies aircraft based on operational testing. Spacecraft are man rated largely based on paperwork. There is no reason a DC couldn't be certified just like any airliner. Sure it will be more dangerous than an airliner but so what? We will never get the experience you are talking about with Shuttle, there simply isn't enough money in the world. >aircraft, but right now they still do. The reason why is due to two things.. >the "newness" of the technology, What's the 'newness'? Most of the engine components are from flight qualified hardware. The structures used for the tanks and aeroshell are used today on aircraft. The only thing new is the application. >and the requirements placed upon such >things by NASA/FAA/Congress/DOD. Which needs to change. >Man-rating involved adding more redundancy >and safety into a system than is required for a non-manrated system. Which serves absolutely no useful purpose. Man rated launchers are no safer than non-man rated ones. BTW, DC has those built in already. Unlike the "man rated" shuttle, DC offers fully intact abort througout its envelope. DC has engine out capability throughout the flight. Shuttle has long periods of time where a engine out will kill everybody. If we can man rate Shuttle, man rating DC will be a snap. >Adding cost to a system usually comes in the terms of higher reliability And yet these added costs don't affect reliability. Why bother with them? Sure, it covers somebody's ass, but what value does it add? >Redesign of control systems I see as being the >first big hurdle. (You show me an astronaut who is wiling to fly inside >a closed can with no control other than the ground, The orbital DC vehicles can be flown from the ground or the vehicle. Of course, maybe we just don't fly astronauts in it and stick to transporting ordinary people. I'll volunteer and I'm sure many others will as well. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" | | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." | +----------------------14 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1993 11:39:04 -0400 From: Pat Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jul21.120334.12692@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >In <22fid4$l24@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > >>It is possible to Take advantage of cheap soviet flights, >>without sacrificing US capabilities. > >Thus even further raising the cost of things. After all, if you also >maintain that U.S. capability, where are the 'savings' coming from? >If you are buying your actual operational capability from overseas, >where is the incentive to maintain and develop your own capability? > Fred, it costs us on average, 500 Million per shuttle flight. if we can pass these costs onto the soviets, we can then use the shuttle flights ofr other programmed activities. it's called re-programming and juggling money. Lot's of Missions are stalled awaiting shuttle missions, they are already authorized and funded, you move those up into the near term. Don't confuse cash flow expeniditure for savings. the government works on a multi year basis. >>If we swap to a high inclination orbit, it means we can >>swap some of the construction flights to the soviets, while >>flying other shuttle dependent missions, like SIRTF or >>KH-12 repairs, or LDEF 2-3 (Not that it's programmed). > >But this is a different argument. First you have to get funding for >those missions, otherwise your domestic hardware just sort of goes >away. Putting the whole bill for supporting that domestic capability >on fewer programs makes those programs more expensive due to the fixed >costs of maintaining your own capability. Besides which, why wouldn't >all those other things simply go with foreign hardware as well, >killing the American launch industry? > Well, if things are strictly going to be done on a cash cost basis, why aren't those programs being aimed at russian hardware now? why don't we see missions bailing off the STS for protons as we speak. the use of russian hardware or non use of russian hardware does not mandate the activities of other programs. in fact, the use of STS for SSF construction and logistics, would most likely push science missions onto russian hardware. any slips and delays on SSF will have serious ripples into the science manifest. and they are much more able to move onto other vehicles. and you forget, most of these missions are funded already. >>Besides, given the high probablity of a SHuttle Loss and >>Fleet shut-down, would you not want to be able to continue >>Logistics flights from somewhere? > >Yes, but the last time I checked Russia didn't have the only >alternative launch sites on the planet. > So do you think construction could take place off of Ariane 4? or that Ariane has the reserve capacity to run logistics for SSF? Please cite your alternative launch complex. >>If we take Hurricane LeRoY, and it seriously screws up >>KSC for a couple months, it would be very useful to have >>an alternate launch site open. > Please name some alternate launch sites other then KSC. >>A high Inclination orbit, does not require we actually >>buy any russian flight services. it merely makes it possible. > >And adds a minimum of $400 million in extra costs. > Are you seriously worried about half a billion dollars in DDTE on a $ 80 Billion dollar station project? You must be joking. Besides, you seem to be advocating capital costs in enhancing KSC or other launch complexes. you suggest that very thing just a few paragraphs later. >>|>2) Improved Earth Observation Missions. > >>What can I say. THis is the one I hear a lot about. 51 degrees, >>just about doubles the earth observations science. > >But does it double it in a way we care about? I don't think we can >just measure the percentage of the Earth's surface we can see at each >inclination and claim 'double the science'. > I have no idea on this one. Does anyone from planetary sciences know better? >>>>3) Improved Logistics Flow missions. > >>KSC can only process N flights per year. Vandenburg does not >>launch to 28 degrees. Let's say SSF desperately needs a >>smoke shifter, a rapid launch from Pletkesk (sp) or baikonur >>is possible. It certainly is not from KSC. I doubt KSC could push >>a critical launch through in less then 30 days. > >But do you have a requirement for that kind of logistics flow? If so, >is it better to make your own capability or spend extra money to >launch to a high-inclination orbit, thereby making things more >difficult for yourself so that launches from elsewhere are feasible? > well, let's look at Skylab. moments after launch they discovered they needed one solar array and some thermal barriers. luckily they were able to package that onto the SKylab I flight. or look at the Mir. Just a few months ago, they lost a handle, and they are stuck waiting for a progress flight to bring it up. now if this was a more critical item, it could get very uncomfortable waiting for the re-supply mission. well as for wether it's better done by imrpoving us capacity, please tell me how we avoid a single point catastrophe at KSC and are you volunteering to Build another SPaceport in the US? and wouldn't said new spaceport be at a higher Inclination? >>If you are going to do some serious materials processing in Orbit, >>you want to get re-supply missions often. That means either some >>real big improvements at KSC and risk of single point failure, or >>the option to do launches out of several space-ports. > >Sounds more like an argument for more American capability rather than >an argument for a high-inclination orbit, per se. > Please venture how much money these improvements would cost. > >>You learn more about working to solve hard problems then easy problems. >>High Inclination acts as a driver towards STS getting the AL-LI >>ET and the ASRM, really not bad ideas in my book. >>High Inclination, means they work on radiation resistant systems. >>a interesting engineering problem. > >Doing something the hard way for no other reason than that it *is* the >hard way is just plain silly, Pat. I'm also unconvinced about the >utility of pouring money into Shuttle just so that we can do things >the hard way. You seem to be running your logic backwards here. If >those things are good ideas, inventing a program so as to deliberately >justify them is unnecessary. If they are otherwise not sufficiently >good ideas, it seems rather stupid (as well as dishonest) to 'bend' >the program in such a way as to try to create justification for them. > My neighbor has on old saying. the hard way is the easy way" You are just playing logic games. NASA at this point in time developes nothing without a mission to support it. ASRM and AL-LI tanks need a mission. that is the nature of the agency. a look at all the science platforms. they were used to justify shuttle, the shuttle got built on the basis that it would support hundreds of science activities. > >>>>5) Apparently ACRV return is simplified( This is what i was told, >>>> I can't see an intuitive reason why this is). > Still a good reason for a high inclination orbit. > >No, it's a problem with 'horizon'. We see a lot of that from folks >advocating the use of Russian hardware, too. > Horizon is a difficult guess. it's a fuzzy thing to say what's right and what's wrong. Canals were the great technical operation of the 1700's. and they were obsoleted by Rail Roads. would you have advocated continued canal developement, because of the R&D issues involved and the need to keep up american canal building capacity. and railroads died to road travel. and trucks to airlines. Horizons are funny things. > >>WOuld they be healthier if they were pouring money into >>large IC Fabrication plants every year? DEC can't afford more then >>one large design project at a time, do you think they could do more >>after pouring money into a DRAM plant? > >DRAM is easy. That's why foreign countries that want an SC business >start there. > And if it's so easy, why don't IBM and DEC and Intel and AMD still make them? only your employers are still at it, and I think they get some money from the feds to keep at it. >>And IBM used to do everything in-house, and it left them technologically >>adrift come the 80's. They had drifted so far from the main-stream >>they had no products to sell to the other electronics firms. > >No, what left them 'adrift' was cutbacks in research. > I think all those people who won nobel prizes in the 80's from IBM Research will dispute your thesis. IBM has spent twice as much on research as any of their competitors. it was because they ahd to conduct reserarch in all areas. IBM failed because they lost touch with the market. >>The only way they could develope a PC, was to buy entirely from >>outside sources. > >No, that's the only way they *wanted* to develop a PC, since it wasn't >seen as a real big market at the time. Your version strikes me as >slightly revisionist history. Depends on how you look at it. ESD had i believe one year and 8 million dollars to crank out a box. that meant they couldn't have a 2,000 person developement team writing software, building hardware and debugging a production plant. IBM built other desktop machines at the same time as the PC. the IBM 3000 workstation, the DATAMASTER (predecessor) the Displaywriter. but these all cost so much to build, that they were un-competitive on the market. they wanted to make a market competitive product. that meant a low cost out sourced developement effort. just like the fiero. pat -- God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things. Right now, I am so far behind, I will never die. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 16:54:04 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Jupiter names Newsgroups: sci.space In article h.hillbrath@genie.geis.com writes: >... At some point, before there really were "real" Jupiters, >they converted the Redstone as a reentry test vehicle, and called it >the "Jupiter-C." Partly, the reason for that was that was, I am sure, >"disinformation." Actually, the various sources are pretty much in agreement on this one: it was done because von Braun's crew noticed that when the Cape people set schedules, they (a) tended to give new programs higher priority, and (b) tended to look at names, not at program affiliation. So anything named "Redstone" got lower priority than something named "Jupiter", even if they were part of the same program. Hence "Jupiter C". -- Altruism is a fine motive, but if you | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology want results, greed works much better. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 13:48:23 GMT From: Steven Sharpe Subject: M31 Newsgroups: sci.space You would have stay up until midnight or so to see M31 properly at this time of year. Look for it in the east, south of the "W" of Cassiopeia. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 16:32:54 GMT From: Michael Corvin Subject: Smallwood Memorial Spaceport (was: The 51 degree orbit) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <26822@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes: |> Of course there is an alternate solution :-). Just set a North |> American Spaceport in Newfoundland or Labrador (clear eastward ranges from |> about 47 degrees to 60 degrees) and use Russian hardware. Given the current |> devastated state of the economy in Newfoundland (the cod fishery has failed), |> the province will no doubt welcome a launch site with open arms. Of course, |> the weather can be miserable, but this would be no impediment to Russian |> hardware and experience. Dories in orbit :-)??? "Burn the docks, we be goin' into space, boys" (to paraphrase J.Smallwood...). Actually, I should plug a nearby alternate that features the benefit of easier transportation access: Cape Breton. There's plenty of scrap steel up in Sydney to build a spaceport with :-) and they could sure use the jobs too. I'm not sure about the range of clear launch azimuths from there, though. And the idea of Capers launching rockets is a bit frightening ;-) ;-) ;-) since the CBLA (Cape Breton Liberation Army, commanded by the notorious Gen. John D. Cabot Trail) might get some ideas... (I'm an expatriate from Dartmouth, NS...) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Corvin PP-ASEL, PP-G zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com Space launch Systems GN&C Martin Marietta Astronautics Group ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- =============== My views, not Martin Marietta's ======================== ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- We now interrupt this silliness to return regular sci.space programming... ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1993 11:42:55 -0400 From: Pat Subject: The 51 degree orbit Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jul20.182648.23018@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@pat.mdc.com (Keith Mancus) writes: | | Sorry if I didn't make it clear that I was talking about carrying pieces |of SSF. Even 51 degrees presents some problems without ASRM or some |equivalent larger booster. ASRM and the AL-LI ET are easy solutions. -- God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things. Right now, I am so far behind, I will never die. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 13:46:15 EDT From: SABELD@WMAVM7.VNET.IBM.COM Subject:SSTO with crossranges Allen sherzer writes "..the SSTO with crossranges has about 16% more flightsover with to amortize it's overhead which means it operates maybe 10% cheaper,is more responsive, and delivers more payload per vehicle." As if anyone cares, you don't amortize overhead, you allocate it. The total overhead won't change that much (b/c the ssto with crossranges will require more servicing which is done inbetween flights). Basically, with crossranges, *total* costs will remain relatively the same. You will however,as Allen stated, get more bang for your buck because of being able to complete more flights. Sorry, but being an accountant by trade, I don't get to put in my two cents worth often. :-) ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 904 ------------------------------