Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_4/V12_431.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 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/ob415tS00VcJQCOE4=>;
          Mon,  8 Oct 1990 01:41:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon,  8 Oct 1990 01:40:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #431

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 431

Today's Topics:
              NASA Satellite TV Coverage
                  Astronauts
            Re: NASA Satellite TV Coverage
             Re: Junk the shuttle
                 quit
     Re: Reliability of Soviet equipment vs. launch rate
             Re: Junk the shuttle
            Re: Magellan Update - 10/03/90
              Re: Launch cost per pound
            Re: NASA Satellite TV Coverage
               Re: Furlough the shuttle
        Re: Cost comparison: Apollo/Saturn vs. Shuttle
         Reusable verses Expendable launch vehicles.

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Oct 90 17:18:49 GMT
From: sam.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]  (Vincent Cate)
Subject: NASA Satellite TV Coverage


NASA Headline News / Peter E. Yee:
>NASA will use an additional satellite transponder during the STS-41
>Ulysses mission to enable reception of NASA Select television in
>Alaska and Hawaii -- which are too far north or west for reception of the
>NASA programming on Satcom F2R.  The additional satellite is Spacenet
>1, transponder 17.  Edited, two hour summaries of the day's NASA Select
>programming will be transmitted on Spacenet 1 each day of the STS-41
>mission from 12:01 to 2:01 am EDT.

Did anyone find the summary last night?  I looked for it after 1:30
and did not find it.  Is Spacenet 1 transponder 17 really the right
place?  Is it just that Pittsburgh PA (which is not near Alaska or
Hawaii) is not in the broadcast footprint?  If so, its too bad because
it would be nice to be able to record a 2 hour summary each day.

>NASA Select TV:  Satcom F2R, Transponder 13, C-Band, 72 degrees West
>Longitude, Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960 MHz.

I have been a bit disappointed in the coverage so far.  Most of the
time when I have checked they have been showing mission control
without any audio (talk about boring).  The second most common
thing seems to be computer graphics.  Only once out of about 10
times that I have looked have I actually caught them showing the
output of a camera that was in orbit and it did not last very long.

I have noticed that there is also NASA stuff on F2 transponder 5.
Most of the time this just has some text that includes STS-41 but
it has been used to show extra cameras during launch and was
even showing the view from space (although only in black and white)
that I saw on transponder 13.

Given that I have seen stuff on 2 stations and there is supposed
to be stuff on a third I am wondering, has anyone found any others?

It amazes me that with cameras in orbit they are showing what they
are (mostly boring ground based stuff).  Are they only able to send
video from the shuttle during very limited portions of the orbit?
Assuming this is the problem, does anyone know how limited this is
and what portions (seems that near Florida might be good).

  --  Vince

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

Date: 7 Oct 90 09:50:19 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!crackers!m2c!umvlsi!umaecs!amh![e-mail]
Subject: Astronauts

Hi. I'm new to this net stuff so I don't think my first message came
out quite how I wanted.
What I asked for was where I could get info. on being an astronaut.

Thanx,
Carole

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

Date: 8 Oct 90 02:14:41 GMT
From: n3dmc![e-mail]  (John Limpert)
Subject: Re: NASA Satellite TV Coverage

[e-mail] (Vincent Cate) writes:
>It amazes me that with cameras in orbit they are showing what they
>are (mostly boring ground based stuff).  Are they only able to send
>video from the shuttle during very limited portions of the orbit?

The video has to be downlinked through the ground network (GN), voice
and telemetry can be routed through the space network (SN aka TDRSS).
The video also uses the same transmitter that is used for tape recorder
dumps.  There are only two stations left in the ground network,
Merritt Island, Florida (MIL) and Bermuda (BDA).  I'm not sure how much
video support (if any) is provided by the Deep Space Network (DSN),
NOAA or DOD.

--
John A. Limpert        The strongest reason for the people to retain the right
[e-mail]    to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect
uunet!n3dmc!johnl    themselves against tyranny in government.  T. Jefferson.

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

Date: 3 Oct 90 15:30:59 GMT
From: peregrine!ccicpg!felix!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (David Anderman)
Subject: Re: Junk the shuttle

Decreasing NASA's operational role in favor of space science funding
similar to NSF is probably a good idea, BUT 1) what can we do to promote
this idea, and 2) what are YOU doing to promote this idea?



--
David Anderman
Internet: [e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 6 Oct 90 23:06:24 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!crackers!m2c!umvlsi!umaecs!amh![e-mail]
Subject: quit

Could someone please tell me where I could get information about becoming an
astronaut?
Thanks.

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

Date: 3 Oct 90 15:32:50 GMT
From: peregrine!ccicpg!felix!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (David Anderman)
Subject: Re: Reliability of Soviet equipment vs. launch rate

Some thoughts on this thread:

The majority of Soviet launches are recoverable reconnaissance
satellites. The overall soviet launch rate is tied to the number of
spysats, and the number of spysat launches has declined in the last few
years.

There are several reasons for the decline. 1) Decreasing superpower
tensions. 2) Use of digital imaging, rather than film return. 3) use of
longer-lived film return sats, utilizing mini-film-return capsules,
which are periodically dropped from the mother ship. 4) less money in
the Soviet budget for this stuff.

As a footnote, the Soyuz booster has been marginally upgraded during the
1980's, giving it about 500 kg. more payload capacity, which allows more
consumables to be flown on these missions....



--
David Anderman
Internet: [e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 7 Oct 90 22:05:59 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Junk the shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Hix) writes:
>> Actually, we already invaded Washington (successfully!) some years
>> ago. We decided to let you keep it, so we gave it back and returned to
>> the True North, Strong and Free. (Well, maybe not free, but we can
>> offer you a good deal :-))
>
>Assuming the price is right, can we move it to another location farther
>south?  :}

Any time you want to swap ends of the continent, just let us know.  We'll
be happy to trade you Quebec for California. :-) :-)
--
Imagine life with OS/360 the standard  | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
operating system.  Now think about X.  |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Oct 90 00:51:34 GMT
From: uc!cs.umn.edu!kksys!rba!newave![e-mail]  (John A. Weeks III)
Subject: Re: Magellan Update - 10/03/90

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]:

> A loss of power at the Deep Space Network (DSN) station near Madrid,
> Spain, resulted in loss of radar data reception of one-half of orbit
> 490 and all of the mapping data from orbit 491.

Actually, preliminary analysis indicated the existance of another face,
two pyramids, and a 200' tall Elivs.  MJ12 was forced to pull the plug
for a while to supress the evidence.

Thanks for posting the updates Ron!

-john-

--
===============================================================================
John A. Weeks III               [phone]               [e-mail]
NeWave Communications                ...uunet!rosevax!bungia!wd0gol!newave!john
===============================================================================

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

Date: Sun, 7 Oct 90 15:51:56 -0400
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Launch cost per pound
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>
>OK, so the Soviets are able to provide launch services for much less than
>the US, because they're less productive... I'm confused - I'll have to think
>about that for a while.

Touche! I misunderstood your original point. I thought you where saying that
Soviet launches where cheap because their workers where paid low wages. This
implied that you thought that highly paid people couldn't make inexpensive
products. I was pointing out that is not the case (if nothing else, I know
some very well paid chip designers who's chips sell for 5 cents each).

No, the Soviet workers are not as productive as their western counterparts.
On the other hand, they are (as you point out) paid a lot less. Maybe our
workers, who are far more productive (and far better paid) can produce
products just as cheap.

>The point I think I was trying to make is that the
>Soviet launch industry is a poor example of what the US could do, since so
>much of its lower cost is largely a function of lower salaries and lower
>standard of living of the workers.

But they do have much to teach us about engineering. They always use the
cheapest and most available technology to do the job. They focus on the
goal where we tend to focus on the sexiest technology to meet the goal.

>(I presume launch prices are ultimately
>largely a function of labor costs -

I would be suprised it that was the case. Only about 10% of the price of
a car is the labor of the builders. I was visiting the shop floor of a major
maker of aircraft structural parts recently. They showed me one of their
automated plants. It did the milling and stamping for aircraft structural
parts. It only needed three people to work and they spent most of their time
waiting for things to break.

The biggest factors in launch costs are likely to be government procurement
practices. They about double the price of almost anything they buy.

>it would seem that lower Soviet cost
>per man-hour and labor-saving mass production capacity and experience more
>than make up for presumably lower worker productivity in this one area.)

Depends on how good their mass production is. If it's like the rest of Soviet
industry, it's not very good. The key question is how value is added for every
dollar (ruble) spent.

>>Consider the two cluster heavy lift vehicles (HL Delta and Titan V). With
>>the advanced solids they should be able to put 150K pounds into orbit at
>>~$150M a launch. That's $1,000 a pound and there's your order of magnitude.
>
>So shouldn't we *first* get one of these going and available for general
>use, *then* stop using the Shuttle for the types of payloads the other
>lifter can handle? (I agree that payload interface standardization
>should be a priority.)

Fine with me. However, in the meantime we should begin sending as many
payloads as possible on Titan IVs. Phasing out the Shuttle is not something
which can be done overnight, I agree.

However, that is for me a compromize position. We could get by with using
Soyuz and Titan IV for a long time if we have a space station. One years
Shuttle costs would pay for a nice station AND cut launch costs in half.
Not a bad deal huh?

   Allen

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer      |         What should man do but dare?            |
|   [e-mail]         |             - Sir Gawain                        |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 8 Oct 90 04:40:55 GMT
From: sam.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]  (Vincent Cate)
Subject: Re: NASA Satellite TV Coverage


NASA Headline News / Peter E. Yee:
>The additional satellite is Spacenet 1, transponder 17.  Edited, two hour
>summaries of the day's NASA Select programming will be transmitted on
>Spacenet 1 each day of the STS-41 mission from 12:01 to 2:01 am EDT.

Tonight it is on S1 transponder 18, not 17 (I found nothing lastnight).
This is much more interesting than the full NASA Select coverage.

    -- Vince

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

Date: 8 Oct 90 00:17:20 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!wrgate!mtdoom![e-mail]  (Dan Tilque)
Subject: Re: Furlough the shuttle

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Any time you want to swap ends of the continent, just let us know.  We'll
>be happy to trade you Quebec for California. :-) :-)

No thanks, but I have a better deal.

You guys take Smog Angeles...  Please!


On a space related topic:  Is it true that the mission specialists on
Discovery have been furloughed as nonessential personnel?

---
Dan Tilque    --    [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Oct 90 22:23:55 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!fmeed1![e-mail]  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: Cost comparison: Apollo/Saturn vs. Shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>The shuttle isn't perfect by any means, but the point was it could bring
>payloads back and forth from space. Expendable just can't.

You might want to qualify the above statement.

The Soviets launch on expendables, and they return payloads and people
from space all the time.  Apollo was an expendable, and it returned
payloads from the moon.  Most any payload can be returned if it is
designed for it (for instance, an integral aeroshell and recovery 'chutes).

Even Solar Max and Syncom did not require Shuttle.  Man-on-the-scene
is all they needed to get them fixed; a particular vehicle is not
implicit in making them functional again.  Skylab's thermal control
system was refurbished on-orbit by workers in an Apollo (expendable).
--
Russ Cage    Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department
Work:  itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage   (Business only, NO CHATTY MAIL PLS)
Home:  [e-mail]  (Everything else)
I speak for the companies I own, not for the ones I don't.

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

Date: 6 Oct 90 19:54:22 GMT
From: news!dante![e-mail]
Subject: Reusable verses Expendable launch vehicles.

In a book written by Eugen Sanger shortly before his death in 1964
(Space Flight: Countdown for the Future, 1965, McGraw Hill, an English
translation of the original German edition of 1963) I was greatly surprised
to read his conclusions about the economics of expendable and reusable
launch vehicles. In the chapter "What Price Space Flight" Sanger makes a
cost comparison between a resusable (which he called aeronautic)
and expendable (which he calls ballistic) launch vehicle.

Each of the two designs was to be able to launch 6 t (1 t = 1000 kg) into
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) using liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants.
The reusable vehicle was assumed to last for 200 flights.
The cost comparison considered the development costs,
mass production costs, propellant costs, and ground service costs for total
payloads into LEO of 1200 t, 120,000 t, and 120 million t. His costing was
based on the number of man hours per kg (hr/kg) into LEO. A summary of his
results follows.

Total Transport     Aeronautic    Ballistic
Mass (t)             (hr/kg)       (hr/kg)

   1200              493.03        205.54
120,000               10.35          8.49
120 million            5.08          2.99

In all three cases the reusable vehicle costs are higher. The main reason
for the difference is the much larger development costs of the reusable
vehicles verses the expendable vehicles. Expendable vehicles also have the
advantage of lower fuel costs (this becomes very important for high flight
rates), lower ground costs (a resuable vehicle is about twice as big as an
expenable vehicle for the same mass to orbit), and mass production costs
become low when you start churning them out by the thousands (just like
automobiles).

Of course, these figures may change somewhat when more accurate cost analysis
are made using modern figures. However, I would expect the same conclusions
to be reached for the reasons stated above. As long as we are limited to an
exhaust velocity of 4500 m/s and the low flight rates of today and the near
future, I think it will be always be more economical at the end of day (taking
into account all costs) to use expendable launch vehicles. When we have
vehicles capable of exhaust velocities of 10,000 m/s and very high
flight rates (comparable to that of the airlines of today) will it become
more economical to use reusable launch vehicles (this was Sangers second
conclusion when he did a cost comparison using nuclear powered vehicles
which can achieve 10,000 m/s exhaust velocity).

Another advantage that expendables have over reusables is their robustness
to launch vehicle failures. A failure in an expendable does not mean the loss
of any future capability. The problem can usually be quickly fixed and put
into the production line, whereas reusable vehicles would take much longer
to repair since the fix would have to applied to your whole fleet of
currently built vehicles. Again, with todays failure rates of 1/50, this
is an important factor. For reusable vehicles, failure rates similar to that
of airlines would be required. The case between Ariane and the Shuttle is
a good example.

I hope all the sci.space readers finds this interesting in context of all the
discussion that has been going on recently.
--
Steven Pietrobon, [e-mail]
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #431
*******************