Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_5/V12_533.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/YbDYgE600VcJI6jk4b>;
          Mon, 12 Nov 1990 02:11:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 1990 02:10:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #533

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 533

Today's Topics:
               Great White Spot Update?
       Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap
             Re: orbiting bodies
            Re: Re:you Can't Expect A Spa
         Re: Replacement and Insurance Costs
             Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations
              Re: Launch cost per pound
Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station)
         NASA Headline News for 11/05/90 (Forwarded)

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: 5 Nov 90 16:29:01 GMT
From: ccncsu!longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU![e-mail]  (Jay Nestle)
Subject: Great White Spot Update?


    I haven't heard anything about the large white spot
found on Jupiter for a while.  Does anyone know what theories
have been developed or what has happened to the spot to date?
Please e-mail me responses.

                    Thanks, Jay

[e-mail]

   "Save the earth, develop space."  -  Bumper Sticker

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

Date: 5 Nov 90 22:24:52 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!unicorn![e-mail]  (Worth Henry A)
Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>
>And therein lies a large part of the problem. NASA should try and make space
>pay and show a profit. THAT's the way to make it take off. As long as we

    Alas, NASA is a government agency, and as such has little
interest in, and has numerous disincentives towards, making space pay
(except for its subcontractors ;-) ). On the other hand, an independent
agency exchanging project participation rights and preferential
techology access to contributing countries and COMPANIES, could be
structured to make space pay. Such an agency could be authorized to
generate revenues by pioneering space services and even entering into
joint space-related ventures. Initally, such an agency would be dependent
upon government contributions, but if successful, could later rely upon
revenues and private contributors. If unsuccessful, it would eventually
lose support and die. In the short term, such an agency would offer
the space faring nations (and the wanna-be's, as well) a more effective
and affordable alternative to NASA, ESA, ...

   Hmm, perhaps the UCB regents could sponsor such an agency
as an spin-off of their LLNL! If UNIX, why not a space station...
with declining weapons R&D revenues, LLNL could use a new line of
business ;-). And, even if Congress is unwilling to provide funds,
ESA and Japan Inc. might be interested in a joint effort:

  > the LLNL habitat should fit within the payload parameters of
    one the Ariane series boosters

  > HERMES could be used for crew support, and the Japanese mini-shuttle
    for logistic support ...

  > perhaps the budget-straped Soviets would like to get involved as
    an alternative to MIR-II, providing additional alternatives
    (i.e. redundancies) for launch services and a wealth of orbital
    experience ... (MIR-I could even be used as one of the LLNL
    proposal's seperate micro-gravity labs)

   NASA is not the only game in town, if we (i.e. the USA) wait
for Captial Hill, we are going to end up choking on the others' dust
-- er. rocket exhuast.

>
>NASA needs to be open to new ways of doing things. It needs to comit itself
>to reducing launch costs and opening up markets.
>

    AMEN, BUT...

>>    When FRED is finally cancelled, many in Washington (and elsewhere) will
>>begin asking why we need the shuttle, yet alone a space program.
>
>Just because somebody questions the Shuttle doesn't mean they question
>the entier program. Some of the most pro-space people I know question
>the Shuttle. After all, why are we wasting the billions we spend on it
>when there are so many cheaper alternatives?
>

    Don't forget the lessons of the post-Apollo era...

    Unfortunately, the program as a whole tends to ride on the "shirt
tails" of the big projects. Sen. Gore, et. al. are already making the
"I strongly support NASA, BUT -- " speeches (btw, Gore is a leading
presidential aspirant :-( ). NASA will survive (agencies are never
scrapped outright -- too much pork), but that may well be without any
significant space program, manned or otherwise.

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

Date: 6 Nov 90 01:04:22 GMT
From: uokmax![e-mail]  (Jonathan A Bishop)
Subject: Re: orbiting bodies

[e-mail] (Pete Ritter) writes:

>My collegues and I have been arguing about something.  We would like
>an expert opinion about it.

>Does the Moon rotate about its axis (or any other) as it orbits the Earth?

>If a non geo-stationary orbiting body always presents the same face to
>the Earth, does it rotate about its axis (or any other) as it orbits?

>Does a geo-stationary satellite which always presents the same face to
>its primary rotate about its axis (or any other) as it orbits?

In all of these cases, yes.  If the body did not rotate (relative to the
Sun), we would see the entire surface over the course of one revolution.
We don't see the other side because the period of rotation in these cases
is coincident with the period of revolution.

Now, my question:
Are the forces that synchronized the Moon's rotation and revolution the same
forces that have nearly done so with Venus relative to the Sun?
Does this phenomena only happen in a narrow band?
--
[e-mail]

"Ground Control to Major Tom: Your circuit's dead; there's something wrong.
Can you hear me, Major Tom?" -- David Bowie

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

Date: 5 Nov 90 04:05:01 GMT
From: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]  (S Schaper)
Subject: Re: Re:you Can't Expect A Spa

This discussion sure shows the difference between NASA circa 196x and NASA
1990. And why we aren't developing the new technologies as well as we might.
 Or why we could go to the moon in eight years, and take fifteen or more to
get a space station off the ground, and maybe thirty years to go back to the
moon, and that with all the new knowledge and tech that we have gained since
'61
Zeitgeist Busters!

UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Nov 90 15:36:27 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (SERRE GLENN)
Subject: Re: Replacement and Insurance Costs

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wales Larrison) writes:
>issue with HLVs.  Let us assume a HLV with a reliability of 95%  - a
>bit higher than the current Titan fleet with about 80 launches, and
Nits and trivia:
Actually, the Titan fleet's reliability is a bit more that 95%.  The
advertised rate is 96.something%.  Also, depending on which Titan III versions
you count, the total number of launches could be said to be over 100.  (I'd
guess that you're counting only the versions with SRMs attached).  I'd also
like to point out that the Titan IV is 2 for 2, making for a 100% success
rate :-).

Question:
Do Shuttle payloads require insurance?

Points:
Note that the payload costs given for classified satellites imply that the
Air Force is probably not really that interested in cheap boosters.

Also, note that there's no reason to think that reusable boosters are any more
reliable than expendables, notwithstanding Mr. Larrison's preference for
reusables.


--Glenn Serre
[e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Nov 90 03:23:26 GMT
From: sumax!polari![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations


+BTW, anybody know when and where they are doing integration testing
+of Freedom?
-
As far as I can tell, Freedom will never be completly integrated on
the ground.    Some pretty big chunks of it will be integrated at a
new purpose built McDonnell Douglas facility adjacent to Johnson
Space Center, Houston.
    That facility will be used for itnegrating the cargo for each
flight.   Each flight's integrated cargo will be flown direct to
Kennedy where it will be installed into its shuttle.
  As for when.....well, my hardware will be sent there in 1993.

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

Date: 16 Oct 90 20:13:36 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!olivea!oliveb!felix!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (David Anderman)
Subject: Re: Launch cost per pound

FYI, one of the Energiya strap-on booster engines (an RD-170) went
kerplooie on the launch pad last week, taking out both the Zenith
launcher, and the launch pad as well....

As for cloning a Soviet rocket, be my guest. The Soviets would be happy
to license any of their satellite launcher designs to you. Got any
money?



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

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

Date: 6 Nov 90 08:47:28 GMT
From: rochester!sol![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Radley)
writes:

   [ quoting Allen quoting me ]

   >How *is* LLNL planning to get astronauts up to the station?
   +Put a capsule on a Delta.
   >Are they planning to use the shuttle or develop their own spacecraft?
   +They plan to develop their own. For $200M they could buy a ACRV or
   +a Soyuz for $50M. We have built lots of capsules in the last 30 years
   +so I don't think it needs to be that expensive.
   -
   Soyuz is not available, how can LLNL have it in their plan ?   A
   capsule of $ 200 M is inadequate, as a minimum a Gemini type vehicle
   is required which is more like $ 2 - 3 B.  Remember you need long
   duration EVA, it may take a couple of weeks to get a failed LLNL
   fully deployed.

As I understand it, LLNL is not planning on developing a spacecraft
which can deploy the Earth Station under a "worst-case" scenario, just
a simple capsule which can get the astronauts into orbit.

It's prohibitively expensive to cover all possible failure modes.  The
worst case scenario for any space station is a launch explosion, but
in order to cover for this, you would need to make backups for all of
your modules.  Is this going to be done for Freedom?

Evidently, LLNL does not consider the possibility of a complete
deployment failure to be worth $2-3 B, which seems reasonable to me
since this would probably exceed the entire projected development cost
of the Earth Station.

     If we had access to Soyuz and Soviet technology, the cheapest
   approach would be to scrap LLNL and use Mir.

If you just wanted to do microgravity research, then this might be
true, but the Earth Station is not designed for microgravity research
-- it's designed for artificial gravity research and to support the
Gas Station as part of the larger mission to establish permanent
manned bases on both the moon and Mars.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 6 Nov 90 19:18:45 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 11/05/90 (Forwarded)


             Headline News
Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA
Headquarters

  Monday, November 5, 1990    Audio Service: 202 / 755-1788

This is NASA Headline News for Monday, November 5, 1990

Work on the three orbiters at Kennedy Space Center
progressed extremely well this weekend.  All three vehicles
were processed according to their individual schedules, with no
hitches experienced.

Atlantis passed its main engine high pressure fuel duct
penetrant dye test.  The flash evaporator water loop valve was
replaced and tested.  The external tank is being purged today.
Contingency space suits will be installed in the middeck airlock
tomorrow.  Concurrent with these activities, closeout work will
continue on Atlantis' aft throughout the early part of the week.
The current schedule calls for primary reactant system purges
on Thursday, with hypergolic system pressurization on Friday.
Ordnance installation will follow the completion of these
activities.

Columbia's Astro-1 Broad Band X-ray Telescope was
serviced with argon on Friday.  Work to deconfigure the aft
compartment continues.  The water valves on the auxiliary
power units were changed and retested over the weekend.  The
forward reaction control system was tested Friday; the aft
system is being tested today.  Also today, a helium signature
leak test will be performed on the liquid oxygen portion of
Columbia's fuel system.  A replacement auxiliary power unit will
be installed on Wednesday and hot-fired next week.

In Orbiter Processing Facility Bay 1, Discovery's orbital
maneuvering system and forward reaction control system were
removed over the weekend.  Aft heat shields are being
removed today to allow for removal of the main engines later
this week.

On Wednesday, Dr. William Lenoir will hold another monthly
space flight press briefing.  Shuttle chief Robert Crippen and
space station chief Richard Kohrs will also participate.  The
briefing will be at 3:00 pm EST, in room 531, Building 10-B.

  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Adm. Truly will participate in a round-table meeting of the
National Academy of Sciences tomorrow and Wednesday, and
will also address the participants of the NASA 1990 Educational
Affairs Meeting.  The annual education meeting is taking place
the entire week in Cambridge, Mass.

  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

New Hubble Space Telescope photographs are expected to
be released early this week.  The photos are of the Orion nebula
and include images of features of the nebula never seen before.
This is one of the richest star birthing regions in our local
neighborhood and has been of interest to astronomers for
centuries.


Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA
Select TV.  All times are Eastern.  **indicates a live program.

Monday, 11/5/90
    12:00 pm    "And Then There Was Voyager," new video
production from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

    3:00 pm    Replay of "And Then There Was Voyager."

Tuesday, 11/6/90
    12:00 pm    NASA Productions, through 2:00 pm.

    6:00 pm    NASA Productions repeat, through 8:00 pm.

Wednesday, 11/7/90
    1:15 pm    **Magellan-at-Venus report from JPL.



All events and times may change without notice.  This report is
filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12:00 pm, EDT.  It is a
service of Internal Communications Branch at NASA
Headquarters.  Contact:  CREDMOND on NASAmail or at
202/453-8425.


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

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #533
*******************