Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_1/V11_190.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

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/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/oa45Yjq00VcJA1y042>;
          Wed, 28 Mar 90 01:26:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 01:26:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #190

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 190

Today's Topics:
         Re: Orbital Sciences Public Offering
          Paranet (was Re: Flashes of Light)
              Re: Whither sci.military?
      Re: What does it cost to push a pound into orbit?
        Re: What was Challenger really up to?
           Re: Mars Rover Update - 03/22/90
      Re: Reliability, Bureaucracy, and Spaceflight Costs (long)
                Re: Endeavour
        Re: For All Mankind - Great Movie!!!!!
          Re: Will we lose another orbiter?
                  Gif files
             Re: Shuttle Escapes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 90 14:16:24 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Orbital Sciences Public Offering

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:

>There's an article about OSC in today's Wall Street Journal
>(page 1, left column).  OSC will be completing a public offering
>in the near future.  My stockbroker says the price is $13/share,
>but the stock is not yet trading.  I've asked him to get me a
>prospectus.  I probably won't buy until after a successful test,
>though.

Apparently lots of folks felt the same way (especially after reading
the friday WSJ story), so the public offering has been put off.  It
was originally to have been after the test, but the test has been
delayed.

OSC is going to be in violation of some loan conditions if they don't
make the offering before the end of April.  It looks to me like
the upcoming flight test is do-or-die.

Shoestring space entrepreneurship doesn't seem to be doing well lately.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date:     Tue, 27 Mar 90 01:37 MDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Paranet (was Re: Flashes of Light)


In article <[e-mail]>,
          [e-mail] (Will Martin) writes...

>Unfortunately, my copy of the Paranet Digest (#177) that contained the
>basenote to this followup was truncated in the middle of that particular
>posting!   :-(   Talk about conspiracies... I am CC'ing to the SPACE
>list in case the cause of the flash was space-related.

Well, this makes me curious.  Could someone refer me to the name of the
newsgroup associated with Paranet Digest, or pass on the name of where
Paranet Digest is served?  I for one would be interested in following
a discussion of an explainable, scientific event in a pseudo-science
forum.

                                                Robert B. Murdock
                                                University of Colorado
                                                at Colorado Springs
BITnet:   rbmurdock@colospgs
INTERnet: [e-mail]
GEnie:    R.MURDOCK

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

Date: 27 Mar 90 07:51:18 GMT
From: fernwood!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Whither sci.military?

I've had e-mail from William B Thacker, moderator of sci.military, and
he says there've been network problems on his end which have prevented
it from getting out.

After all, it's Unix, and they're only AT&T :-)  [My comment, not his.]

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

Date: 27 Mar 90 18:17:01 GMT
From: snorkelwacker!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What does it cost to push a pound into orbit?

In article <[e-mail]> dbm0000@DOMAIN_2.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave McKissock) writes:
>>Shuttle     $300 mil          50,000 (LEO)        $6,000          [1]
>
>Here at NASA Lewis Research Center, when we perform Life Cycle Cost
>calculations for Space Station we use $3000 / lb for Shuttle
>launch costs.

Asking the price of a shuttle launch is like asking the price of an F-15.
You get half a dozen different answers depending on what assumptions you
make.  (For example, is this the marginal cost of adding an extra launch,
or 1/N of this year's budget for N launches?)  I'd be surprised to see a
commercial customer get a rate as low as $3000/lb for the shuttle.

The National Research Council launch-frequency study a couple of years ago
concluded that the cost of launching large US-government payloads did not
vary significantly with choice of launcher.  (In particular, the claimed
cost advantage of expendables over the shuttle appeared to be imaginary.)
Since then, commercial expendable launch services have become available
at somewhat lower prices than government expendable launches.
--
Apollo @ 8yrs: one small step.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
Space station @ 8yrs:        .| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Mar 90 11:48:05 GMT
From: eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!stc!root44!hrc63!mrcu![e-mail]  (Paul Johnson)
Subject: Re: What was Challenger really up to?

As someone already said, this requires no refutation, being just wild
speculation, but its good exercise for the skeptical muscles, so:

All the designs I have seen for "star wars" type lasers basically
involve burning fuel to get energy and using the flame itself as the
lazing medium.  They are not like photographic flash bulbs which can
be left on charge and set off at the press of a button.  During
launch, any such system would be stowed away and all fuel systems
turned off.  A leak might conceivably result in fuel sloshing around
the cargo bay (or whatever the fuel would do), and being set off
there, but that would simply result in a straight explosion, not the
flame from the side of the SRB which is clearly visible on the
videos.

Followups directed to sci.skeptic.
--
Paul Johnson                               UUCP: <world>!mcvax!ukc!gec-mrc!paj
--------------------------------!-------------------------|-------------------
GEC-Marconi Research is not     | Telex: 995016 GECRES G  | Tel: [phone]
responsible for my opinions.    | Inet: [e-mail]-mrc | Fax: [phone]

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

Date: 27 Mar 90 20:01:46 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!IDA.ORG!pbs![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Mars Rover Update - 03/22/90

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>                         Mars Rover Update
>                          March 22, 1990
(sections deleted...)
>
>      A mission to bring back Martian soil is scheduled for launch in 2001.
> The trip is dedicated to learning more about the planet's history and
> searching for signs of life. Soil samples would be returned to Earth by
> the year 2003. Another spacecraft will be launched to Mars in 2003 used to
> help support future manned missions to Mars. The spacecraft will bear
> a communications satellite to serve as an orbiting data relay link for
> future mission. The spacecraft will also carry a site reconnaissance orbitor
> to perform mapping, high resolution photography and radio science instruments.

I do NOT believe the first soil samples should be returned directly to Earth or
to a space station in Low Earth Orbit.  In case of something unforeseen such as
an "Andromeda Strain", I would favor returning the samples to a lunar base or a
space station at one of the Lagrange Points where a higher degree of isolation
can be achieved.  Why risk the only Earth we have?  If we are going back to the
moon first, anyway, why not set up a real Lunar Receiving Laboratory to handle
samples from Mars.  Who knows what effect adding water will have?  Many a
"lifeless" desert plain on our home planet suddenly blossoms after a rare
thunderstorm.  What if some dormant Martian lifeform is just waiting for the
first drop of water to awaken?

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

Date: 27 Mar 90 07:13:41 GMT
From: well![e-mail]  (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Reliability, Bureaucracy, and Spaceflight Costs (long)


       Experience with commercial satellite launches indicates that
present launch systems only have about 80% reliability.  (And it
seems to be getting worse; see the recent AW&ST article on launch
insurance rates.)  What would be the target reliablity for the
proposed "less reliable system?"


                    John Nagle

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

Date: 28 Mar 90 02:57:15 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Richard Johnson)
Subject: Re: Endeavour

[e-mail] (2459 Rick J Finneran ) writes (in rec.boats):
>     I have recently heard that the Endeavour, a 130 ft J boat will be
>     on display in various places this spring and summer.

Last I heard Endeavour is currently being constructed by Lockheed.  But I'd
call it a flying brick before I'd call it a J boat.  Then again, I'd like
to see my sailboard make it to orbit and back...  ;)  (lots and lots of 'em)

More seriously, does anyone have any historical info on previous ships
bearing the name Endeavour?  I've got a young relative that wants to know
more about why space shuttles have the names they do.

>     Rick Finneran

Richard Johnson
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

| Richard Johnson                           [e-mail] |
|    CSC doesn't necessarily share my opinions, but is welcome to.     |
|  Power Tower.>.Dual Keel.>.Phase One.>.Allison/bertha/Colleen.>.?... |
|   Space Station Freedom is Dead.  Long Live Space Station Freedom!   |

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

Date: 27 Mar 90 09:23:10 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Andy Clews)
Subject: Re: For All Mankind - Great Movie!!!!!

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Doug Josephson):
> I just saw a GREAT movie called 'For All Mankind'; it's a documentary about
> the Apollo project.
> [....]
> Most of the film has never been seen before by the public.
> [....]

Strange. A film of this name, matching the scenes mentioned in Doug's
posting, was shown on BBC television in July 1989 to mark the 20th
anniversary of Apollo 11. Could the British public have been given a
sneak preview, or is *this* FAM an expanded version?
I greatly enjoyed the TV showing; it would be even better on a cinema
screen.  I recorded the BBC transmission, but the recording was spoilt a
little by my VCR misbehaving (slightly munged tape) - does anyone know
if there are plans to release FAM on videotape?

The film was complemented very well by music by Brian Eno (available on
the album "Apollo: atmospheres and soundtracks" which has been around
for some years).


--
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, England
JANET: [e-mail]   BITNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Mar 90 17:27:13 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!nic.MR.NET!timbuk![e-mail]  (Lou Adornato)
Subject: Re: Will we lose another orbiter?

In message [e-mail] [e-mail] (Andrew ROSENBERG) write:
>I don't know about the rest of you, by when Challenger bit the dust (or
>water), it profoundly affected me. The STS program was the epitome of
>American technology, the culmination of years of work of the best minds
>in America. Then one day, POOF. It made me doubt all technology. For months
>I went around, wondering how skyscrapers didn't fall, why cars didn't slide
>off of roads, how planes get off the ground, ballpoint pens.

Good.  At least you didn't think it was divine retribution, as I heard one person
claim.  One of the root causes of the Challenger accident, was public pressure
to launch on schedule.  This was caused by the public's inability to understand just
how complex and demanding launching an experimental aircraft can be.  Once people
stop taking technology for granted, they start learning.  Maybe in the long run Challenger
will have made us stronger by making us see the danger in having 90% of our population
(and 100% of our policy makers) technologically illiterate.

Personally, when I consider how many factors are involved, I'm always amazed that _any_
mission can be flown.

>                                                              Now I hear
>this:
>[Not a quote, Natchurly I forgot to photocopy it] By the time the first
>piece of Freedom is launched, the Office of Technological Assessment(OTA?)
>predicts that there is a 9 in 10 probability that we will lose an orbiter.
>(It doesn't define what 'lose' means- I assume Challenger-type disaster with
>loss of life)

Actually, they mean misplaced.  You know how absent-minded those rocket scientist
types can be.

>Now I've seen some discussion here about "risks" and "acceptable losses."
>Let me tell you, if we lose another orbiter, chances are that we'll never
>get a man in orbit again for a long, long time, and rely completely on
>unmanned missions. Not only that, but I'll be sorely vexed.

There's more to the cost of exploring space than budgets and dollars.  There are
things like human lives, national pride, and the credibility of our scientists and
engineers on the line.  You accept these costs as part of the program, or you don't
accept the program; they can't be separated.  If we loose another orbiter, and then
turn our backs on space, we get what we deserve.  If you're going to be sorly vexed
over the loss, fine.  If you're going to want the program to grind to a halt, then
you're a fool.  Unfortunately, there is no shortage of fools in power.

I'm not advocating sloppy operations, nor am I exhonerating those that decided to
continue flying shuttles with a _known_ problem in the SRB field joints.  But
once you've eliminated sloppy engineering and clouded decision making, then it's
time to light the fires and go.

Gus Grissom knew the risks, and said that he wouldn't want to see the program set back
if anything happened.  I'm sure that the Challenger crew felt the same way.  This
continent was tamed by people who put thier losses in the past and forged ahead.  How
long would it have taken Eurpoe to discover the New World if the Santa Maria had needed a
98% reliability rating before she could sail?

>
>To sum up: 98% reliability seems to translate into a 90% failure rate, accor-
>ding to OTA. In this light, I can't see how the current "safety" margin
>can be justified.

In the light of basic probability, I don't see how a lower "risk" factor can be justified.

Consider a single component with a reliability of 99.9999% (which is pretty good even
for a small, simple component, like a rivet).  The chance of this part failing is
one in 10,000.  If there are 1000 of these parts, then there is 1 chance in 10 that
one of them will fail.  If you put a million of them into the system, then you have
to expect that 100 of them _will_ fail.  In order to maintain a 98% safety margin, you
have to increase the per-unit reliability by _three_ orders of magnitude.  Do you have
any idea how to make a rivet 1000 times more reliable?  Keep in mind that making it heavier
might reduce the reliability of some other component.  The Apollo/Saturn contained over
3 million components.  If you consider each line of code to be a component, the orbiter
_software_ is more complex than an entire Apollo/Saturn, and that's just one critical
subsystem.  An overall system reliability of 98% (which is _much_ better than any vehicle
you've ever been in) means that the chance of a failure approaches 100% for 50 flights.
You hit the 90% point at 45 flights.  However, statistics don't "remember"; if you've
launched 44 without a problem, the chance of a failure on flight number 45 is 2%, not 90%.
If we as a nation can't accept a 2% risk, then it's time to turn Washington over to the
Japanese and let them make our decisions for us.

>                   What should be done? We should continue launching
>and hope for the best, but take every chance to improve design and safety,
>and be prepared for the occasional big loss.

That's precisely what is being done.  But there are limits, and there always will be.
When the big loss comes, we pick up the pieces, mourn our dead, and get on with it.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

>                                              (They should order a replacement
>orbiter now to be ready for the "big bang". :-) :-| )

Yes, they should, no smileys about it.  Basic spares management policy would be to have
a new orbiter ready after 50 flights (25 would be better), and then put it in "hot" storage
until it's needed.

Lou Adornato    |  Statements herein do not represent the opinions or
Cray Research   |  attitudes of Cray Research, Inc. or its subsidiaries.
[e-mail]    |       (...yet)

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

Date: 27 Mar 90 18:31:14 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu![e-mail]  (James D Levino)
Subject: Gif files


For those of you who are interested, there are some good gif
files in the Finland FTP site (128.214.6.100).  The directory
is pub/misc/gif/pics/space.  There is one drawback however.  This
is a satellite link, and the data transfer rate is extremely
slow. (.51 Kbyte/sec).  There are also around 600 other gifs here
too.


                           Admiral Yingfutz

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

Date: 27 Mar 90 18:41:29 GMT
From: hp-pcd!hpcvia![e-mail]  (ken_scofield)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Escapes


>>However, a ``reasonably well protected human'' needn't wear a spacecraft.
>>Station crew-escape systems have been proposed which amount to a
>>spacesuit, a retrorocket pack, a heatshield, and a parachute.  The
>
>   You mean this is a real idea??? ...
>   You might be able to convince me to sit on top of a tank of fuel and
>oxidizer, but you'd have a much harder time getting me to jump out of
>the space station with the intention of soft-landing on the ground!

  Oh, I dunno...  I'm a skydiver, and I think a jump from the space station
  would just be the ultimate jump!  ;-)  The lift rates would be a little
  high, though.  8-()

>--
> Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | "I always think there's
> [e-mail]              | a band."
> [e-mail]          Ad astra! |   Prof. Harold Hill
> "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |   (The Music Man)


             *
            / \
       |---/---\---|            Ken Scofield    C-9355  SSI #453890085
       |   Gone    |            Hewlett-Packard, ICO
       | Divin' or |            1020 NE Circle Blvd.
       |  Jumpin'  |            Corvallis, OR  97330
       |-----------|            Phone:  [phone]
            ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!kas
                        [e-mail]

Cute Disclaimer:  Nobody ever listened to me before, so why start now?

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #190
*******************