Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_2/V11_255.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/0a9KGIi00VcJE0j049>;
          Fri, 13 Apr 90 01:33:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 01:32:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #255

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 255

Today's Topics:
               Reuse of ICBMs?
              Re: National Space Society
          Space Shuttle Development (5 of 7)
              Re: National Space Society
            Re: Vandeburg Launch Schedules
           Re: JSC newsletter summary, 23 March 90
            subscribe Dan Stratton
     Re: AIR FORCE USES ICBM ROCKET TO LAUNCH RESEARCH SATELLITES
           Re: Pegsat Update (Forwarded) - 04/09/90
          Space Shuttle Development (1 of 7)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Apr 90 17:43:31 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Alan Mimms)
Subject: Reuse of ICBMs?

I was wondering something the other day: What's going to happen to all
of those ICBMs now that Peace is breaking out?  Do the arms limitation
talks REQUIRE that they be sawed into lotsa littlebitty pieces?  Is
there a way to assure that they don't have to be cut up somehow and
still retain verifiable compliance with the arms limitation talks?

I guess the real question might be: can those ICBMs be put into service
as rockets to deliver PEACEFUL payloads to orbit?  If so, I would think
the cost to orbit would go down DRASTICALLY since all that MILspec
hardware is just lying around waiting for someone to put it on a launch-
pad and torch it...

Am I missing something?

Alan Mimms                                      My opinions are generally
Communications Product Development Group        pretty worthless, but
Apple Computer                                  they *are* my own...
                                                ^
EH AT 48?

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

Date: 12 Apr 90 18:47:12 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!venera.isi.edu![e-mail]  (Craig E. Ward)
Subject: Re: National Space Society

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Smith) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig E. Ward) writes:
>> [...]  In this case, the
>>National Space Society is trying to promote itself using tested and reliable
>>tactics.
>
>Yes, agreed.  The survey, however, is designed to produce specific responses
>from the respondent.

That is the way targeted mass mailings work.  Expecting the same approach to
work with every person is silly.  You were are obviously mistargeted (as Mr.
Henson would be also).

>>The NSS should be given some good marks for at
>>least trying to broaden its support with proven methods.
>
>Agreed.  As someone pointed out in e-mail to me, every organization needs
>sheep.  This is fine.  However, I don't like their agenda as shown to me
>from that survey

You need be careful about judging the whole program from such a narrow slice
of information.  Commercial space receives good and positive coverage in the
Society's magazine, Ad Astra.

Ad Astra has a regular column on commercial space development called
"Enterprises."  Articles about private enterprise space development show up
regularly and the December 1989 issue was all commercial.  These were the
featured articles:

    "For Sale: Commercial Space," by John J. Egan
    "Need Money? Good Luck!," by Lori Keesey
    "Space Commerce, Soviet Style," by Jan Goldman
    "Marketing the Proton," by Seth Arenstein

This is from NSS president Charles Walker's column in the same issue:

    "So how do we accomplish commercialization?  Back to the future!
    Uncle Sam, you demonstrate expensive and risky technology; when
    there are realistic markets, help industry take it over and provide
    it with the necessary support, then get out of the way.  Let
    entrepreneurs try and succeed (or fail) on their own in attempting
    the 'impossible.'  Use a national space lottery to raise capital.
    Give classified technology that is militarily obsolete to the private
    sector, and, for God's sake, not to mention our own, grow up and
    learn that 'not invented here' means 'we lose!'"

Doesn't look like a "government-only" program to me.

Furthermore, NSS has a chapter system and many are deeply interested in
private commercial development.  Using NSS chapter contacts, Denver based
Galactic Mining Industries contacted me when their head research came to Los
Angeles in search of sub-contracts for the space station.  They are marketing
an alternate technique for manufacturing parts for the station.  The central
process is something called "chemical vapor deposition" (CVD).  It was a
very interesting presentation.  (I've used up my news quote for the day.
I'll try to get around to GMI and CVD next week.)  The point being that they
wouldn't waste their time on a NASA fan club.

>>The National Space Society is a pluralistic organization that has to balance a
>>wide variety of views and interests.  I believe it is fast becoming the
>>paramount space activist group in the world.  It can be an important tool for
>>"creating a spacefaring civilization that will establish communities beyond
>>the Earth."
>
>I'd like to believe so.  They've gotten off on the wrong foot with me,
>however, and maybe with a lot of other people too.

Mass marketing won't please everybody and by its nature, can not easily show
a full picture.  I'm putting time into this article to round out that
picture.  I hope you better feeling about NSS now.

If you, or anybody else out there, wish to join the addresses are:

The National Space Society            OASIS
922 Pennsylvania Ave. S.E.    or my chapter:    P.O. Box 1231
Washington, D.C. 20003-2140            Redondo Beach, CA 90278
[phone]                    [phone]

The NSS has about 120 chapters worldwide.  (Besides the US, there are
chapters in Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Sweden, UK, and West Germany.)  If
you're not in the LA area, you can call Washington and ask for the nearest
chapter.

--
Craig E. Ward <[e-mail]>     Slogan:    "nemo me impune lacessit"
USPS:    USC/Information Sciences Institute
    4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100
    Marina del Rey, CA 90292

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

Date: 12 Apr 90 01:53:56 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Space Shuttle Development (5 of 7)


  At the end of the formal Phase B studies in 1971, several
conclusions were reached.  Primary among them was that the 2 stage,
fully reusable system had a high development cost, required multiple
concurrent technology developments, and had a relatively high
technology risk.  Development costs could exceed $2 billion at the
peak year.  The political feasibility of the 2 stage fully reusable
design ended when, in 1971,  the OMB capped the NASA budget for all
programs not to exceed $3.2 billion, and would not increase this
level in the foreseeable future.
  An alternative configuration studied in the Phase A extension
studies using an expendable external fuel tank was felt to have lower
development costs and lower technology risks.  However, this decision
bumped the Phase B studies back to the starting point.  All of the
Phase B studies were extended for another year.  NASA baselined the
external tank approach in August 1971 and began to look at variations
on the differing booster and shuttle designs to reduce the system
development costs, while still getting as much utility out of the
vehicle as possible.
   An external fuel tank, by putting more than 80% of the mass that
was to be accelerated into a flexible design envelope, reduced the
system sensitivity to the critical uncertainties of orbiter inert
weight growth, and main engine performance shortfall.  While these
design factors had been massively analyzed, the system design was
found to be very sensitive to these.  Since all uncertainties could
not be eliminated without actually building and testing a system (and
there was no money for doing this), NASA chose to pick a system that
was the least sensitive to these uncertainties. This approach however,
complicated the operations, and increased the recurring cost.
  (Note: using 20:20 hindsight, the engine performance has technically
been right on.  Engine recurring cost has exceeded its expected
levels, since the approach taken was to not risk performance in favor
of lower costs.  Similarly, the orbiter inert weight has grown
approximately 2 % over the expected weight set in 1971 - primarily due
to uncertainties in the aerodynamics and aerothermal environments.
Prior to the shuttle, the X-15 had provided data up to about Mach 7,
but the entry environment from Mach 7-25 was pretty much unknown, and
almost impossible to simulate on the ground.  Again, the decision was
made to design heavier structures and less maintainable systems to
encompass the range of these uncertainties - reducing the development
risk and cost, while increasing the recurring costs from continuing
operations.  NASA's priority was not on the operational
characteristics of the vehicles - and this would come back to haunt
them in complex and high cost operations for the system.
  For Booster design, the reusable booster design had been ruled out
as too expensive to develop (although everyone involved agreed it
would be cheaper to operate flight-to-flight).  After several design
iterations, a design emerged based upon Grumman and MDAC analyses
which used an expendable booster burning in parallel to the orbiter
during first stage flight. It seemed to provide the most capability,
with the minimum development cost, although every assessment showed it
had a higher recurring cost.
  Cost awareness was very apparent at NASA.  NASA's guidelines in
August 1971 included:
  "o Don't exceed much over $1 B in any year
   o Keep total costs below $12 B for 445 flights
   o Keep Risks Low - don't do a great deal more than we have
     demonstrated before
   o Keep flexible to vary costs with traffic demands"
                                        (Cont)


--- Opus-CBCS 1.10
 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0)
--
Wales Larrison
...!{dhw68k,zardoz,lawnet,conexch}!ofa123!Wales.Larrison                             [e-mail]
714 544-0934 2400/1200/300

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

Date: 12 Apr 90 15:05:52 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!IDA.ORG!pbs![e-mail]
Subject: Re: National Space Society

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (H Keith Henson) writes:
> After reading the posted survey/membership recrutement form from NSS, *I*
> wouldn't join it.  Keith Henson
I joined this group when it was still the National Space Institute, before the
merger with L5.  As an active member I did not get the survey currently posted
in the net.  The one members received not long ago was much more thought
provoking.  I am sorry I don't still have a copy of it.  It was very well done.
One question I remember was: Given $100 how would you spend it on the
following projects. (Listed were areas such as Space Commercialization,
Space Station Freedom, Moonbase, Mission to Mars, Unmanned spaceprobes to the
planets etc. ... [As I said, I don't have the form in front of me now, to quote
from it.]) Anyway, the question forced you to think about where you wanted the
space program to go, which projects you considered more important and which
you would appropriate more funds for at the expense of something else.  There
was no "right" answer and no "cheerleading".  I quess you have to already be a
member to get the quality surveys.  Please do not judge this organization by
the fiasco that was sent out to "attract" new members.

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

Date: 12 Apr 90 20:41:37 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (SERRE GLENN)
Subject: Re: Vandeburg Launch Schedules

>anyone know the likelyhood of being able to witness such launches?
>
>John Sergneri            "Final Note: Capitalism, for good or ill, is the
>uunet!acad!johns          river in which we sink or swim, and stocks the
>                          supermarket."  ROZZ-TOX Manifesto - Gary Panter

I don't think that you'll actualy be able to get onto the base to watch a
launch (but I could be wrong, having never tried), but you would get a good
view if you could rent a boat and park off the Vandenberg shoreline while
a launch was occuring.

--Glenn Serre
[e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Apr 90 22:04:41 GMT
From: mstar!mstar.morningstar.com![e-mail]  (Bob Sutterfield)
Subject: Re: JSC newsletter summary, 23 March 90

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Nuchia) writes:
   The Air Force has a Kevlar "inflatable emergency depth chamber" [???]

Possibly a portable decompression bag, for use in treating the
"bends"?  Bent divers, having arisen from the depths too quickly to
divest themselves of excess dissolved nitrogen in their bloodstreams,
enter the bag.  They're already curled up, so it doesn't need to be
too big :-(  It is sealed and pressurized, then the diver is brought
back to surface pressure at a slower controlled rate.  A Kevlar bag
and connected tank would be a lightweight, portable version of a
lifesaving device that used to take up much of the deck of a rescue
boat.

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

Date: 12 Apr 90 13:24 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: subscribe Dan Stratton
X-Hpdesk-Priority: 3
X-Hpdesk-System: 5
X-Hpdesk-Date: 12 Apr 90 13:24 +0000


Please add me to the list.  Thank you.
[e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Apr 90 14:47:06 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (SERRE GLENN)
Subject: Re: AIR FORCE USES ICBM ROCKET TO LAUNCH RESEARCH SATELLITES

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Meritt (381-3551)) writes:
>
> VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif (APR 11) AP -- A 29-year-old Atlas rocket
>that once served as an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), armed with
...
>   The 91-foot-tall Atlas-E, topped by a 5-foot-tall Scout-Altair upper stage
>booster, blasted off the pad at Space Launch Complex 3 at 8 am PDT (1500 GMT),
>
>Something useful!

Ha! The Titan II, also a former ICBM, blasted off last September and didn't
need some other upper stage to help get the payload into orbit. :-)

On a slightly more serious note, I hear that these ICBM conversions cost about
the same as buying a new Delta, so these former ICBM launches are basically PR.

--Glenn Serre
[e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Apr 90 18:31:14 GMT
From: ccncsu!ncr-fc![e-mail]  (Mike McManus)
Subject: Re: Pegsat Update (Forwarded) - 04/09/90

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>   being analyzed.  The two chemical release events will occur over
>   Northern Canada between April 14-28, local weather permitting.

I've heard a lot about the planned barium (right?) release, but nothing about
why it's being done.  What is this experiment for?  Thanks!

--
Disclaimer: All spelling and/or grammer in this document are guaranteed to be
            correct; any exseptions is the is wurk uv intter-net deemuns.

Mike McManus ([e-mail])
NCR Microelectronics
2001 Danfield Ct.                   ncr-fc![e-mail], or
Ft. Collins,  Colorado              ncr-fc![e-mail], or
[phone]   Ext. 360           uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!ncr-fc!garage!mikemc

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

Date: 12 Apr 90 01:42:51 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Space Shuttle Development (1 of 7)


  Someone on the net has asked for some references for past shuttle
design studies.  A couple of years ago I was digging into the design
ofthe space shuttle system, and had a couple of references folks might
find useful.

  Simplest, most accessible references, which cover a good range of
the overall technical and political decisions that went into the Space
Shuttle design decisions:
    "Enterprise" by J. Grey (avail in most large public libraries)
    "The Decision to Develop the Space Shuttle", by J.M. Logsdon,
Space Policy, May 1986
    " The Space Shuttle Program: A Policy Failure?", Science, 30 May
1986
    "Engineering Design and Political Choice: the Space Shuttle 1969-
1972", by S. Pace (yes, the "Great Satan" himself), published as an
AIAA historical paper 1984, and as a MIT master's thesis, 1982
    2 articles by C. Barfied in "National Journal", 12 and 19 Aug 72

  Other good articles:

    "Evolution of the Space Shuttle Design", by J.P. Loftus, S.M.
Andrich, M.G. Goodhard, and R.C. Kennedy
    "The Space Shuttle - Some Key Program Decisions", by R.F.
Thompson (1984 Von Karman Lecture)
    "Progress of manned space flight from Apollo to Space Shuttle", by
A. Cohen (1984 Von Karman lecture)
    "The Space Shuttle Focused Technology Program: Lessons Learned"
Aeronautics and Astronautics,  Feb 1983

  If the forum will indulge me, I'd like to also add a few more
comments on the design process that was followed.  This is synopsized
from the above articles, plus some more digging I've done on my own
into the data available (including requesting and reading a fair num-
ber of the supporting contract reports, study assessments, economic
analyses, and industry proposals - plus talking to some of the key
participants).

  NASA typically follows what is known as a "Phased Development"
program.  The rules for this are outlined in OMB circular A-109.
Typically, there are initial small technology studies and small design
studies.  To begin the process, a Phase-A study is let for "Concept
Exploration", which tries to establish if a concept is feasible, and
what its primary design constraints and requirements might be.  A
Phase-B Study is next, which focuses on a "Preliminary Design" for a
selected concept to meet the design requirements established in Phase
A.  Critical technologies should be identified and demonstrated.
Finally a Phase C/D "Design, Development, Test, and Engineering"
contract is awarded, which leads to a flight article.

            (Continued -- my apologies, but the software I'm using
only allows uploads of 60 lines or less.  This was split into 7
messages.)


--- Opus-CBCS 1.10
 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0)
--
Wales Larrison
...!{dhw68k,zardoz,lawnet,conexch}!ofa123!Wales.Larrison                             [e-mail]
714 544-0934 2400/1200/300

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #255
*******************