Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_5/V12_528.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 16KB

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/wbDE4HC00VcJE5X04V>;
          Sun, 11 Nov 1990 02:43:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 1990 02:42:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #528

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 528

Today's Topics:
       Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap
       Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap
            Re: Galileo Update - 11/02/90
             Re: A slightly silly thought
       Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap
       Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap

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]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 4 Nov 90 02:33:26 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>>>Wroking on military aircraft is not the same as commercial. You face a
>>>totally different set of tradeoffs.
>>
>>... You must be kidding. The base technologies and knowledgebase which
>>Boeing had at that time was equally applicable...
>
>As witness the spectacular failures of aerospace-company ventures into
>things like mass transit in the early 1970s, not so.  The basic technologies
>are applicable, yes, but as Allen points out, the *tradeoffs* are completely
>different.  Boeing had the knowledge to build a workable airliner, yes, but
>that is very different from building a *successful* one.  If the 707 had had
>the maintenance requirements and operating costs of most then-current
>military systems, it would have been a commercial disaster despite technical
>success.

The space station is a research facility, not a commercial facility (yet). If
you want a commercial facility, the comrades at Mir will certainly be willing
to sell you a module ;-)

>>...Getaway Special on a shuttle or on a sub-orbital launch is different from
>>building a large platform which people can live and work in...
>
>Quite true.  Of course, by this standard, most of the NASA centers involved
>in the space station are incompetent for the job too, since only one (MSFC)
>has ever built anything like this before.  (JSC arguably might qualify due
>to the shuttle orbiter, but launchers and space stations are very different.)

JPL qualifies. And we're not talking about subcontracting, but system
integration.

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 3 Nov 90 18:47:57 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap
References: <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:

>But I'll ask the question again: If you're correct, why was the 707
>considered such a risk at the time it was built? If you are correct the
>experts would have said '707, no problem. They built the B-52'. Why didn't
>they?

Some of them probably did. I'll do some research and get back to you. My point
is (and you seem to ignore it): Boeing's risk was commercial and economic: NOT
technological.

LLNL is making a proposal outside of their area of focused expertise, in an
area where there are few major experienced player. Actually, there are but two
major players, and one upcoming: The Soviets and NASA are experienced, while
ESA is upcoming. Japan is in the planning/exploration stages for large
structures.

>>Of course, you'd have us
>>believe the same changes could be done with Delta/Titan and the HLV vehicle.
>
>I have no idea what this means. What changes?

Alan, you have been frothing about how easy it would be to upscale Delta
and Titan into HLVs, and people keep pointing out that life ain't that simple.

>>If anything, building a commercial aircraft was more of a marketing risk than
>>a technology risk. Passenger airliners aren't spec'd at to be shot at, or be
>>hardened against EMP and nuclear blast effects.
>
>EXACTLY. It puts a totally different set of constraints on the designers.

They are still working within their speciality -- airplanes. Experimental
packages hauled into orbit by Shuttle and SDIO pops does not equal experience
with designing large structures and letting them percolate in orbit.

>
>>>>How much experience has Livermore had in designing, launching, and
>>>>maintaining payloads in orbit?
>
>>>Aparently quite a bit. They have built and flown quite a few payloads for
>>>SDIO. Most are classified which is why you don't hear from them.
>
>>Excuse me. This is like saying "I know, but I can't tell you."
>
>This does not refute my point in any way. They and their contractors
>have extensive experience. Just because you don't know about it doesn't
>mean it doesn't exist.

Fine. Let them put their experience on the table for all to examine.

>>Space is the most hostile environment known to man (aside from the deep blue
>>sea and Chernobyl). There's a factor of magniture of difference
>
>The survival time of a person in an aircraft which falls apart 200 feet off
>the ground is less than the survival time of a naked person tossed out
>of an airlock.

What does this have to do with anything? It's easier to design an aircraft than
it is to boost things into LEO.

>>>Actually, the inflatable space station idea came from NASA. All of this stuff
>>>is based on NASA studies of the past 20 years. In an important sense this is
>>>a NASA idea, not a LLNL idea.
>>
>>If it's so wonderful, why isn't NASA or ESA doing it? Or the Japanese? They
>>aren't shy about ripping off, er using ideas which seem to be economically
>>productive.
>
>I don't know. Strange as it may sound, these guys are not omnipitent. I
>suspect it is because they consider it too risky.

Why do they consider it too risky? They have access to the same information.

>>>Did you catch the editorial in Space News a few weeks back? A scientist
>>>from JPL wrote an editorial on why this plan shouldn't be squashed just
>>>because it didn't come from the 'right office'.
>>
>>One scientist from JPL is different from JPL putting a blanket endorsement on
>>the project.
>
>Sure. But it does mean there are people at JPL who think it will work.

There are probably a few mavericks within NASA who think it would work too.
This doesn't translate to a resounding endorsement.

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 3 Nov 90 05:04:07 GMT
From: ubc-cs!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 11/02/90
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jean-Yves Herve') writes:
>There is just one little thing that bugs me: how come the Galileo are given
>with funny units only, while the Ulysses report have both metric and funny
>units?

Probably because Ulysses is a European project and hence the European
audience is being considered.  Unless I miss my guess, the numbers from
JPL et al are metric, and the NASA PR people are translating them for the
Great Unwashed... but for mostly-European projects they are constrained
to also supply civilized units.
--
"I don't *want* to be normal!"         | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry."                        |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 3 Nov 90 23:09:39 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: A slightly silly thought
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>If the shuttle has to abort its launch and land
>on the other side of the Atlantic, does it qualify for
>the Trans-Atlantic speed record? ...
>... if it were to land back a KSC ... would
>it count for a round the world record? ...

The usual rules for record attempts forbid, among other things, dropping
parts of the aircraft on the way.  The Rutan/Yeager Voyager was allowed
to drop only human waste (although in fact they ended up storing that rather
than dropping it, due to technical problems).  The shuttle drops SRBs and
the ET, which is a bit too much to ignore.

Were this not so, the world absolute speed record would be held by the
Apollo spacecraft, with Mercury/Gemini/Shuttle/Vostok/Voskhod/Soyuz second,
the X-15 third, and the SR-71 a poor fourth.

>On a more technical note, does the shuttle need to fire the OMS
>rockets to get down from such a abort cleanly? Does the shuttle
>undergo the rigours of a normal reentry? I guess the answers are
>no, and yes, but I'm curious.

The reentry definitely approximates a normal one for Abort Once Around,
and I think it's not too far from it for a trans-Atlantic abort.  OMS
firings might be needed to set up the right trajectory, although I'd
think that doing trajectory changes aerodynamically during reentry
would usually be better.
--
"I don't *want* to be normal!"         | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry."                        |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 90 20:14:31 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap
Newsgroups: sci.space
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>:
>>If you're correct, why was the 707
>>considered such a risk at the time it was built?

>Some of them probably did. I'll do some research and get back to you.

I look forward to it.

>My point is (and you seem to ignore it): Boeing's risk was commercial and
>economic: NOT technological.

Building things to meet a set market for a set price is a matter of
technology. Computers are cheap today because a LOT of money was spent
developing the technology to make them cheap.

If Boeing applied their military technology to the 707, it would have
been too expensive. They needed to learn a new way of doing buisness
which affected them organizationally and technologicaly.

>LLNL is making a proposal outside of their area of focused expertise, in an
>area where there are few major experienced player.

We may all be thankful you wheren't around when the Wright Brothers where
busy at Kitty Hawk. I can hear you now: "Bike repair people aren't qualified
to build aircraft. It's outside their focused expertise, we better let Mr.
Langly and the other experts do this".

I suppose Skylab wouldn't have done any better. "Launch a Space Station
that size without any background? You must be crazy".

LLNL and their contractors have extensive experience working large
aerospace programs. What technology do they lack experience in?

>Actually, there are but two
>major players, and one upcoming: The Soviets and NASA are experienced,

How can you say NASA is experienced? They only have Skylab and the engineers
who worked it have long ago joined the Saturn V engineers scattered to the
four winds. How many Skylab people are working Freedom? If NASA is leveraging
all this focused experience they have, why are they so late and over budget?

>while ESA is upcoming.

Actually, ESA is just as far behind as Freedom is. If and when Freedom is
killed, they will scream in public but in private will breath a sigh of
relief.

Besides, where is theri 'focused experience' building space stations?

>Alan, you have been frothing

Gee... I didn't know I was frothing. Sorry if I gon any on you.

>about how easy it would be to upscale Delta
>and Titan into HLVs, and people keep pointing out that life ain't that simple.

The problem is that they say: "Allen, life ain't that simple" and then expect
me to say "well then I guess it won't work". When I have asked why it won't
work I get: "well it's a big program and big programs fail". I know of a lot
of big programs which didn't fail so I don't find that a convincing reason.

But perhaps you can explain it to me. MDAC says they can use an idea which
the Soviets and NASA have used in the past to cluster Delta's. They say
it will take 3 years and cost $500M. The resulting vehicle, they say, will
launch 100K pounds into LEO. They have written articles on it and offered
to sign a fixed price contract to build it.

Now what are the technical reasons why it won't work? Does MDAC lack
'focused experience' in building Delta's?

>It's easier to design an aircraft than it is to boost things into LEO.

Why? What is the part count of a 747 compared to a Titan?

    Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation |
|   [e-mail]  | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it      |
|                | works or not?  - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts    |

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

Date: 4 Nov 90 06:24:44 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>What does this have to do with anything? It's easier to design an aircraft than
>it is to boost things into LEO.

Max Hunter disagrees with you; he says precisely the reverse, that rockets
are easy compared to aerodynamics.  I'm afraid I believe him, not you, since
he has some small experience with rockets (chief engineer for Thor and Delta).
--
"I don't *want* to be normal!"         | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry."                        |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #528
*******************