Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_2/V11_229.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/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/4a7LvEa00VcJ4B2E5a>;
          Sat,  7 Apr 90 01:46:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  7 Apr 90 01:46:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #229

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 229

Today's Topics:
                   Pegasus
               Pegasus status ?
     Interview with head of Glavkosmos (long: 226 lines)
            South Atlantic Anomaly
            Re: orbit definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 90 20:46:19 GMT
From: sam.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]  (Vincent Cate)
Subject: Pegasus


What little I know about the Pegasus:

It is launched from a B52 at around 42,000 feet.
The price per pound of payload is about $6000/lb.
The payload is around 1,000 lbs (anyone know exactly?).
The launch on 4/4/90 was successful.

In the New York Times it claims that other rockets to launch small payloads
charge around $20,000/lb.

For comparison I put this in a table with all information, except for the
first 2 rockets, coming from Wales Larrison's post "Comparative Costs to LEO".

    Rocket         |  Price/lb         |     Lbs
    ----------------------------------------------
    Pegasus        |     $6,000        |    1,000
    ??? NYT ???    |    $20,000        |   ??????  ~1,000?
    Delta II       |  $3,603 - 3,874   |   11,100
    Atlas Centaur  |  $3,740 - 4,471   |   12,300
    Titan III      |      $3333        |   33,000
    Titan IV       |  $3,125 - 4,250   |   40,000
    Shuttle        |  $3,036 - 2,764   |   60,000 (depends on which one)

Some people argue that the real cost of the shuttle is more like $6,000/lb.

Anyway, the Pegasus $6,000 is really only good in comparison to other small
payload launch vehicles.  They are able to keep the price per lb down
while doing a small payload.

Can anyone provide any information on these other small launch vehicles?

How long are the waiting lines for small launch vehicles?

If the NYT is right, Pegasus is a big improvement ($6,000 vs $20,000/lb).
If there are lots of small payloads waiting to be launched, they could
make lots of money and help get lots of things into space.

The Pegasus was developed by the startup "Orbital Sciences Corp".  They are
located in Fairfax VA [phone].  The Initial Public Offering for
Orbital Sciences Corp will be handled by Alex Brown [phone].
It was scheduled to sell for $10/share 2 weeks ago but it got held
up so they need to reapply to the SEC to be able to do the IPO.
They do not have a date but will call you when it becomes available
if you tell them (Alex Brown) you are interested.

Are people planning on investing in OSC?  Seems like it might be fun...

Need input...

         -- Vince


PS  Of course, none of these can compare to the $20/lb you should be able
    to get by putting a coilgun on a 747.   :-)

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

Date: 5 Apr 90 17:28:47 GMT
From: hpcc01!hpcuhb!hpindda![e-mail]  (Sanjay Chikarmane)
Subject: Pegasus status ?

Having not heard a thing in the media, I am wondering what happened
of the Pegasus launch scheduled for yesterday (April 4th). Any info ?

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

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 16:45:49 PDT
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]"
Subject: Interview with head of Glavkosmos (long: 226 lines)

The following is somewhat condensed from the _Literary Gazette International_,
the english language version of _Literaturnaya Gazeta_.  I had originally
thought to condense it drastically, but on closer reading decided to leave
most of it.  Severely condensed sections are in square brackets, but parts
where I merely "streamlined" a particularly clumsy translation are not
indicated.  The parenthetical statements are from the original.


  The Literary Gazette International, Volume 1, Issue 4, March 1990, No. 2

                   SHOULD WE ECONOMIZE ON SPACE PROGRAMS?

                            A Dialogue Between,
                   Alexander Dunayev, Head of Glavkosmos
             Oleg Moroz, LG Commentator on Problems of Science


OLEG MOROZ.  We often hear demands to cut expenses on space programs.  Don't
you agree that our country, whose people lack the necessities of life and
whose budget deficit amounts to 120 billion rubles is, indeed, in no position
to afford such luxuries?  This year 6.9 billion rubles will be spent on all
space programs.  It is an enormous figure, although I find it hard to take
its accuracy on trust.  I suspect that the space budget, like the defense
budget in the past is invisibly hidden amidst many other items.

ALEXANDER DUNAYEV.  Our expenditures on space programs are very small: this
year they constitue 1.7 billion on economic and scientific purposes, and 1.3
billion on the recoverable space system "Buran".  And what do 6.9 billion
rubles mean? (I assure you that the figure is absolutely accurate.) Compare
it with the loss of agricultural production which, according to assessments
by scientists, amounts to 25 billion rubles, or with the American expenses on
space programs amounting to $29.6 billion.  I am not refering to the real
exchange rate of our ruble and the American dollar because, in my view, the
comparison of net figures is sufficiently impressive.

OLEG MOROZ.  What is the sense of comparing us with America?  America is a
rich, flourishing country, whereas we are beggars.

ALEXANDER DUNAYEV.  I think it is absolutely clear to everyone that we have
to maintain parity.  Try to maintain it at the present level of
appropriations!  If we have succeeded, we owe this to the selfless, work and
talent of our engineers, scientists, workers and industrial managers, not to
generous financing -- there simply has been no such thing.  Incidentally,
compare this year's expenses on military space programs in our country and in
the US: 3.9 billion rubles and $22.8 billion.

OLEG MOROZ.  How much does the Government intend to give you for next year?

ALEXANDER DUNAYEV.  The budget envisages a 10 percent curtailment. However,
some deputies of the Supreme Soviet demand even more drastic reductions.

OLEG MOROZ.  Well, let us admit that something is needed for defense,
something -- for economy and for science.  But in the past we had a lot of
expensive projects aimed only to show, to assert, to demonstrate... And now
again -- an expedition to Mars.  Can our hapless people, unable to buy even a
piece of soap, afford such programs?  It'll cost billions?  How can we even
talk about such things?

ALEXANDER DUNAYEV.  Our proposal concerning a joint expedition to Mars should
be seen as an alternative to SDI -- the notorious Star Wars program.  No need
to explain the significance of this.  [Joint efforts by various countries
will make it possible to send 3 or 4 people to Mars around 2016, costing many
billions.  We say 50-70 billion rubles, the Americans say up to $100
billion.]
    I would like to emphasize: we have never intended to undertake the
flight alone and when M.S.Gorbachev proposed preparing for it he spoke of
international cooperation in this field [...].

OLEG MOROZ.  Apparently, you were the one to suggest these proposals to
M.S.Gorbachev.  Don't you think that you have put him into an awkward
position: given the obtaining dislocation of our economy it is wrong time to
speak about a flight to Mars... That the needed sum (certain to increase with
time) will be equally divided between two countries, doesn't change anything.
Or are $50 billion mere kopecks to you?

ALEXANDER DUNAYEV.  I don't think space flights are a luxury.  Cosmonautics
has always been and always will be a powerful boost to scientific and
technological progress. [...]

OLEG MOROZ.  [Economist Gavriil Popov was the only one at the Congress of the
People's Deputies to speak in favor of cosmonautics saying it is one of the
few fields in which we are ahead of others, so we should develop it further
lest we not even have that.]  Are we truly ahead of others in this field?
Western specialists sarcastically emphasize that in our space program
"relatively modest technological devices are used"...

ALEXANDER DUNAYEV.  Statistical data on reliability place our rockets first
in the world.  Take "Energia".  Western specialists think highly of its
design, its engines, and the underlying technological idea.  Thus here we can
stand competition.  [It is in our electronics that we lag behind, but that is
a general problem, and not specific of our space technology.]

OLEG MOROZ.  But is there anything we could sell?  Are we competitive in any
field?

ALEXANDER DUNAYEV.  We offer a wide spectrum of commercial services and we
have already achieved some results.  However, all is not that easy. [For
example, the US will not permit us to import satellites, so we are unable to
partake of the highly profitable geostationary communication satellite
market.]

OLEG MOROZ.  I presume that our communication satellite is inferior to those
abroad.

ALEXANDER DUNAYEV.  Correct.  The "Gorizont" was built 10 years ago and by
contemporary standards is in many respects outdated.

OLEG MOROZ.  In general, we hear a lot about the unusually high level of our
space technology.  Obviously a space apparatus is more sophisticated than an
iron or a vacuum cleaner.  However, in space, too, breakdowns are not
infrequent -- take the recent loss of two "Foboses".  How much people's money
went bust?

ALEXANDER DUNAYEV.  The most probable cause of that failure is unreliable
electronics.  However, we don't exclude another possible cause: we didn't
have full information about the situation near Mars' satellite.  Whose fault
is it, in your opinion?  Why didn't scientists inform us there are hundreds
of tons of some pulverized substance there?  Why weren't we warned about the
tremendous solar radiation, especially of heavy particles -- protons and
neutrons whose impact we were to withstand?
    We are not trying to delegate our responsibility.  Of course, we had
no right to prove unable to restore the apparatus orientation after it was
lost.
    And finally I should say that, in my opinion, "Fobos" was not a flop.
For example, the Americans think that only a quarter of the whole program was
not implemented.  The French speak of "most fruitful results".  Can this be
called a failure?  We have obtained unique data of great interest to the
whole world.

OLEG MOROZ.  What was the purpose of constructing "Energia"?  What is it
supposed to carry into space?  One cannot help but feel the only aim was to
surpass the Americans, [the "Saturn 5"].  And why the "Buran" -- a replica of
the "Shuttle"?  Once again -- to show that we are not behind the Americans?
Do you really think the world is ignorant of the actual situation?  They say
that lifting loads with the "Buran" will cost 20 to 40 times more than with
conventional rockets.  But I ask you again -- what is it in aid of?

ALEXANDER DUNAYEV.  The irony of the situation is that we were always against
seeing the "Energia"-"Buran" system as one for transportation ("what will it
carry?")   We also said it would cost much more than ordinary rockets and now
our warnings are backfiring; we are accused of miscalculation.  But there is
no miscalculation here.  The system "Energia"-"Buran" was conceived as a
defensive one; it was considered to be absolutely necessary, and as you
understand, all other considerations were overruled or ignored.
    Does this mean that the system will find no peaceful employment?  Can
this be possible?  Many suggestions have been already been made about various
peaceful applications.
    You are comparing "Energia" with the "Saturn 5".  Some people also
remember our "H1" of comparable class.  To what extent are such comparisons
justified?  One could just as well compare the "Lada" with a prewar car,
their freightcarrying capacity is the same.  "Energia" is a boosterrocket of
a new generation.

OLEG MOROZ.  The fabulously diverse uses of the new system are a matter of
the future.  Meanwhile "Energia" and "Buran" are on the ground without aim or
purpose, like a heap of immobilized money.  What was the total sum spent on
this program?

ALEXANDER DUNAYEV.  Over 13 years and 14 billion rubles were spent.  We hope
to get the money back.  We also began to repay our debt and have 581
proposals to other industries, related to new materials, technologies and
engineering developed during the program.  [By the year 2000 we hope to have
repaid the whole sum of 14 billion.]

OLEG MOROZ.  Launchings of such gigantic constructions as "Energia" damage
the atmosphere and the ozone layer.  The Americans think that to assemble in
orbit a space ship which will fly to Mars will need 15-20 launchings. Do we
intend to utterly destroy Earth's atmosphere and settle on Mars?

ALEXANDER DUNAYEV.  The elements bad for the ozone layer are nitrogen and
chlorine, whereas we use mainly cryogenic fuel.  On the whole they are
ecologically clean.  The danger, the terrible danger, lies in solid
propellant rockets.  It is common knowledge that solid fuel missiles and
accelerators are widely used in the US.  During a launch, say, the
magnificent launch of "Atlantis" we have recently watched on TV, hundreds of
thousands of tons of ozone are disappeared.  It would take about 300 launches
of the "Shuttle" for a complete disaster, the ozone layer would be totally
destroyed.

OLEG MOROZ.  Indeed, what prevents us from cursing the "Shuttle"?!
Nevertheless, I'm convinced that we need an independent ecological analysis
of the problem by specialists, as when major building projects are
undertaken.

ALEXANDER DUNAYEV.  No objections.  But in all responsibility, I must say we
never forget about ecology; the possible implications are always envisaged in
our programs.  The press has already reported that if we judge the ecological
danger by the ozone destroyed per one payload unit, then the "Energia" is
some 7,000 times cleaner than the "Shuttle".  To be frank, our "Proton",
according to the same criterion, is dirtier than the "Energia" by a factor of
2.5 but even then it is thousand fold cleaner than the "Delta" or "Aria"...
Now our aim is to improve "Proton" in order to improve still more its
ecological properties.

[Now Mr. Moroz talks about how cosmonautics is a by-product of the arms race,
and Mr. Dunayev says it's been divided about equally between peaceful
exploration and military ventures.
Then Mr. Moroz says "Tsiolkovsky and the visionaries of those days dreamt of
space flights as radiant, festive, spiritually ennobling events." whereas the
reality is dull and bureaucratic, and what about all this secrecy and
censorship, anyway?  To which Mr Dunayev replies that real life is always
grayer than visionaries' dreams, but also that we've forgotten how exciting
it was only recently, before it became so routine.  And he goes on to say
that for the past couple of years (since glasnost began) they've been opening
up and telling the truth.
Then Mr. Moroz says that just being a cosmonaut has often been a ticket to
undeserved power and influence, citing in particular Valentina Tereshkova.
Mr. Dunayev successfully rebuts that argument and then...]

ALEXANDER DUNAYEV.  ...In conclusion I would like to return to the main
subject of our talk -- expenditures.  It is only in our country, the homeland
of space exploration, that there suddenly arose a need to prove cosmonautics
is important and must be financed at least on the present level.
    Today it is so much part of life, we are never aware of its daily
services.  Satellite systems of communication, navigation, meteorology,
ecological monitoring -- are in fact cosmonautics.  The hot-heads who demand
that our space programs' allocations should be drastically curtailed,
apparently are not aware this will also reduce expenses on all the mentioned
and many other space systems with all the ensuing consequences.  Is this
reasonable?  Be sure: the whole people would immediately feel the aftermath
of such measures.

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
      While the Bill of Rights burns, Congress fiddles. -- anonymous

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

Date: 5 Apr 90 17:55:05 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Mark Perew)
Subject: South Atlantic Anomaly

The press release for the Hubble Space Telescope mentions something
called the "South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA)".

What is this?



--
Mark Perew
...!{dhw68k,zardoz,lawnet,conexch}!ofa123!Mark.Perew                             [e-mail]
714 544-0934 2400/1200/300

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

Date: 6 Apr 90 23:18:24 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur![e-mail]  (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: orbit definitions

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Tilque) writes:
>
>There's a variation on the Geostationary orbit but I'm not sure if it
>has a name.  I suppose it could be called a Geosynchronous, but it's
>more specific than the definition of geosynchronous that Henry gives.
>
>The orbit is 24-hour but has a non-zero inclination.  From the ground
>it would appear to move up and down on a daily basis while staying over
>the same meridian.

Actually, it does a figure eight.  Those who know this can skip
the next two paragrahs.  Those who don't, you're probably thinking
"huh?"  That's what I thought when I first heard this, so...

Since the satellite's period and the earth's rotation period are
both 24 hrs (this is a simplification, no flames about 23h 56(?)m
sidearal period please), the satellite's ground track (GT) and the
earth's surface at the equator (EQ) move along at the same velocity.
If the satellite's orbit is inclined, it doesn't stay at the EQ.
As the GT moves north from the EQ, it is at an angle to the EQ.
Since the velocities of the GT and EQ are the same, the GT has a
smaller component of its velocity heading the same way as the EQ,
so it "falls behind" the meridian it crossed the EQ at.  Once the
GT reaches its maximum latitude, it is moving along at its maximum
velocity, but the ground at that latitude isn't moving as fast as
the EQ, so the GT "catches up" and passes the meridian.  As the GT
heads back to the EQ, it "falls behind" back to the meridian, where
it crosses the EQ again. Repeat for the southern track.

If you're a really observant, you'll realize this argument isn't
perfect (as GT moves north, the earth's velocity underneath it also
decreases and could conceivably cancel out the GT "falling behind").
But if you work out all the sines, cosines and spherical trig, this
is what really happens.

>I'm not sure how much it's used now, but as the geostationary orbit
>slots get filled up ...
> ...
>Thus it could have virtually the same longitude
>as a comsat and without interfering with it.

Not quite.  It still crosses the equator through the geostationary
orbits.  I'd rather have a collision between two geostationary sats
(small relative velocity) than between a geostationary and a geosynch
(high relative velocity in the north-south direction).

>Another advantage is that, if you can live with the inclination of the
>launch site, it should take less delta-V to get to than a true
>geostationary orbit.  This advantage may be wiped out if you then have
>to add a scan platform which keep the instruments pointed correctly on
>a 24-hour basis.

More importantly, the area you want to observe may disappear over
the horizon once each day (like if you want weather photos of Alaska).
Look at the next US/Canada weather satellite picture closely.  You'll
see there's a lot of distortion as you get to the higher latitudes.
--
John H. Kim
[e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #229
*******************