Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_0/V10_077.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 20KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/sZ7o09W00VcJA0pU4Z>;
          Tue, 26 Sep 89 05:23:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 89 05:23:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #77

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 10 : Issue 77

Today's Topics:
            Re: Re: Saturn V & F-1
            ESA Bulletin #59, August 1989
         NASA Headline News for 09/15/89 (Forwarded)
               Re: J. Bowery and HR2674
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 89 20:53:42 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclove![e-mail]  (Bob Campbell)
Subject: Re: Re: Saturn V & F-1

The problems I see with rebuilding the Saturn V are:

1:  No job for it.

    Face it.  If we needed them we would have kept building them.
    The fact that formerly operational ones are rusting on display
    should tell you something.  Before you get too excited about
    the launch system, have a use for it that needs it and will
    be supported.

2.  Missing knowledge and tools

    Like they said, it will take a bit of work to try and rebuild it.
    Without a strong commitment (see #1) it isn't going to happen.

3.  If we need to redesign anyways . . .

    Without the advantages of existing designs and production
    facilities, why not try to build it better?  It possibly
    could prove cheaper than a redesign and give a better
    engine (and better engineers!)

I could probably think of more, but the simple fact is the first is enough.
If you take care of problem #1, the other two will solve themselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Campbell                Some times I wish that I could stop you from
[e-mail]        talking, when I hear the silly things you say.
Hewlett Packard                                    - Elvis Costello

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

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 89 14:25:32
From: Lutz Massonne <ESC1325@ESOC> ([phone]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: ESA Bulletin #59, August 1989

Dear Networkers,

I just received the latest ESA bulletin. Here is an overview of its contents
(You can get it from ESA Publications Division, ESTEC, 2200 AG Noordwijk,
 The Netherlands)

Articles:
- Overview of the European Long-Term Space Plan by Director General R. Luest
- Description of ROSETTA mission (Comet Nucleus Sample Return)
- First Results of ESA's plasma-wave system aboard the USSR's Phobos probes
- Columbus utilisation information system
- Use of spacecraft simulators at ESOC
- New ESTRACK station at Maspalomas (Canary Islands)
- Powering ESA spacecraft (overview of S/C power supply systems)
- (two articles in French, one about space politics and one about
   finance)
- "Electronic Dissemination of Information by ESA Contracts Department"
- ESA Consultancy to the Italian Space Programme (describing Italsat comsat,
  IRIS Interim stage for Shuttle launches, Tethered Satellite System,
  Lageos-II laser reflector sat, SAX X-ray astronomy satellite and other
  elements of the Italian space program)
- List of Programmes under Development and Operations

From this list some short citations:

Meteosat: MOP-1 (now renames Meteosat 4) is scheduled to become the
operational satellite on June 19. Meteosat 3 (former P2) will then
become the reserve satellite and the former reserve satellite Meteosat-F2
will  be not longer required. Plans are made to de-orbit that satellite.
Lasso-experiment on Meteosat 3 (Laser reflector system to synchronise
clocks on different continents): Firings from different stations have
continued, determining the range to the spacecraft with an accuracy of
5 to 10 cm. Firings from pairs of stations are in preparation.
Manufacture of MOP-2 is currently completed at Aerospatiale in Cannes.
Launch is foreseen in March 1990.

Space Telescope: Launch has been postponed to March 1990 due to Shuttle
delays.
Solar Array wings have completed test programme, power output was measured
and found inside specification margins (4.9 kW beginning-of-life, 4.5 kW
end-of-life).

(ESA-supplied) Faint Object Camera FOC is installed in the ST and checked every
month. No performance variation so far.
NASA ground software for FOC is being validated at the moment.

Ulysses: At ESOC the new operations computer which replaces the original one
has been delivered. Software modifications to adapt the operational and
flight-dynamics software to the newer machine are underway.
Launch preparations are 'proceeding smoothly'.

ISO: Design activities are frozen, some critical items are identified
(e.q. the attitude control subsystem design) which need further study.
Hardware activities show some problems with telescope primary mirror
development. The manufacturing of a mirror at 6K temperature and calibrating
it proved extremely difficult.
In addition the mirror mounting has to be modified to reduce stresses.
These problems caused considerable delay in the telescope's development,
maybe the overall programme schedule will have to be reviewed as the
buffer times have already been consumed.

ERS: Spacecraft flight-model testing continues, Kiruna (Sweden) Station
has been accepted.

Microgravity: 3 Spacelab missions (D-2, IML-1 and IML-2) are prepared.
Eureca-1 mission user facilities development is nearly complete.
Five biological experiments will be flown on the USSR Biocosmos-9 satellite,
launch foreseen in August 1989, recovery about two weeks later.
Eight ESA microgravity experiments have been flown on two sounding
rockets on April 10 (MASER-3 rocket) and April 26 (Texus-21 rocket).

Ariane: First hot tests on the new Ariane-5 Vulcain engine were performed
on the test stand at Lampoldshausen

Hermes: Industry has completed analysis of the Hermes configuration,
featuring an ejectable cabin and an (expendable) Hermes Resource Module
with body-mounted radiators, an airlock integrated into the pressurised
cargo volume and an axial docking port.
Interface negotiations with NASA for the Hermes-Space Station Freedom
interface have resumed, the issuing of the interface document is expected
shortly.

That was it for now. If someone wants more information, feel free
to contact me via e-mail.

Regards, Lutz

|                                                      |
| Dr. Lutz Massonne, mbp Software & Systems GmbH, OAD, |
| European Space Operations Centre, Robert-Bosch-Str.5 |
| D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG  <[e-mail]>         |

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

Date: 15 Sep 89 19:15:28 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 09/15/89 (Forwarded)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                        NASA Headline News
Friday, Sept. 15, 1989                       Audio:  202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is NASA headline News for Friday, September 15th......

The Soviet Union this morning launched a biosat spacecraft on a
14 day mission.  The spacecraft carries a wide variety of living
specimens ranging from monkeys, to fish to beetles and seeds.
NASA researchers are participating in 29 investigations carried
aboard the biosat.

At the Cape...the STS-34 crew participated this morning in the
final hours of a dress rehearsal countdown for their scheduled
Oct. 12 launch.  The test this morning concluded with a simulated
main engine cutoff at the T-minus 5 second mark.  Later today the
crew plans to fly to Washington to meet with Vice President Dan
Quayle tomorrow morning.

Researchers from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory have
successfully field tested a complete system for mobile
communications.  A fully developed system would use satellites to
extend mobile telephone services to remote users and to users who
cannot be served by cellular telephone systems.  The tests,
conducted in July and August, were made with the cooperation of
the Australian National Satellite System.  Communications were
set up between a base in downtown Sydney, Australia, and a mobile
unit mounted in a van.  The calls were relayed over Japan's
experimental technology Satellite-V.  During the tests, the
mobile unit ranged as far away as the city of Brisbane, more than
450 miles north of Sydney.  That is approximately the distance
between New York City and Detroit.







                      ****************














-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs on NASA Select
television.  All times are Eastern.

Monday, Sept. 18.....

     9:00A - 5P     NASA Select television will carry a global
                    change conference being conducted at the
                    National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Thursday, Sept. 21.....

     11:30 A.M.     NASA Update will be transmitted.

All events and times are subject to change without notice.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA Hdq.

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

Date: 15 Sep 89 17:50:38 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Re: J. Bowery and HR2674

>[e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute writes:
>
>> I've heard arguments that space flight would become fairly commonplace
>> on its own, in its own time, with or without major government intervention.
>> These arguments also conclude that "in its own time" means "in 50 or 100
>> years"; this conclusion is arrived at by examining evolutionary improvements
>> in performance of aircraft, and extrapolating them to the performance required
>> of spacecraft.
>That is all quite correct except the numbers.  It took less than 50 years from
>the Wright brothers' first flight to air flight becoming "commonplace".  Since
>we are, according to your own logic, 30 years beyond the stage of the Wright
>Brothers' first flight ... your own logic suggests
>only 20 years until we see spaceflight as "commonplace", assuming the same
>"natural" pace as the aircraft industry.

You've read more into my argument than I put there. I am suggesting that,
left to develop on its own, the >>sequence of events<< in the development
of a spacecraft launcher industry would likely have paralleled that sequence
that the aviation industry followed earlier this century. The >>rate<< at
which this sequence unfolded could, of course, be different. Major improvements
in aircraft design were (at least in the early years) fairly easy to make:
that is to say, inexpensive, and fairly obvious (e.g. building mono-wing
aircraft instead of biplanes, once it was understood that thicker wing sections
were acceptable) to many of the designers in the business. The same is not
true of the launcher industry at the moment. There are not many ideas "in the
air" for evolutionary changes in launchers that are widely perceived as
having the potential for drastically lowering costs; most cost-reducing
"solutions" amount to saying that "if we take it out of NASA's hands, and
unleash private enterprise, costs are >>bound<< to come down." My point
here is that the "natural" rate of improvement of the art of space launcher
design is likely to be much slower than was that of aircraft design.
(With rockets, all the obvious design improvements have >already<
been done...)

>>                                                     ..the way to do it is
>> >>not<< through paying the lowest possible price for launches -- the effects
>> of this would be to have launch companies cut costs to the bone, thus
>> reducing the attractiveness of providing services in this area,
>This is a false dilemma.

You've missed the nature of the dilemma. See below.

>... The way businesses operate in the private sector
>is to charge a price that is above their cost.  The difference is called
>profit.  Businesses operate to make a profit and submit bids that will
>supply them with a sufficient profit to provide a good return to their
>investors.  Businesses, when given an opportunity to set their own price
>as they see fit, without cost accounting (which is the way the government
>current does launch contracts) can set their price arbitrarily high.
>...If you read HR2674 ... you will notice the provision
>for bids without cost accounting.  This guarantees that SOMEONE
>will win the bid at a sufficient profit to stay in business.

And if their competitors set theirs lower, they won't generate any sales.
And when the major customer for launch services is only willing to buy
these for the lowest bid price, competition will drive prices to the point
where profit margins will be as slim as they were under government cost
accounting, if not slimmer.

>
>>                                                       ..probably forming
>> a cartel to keep other companies from springing up,
>Just because NASA has formed a cartel to prevent all progress in space
>for the last 20 years doesn't mean the private companies have the skills,
>authority or inclination to do the same.  If, somehow, rocket technology or
>some critical components could be controlled, the way the supply of oil is
>controlled by petroleum producing nations, then there might be some hope.
>But the technology to do a lot better than the big three is out there and
>has been for many years.

When a market is heavily competition-driven, it tends to favor a
few large companies, which then tend to exclude the formation of new
competitors. A good example is the automobile industry. It also has its
"big three", and you don't see many new auto companies springing up
each year. In fact, you see old ones closing their doors, because
competition has made the business unprofitable for them. History shows
that the big three automakers tend to innovate only when forced to by
>external< forces -- government regulations, or competition from
non-US manufacturers. When they were left to themselves (from about 1945
to about 1965, say), their "innovation" efforts degenerated into
changing body styles from year to year. HR2674 would set up an environment
very similar to that enjoyed by the major US automakers during that
period, what with its insistence on making the industry competition-driven,
and the protectionism clauses. The point here is that competition, >by
itself<, doesn't lead to real innovation (the sort that results in
major performance improvements).


>...HR2674 was quite carefully worded so as to allow the government
>to continue to provide R&D for rocket booster technology

So it does. However, it positively >discourages< private enterprise
from doing >any< research and development, beyond that which would provide
a competitive edge in the short term; this was the main point of my
original posting. The bill doesn't >intend< to do this, obviously;
nonetheless, it appears to me that it would have this effect. Do you disagree?
If so, >explain< why.

Don't get me wrong. I think that it's good that HR2674 allows
for NASA doing R&D; see some of my other postings regarding this.
Perhaps American industry doesn't have what it takes to do the research
necessary to make breakthrough discoveries, leading to >major<
reductions in launch costs, in which case it might be best to leave
>all< launcher R&D in the hands of NASA, the way that HR2674 would.
On the other hand, many feel that NASA has forgotten how to do
>anything< efficiently; wouldn't it be nice to leave some of the R&D
to industry, just in case? Again with the aircraft analogy, while NACA
provided many wonderful advances in the art of aircraft design, US
aircraft manufacturers also made their share.

>> The only proposal I've ever hear for infusing cash into the area in a useful
>> way is one based on the old Air Mail contracts that the US Government signed
>> during the early days of aviation. The government agreed to buy a certain
>> amount of flight services from private operators (in this case to fly mail
>> back and forth).
>You are referring here to the Launch Incentives Act which was put together
>by Jerry Pournelle and friends.  It is the people who were out there actually
>promoting the Launch Incentives Act who ended up writing HR2674.

I suspected as much. Why were the "Space Mail" aspects of the LIA
dropped to form HR2674? Is there some reason to believe that they wouldn't
have the intended effect? Was the intended effect deemed unimportant?
Were these aspects deemed "politically impossible"? Or what? Please do
respond to this question (if you can do that without calling into question
my reading comprehension skills, so much the better).

Let me ask you the same questions that I asked William Baxter:
Should or should not the US Government fund rocketry research and
development at a "high" level (i.e. 10-20% of the current NASA budget,
for a start), in order to hasten decreases in the
cost of putting cargo into orbit? I believe that they should. Do you believe
this to be a valid use of public money or not? If you do, then we can go on
to discuss mechanisms (space mail subsidies being the best I've heard so
far). If not, then we are fundamentally at odds; I believe that without
such subsidization, the rate of rocket technology development will be
far slower than it should be.

Before you answer, in order to encourage a response containing (how shall
I say it?) less heat and more light,
let me list a few things that I know that we can agree upon. I
agree with you that:

        (1) the US commercial space transportation industry is
technically capable of providing reliable and cost-efficient access to
space and is an essential component of national efforts to assure
access to space for government and commercial users;
        (2) the Federal Government should encourage, facilitate, and
promote the US commercial space transportation industry, including the
development of commercial launch facilities.
        (3) the US commercial space transportation industry must be
competitive in the international marketplace...

(if it wants to
get itself out of the doldrums)

        (4) commercial vehicles, not government vehicles, will be the
most effective means to challenge foreign competition;
        (5) the requirements of government specifications relating to
vehicle design, construction, and operation impose an unwarranted
burden on the engineering and operational freedom necessary to achieve
substantial cost savings in the provision of space transportation
services;
        (6) the procurement of space transportation services by the
Federal Government rather than the procurement of space transportation
vehicles would permit a reduced level of Federal Government regulation
and oversight, which would result in significant cost savings to the
Federal Government;
        (7) the procurement of space transportation services by the
Federal Government in a commercially reasonable manner would result in
significant cost savings to the commercial space transportation
industry and to the Federal Government;
        (10) predictable access to Federal Government space
transportation markets would encourage continuing US private sector
investment in space and related activities; and
        (11) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should
concentrate its resources on the development of new solutions to the
problems of space flight and on the continued manned and unmanned
exploration of space rather than on the operation of mature space
transportation technologies.

OK?
--

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #77
*******************