Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_5/V12_536.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

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/QbDZJ8G00VcJ075k5J>;
          Mon, 12 Nov 1990 02:54:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 1990 02:54:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #536

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 536

Today's Topics:
              Galileo Update - 11/06/90
Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station)
New Ames Research Center Deputy Director to head Ames-Dryden (Forwarded)
           Call for new news group : sci.space.seds
       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]

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

Date: 6 Nov 90 20:31:12 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 11/06/90


                        Galileo Status Report
                          November 6, 1990

     A NO-OP command was sent yesterday to the Galileo spacecraft to reset
the Command Loss Timer to 216 hours.  A MAG (Magnetometer) instrument
science memory readout was also successfully completed.  Today, two delta DOR
(Differential One-way Ranging) navigation activities were completed
successfully.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 6 Nov 90 18:39:10 GMT
From: usc!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery (was Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (jon) writes (with regard to manned Delta):

>its not just vibration load (which is probably too bad) its also the
>acceleratation.  Most of the payload rockets made have way too high
>acceleration rates for humans....even with gsuits/seats/etc..

>sure, a chunk of metal and silicon can take it, but not a human....
>one of the reasons most manned flights are liquid powered or use
>way more advanced solid boosters....

Advanced solid boosters? Wow, sort of like a power-hungry libertarian,
I guess...

Phil

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

Date: 6 Nov 90 19:26:14 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: New Ames Research Center Deputy Director to head Ames-Dryden (Forwarded)

Sarah Keegan
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.              November 5, 1990
(Phone:  [phone])                                 4 P.M. EST

Del Harding
Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.
(Phone:  [phone])

Nancy Lovato
Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, Calif.
(Phone:  [phone])


RELEASE:  90-149

NEW AMES RESEARCH CENTER DEPUTY DIRECTOR TO HEAD AMES-DRYDEN


     Arnold D. Aldrich, NASA Associate Administrator for
Aeronautics, Exploration and Technology, today announced an
organizational change at NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain
View, Calif., designed to reinforce and strengthen national
flight research capabilities at the Ames-Dryden Flight Research
Facility (DFRF), Edwards, Calif.  A new Ames Deputy Center
Director position will be located at Dryden and will serve as the
Director of the Dryden facility.  All administrative and
operational organizational elements of Dryden will report to this
individual.

     In announcing the change, Aldrich said "This updated
management structure at Ames will take advantage of Ames'
institutional capability to conduct research along a full
continuum, ranging from computation through validation flight
test.  It simultaneously will provide enhanced recognition for
the unique capabilities of Dryden for conceiving and executing
national flight-test programs."

     Kenneth J. Szalai has been selected as the Ames Deputy
Director who, under the new Ames' management organization, will
be located at Dryden and will direct Dryden's research and
operations, effective Dec. 3, 1990.  The appointment was
announced today by Dr. Dale Compton, Ames Director.

     "This appointment recognizes the importance of flight
research to the nation's aeronautics program and underscores
Dryden's importance as a national asset for conducting this
research," said Compton.  "Szalai is an internationally
recognized expert on flight control and flight systems and has
extensive experience with flight research.  He is particularly
well qualified to take this leadership position."

     Martin A. Knutson, Director of the Flight Operations and
Research Directorate, will return to the Ames Mountain View site
to direct flight operations there.  "Knutson has done an
excellent job at Dryden and the additional experience he has
gained will add to the already close coordination between the two
sites," Compton said.

     Szalai, 48, previously served as Chief of the Research
Engineering Division at Dryden.  He joined NASA in 1964 and held
various research and systems engineering positions of increasing
responsibility before moving into management as a branch chief.
He also was principal investigator on the first digital fly-by-
wire aircraft.

     Szalai has authored over 25 technical papers and reports.
He is a fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Szalai has received numerous awards including the
NASA Exceptional Service Medal, the NASA Outstanding Leadership
Medal and the Presidential Rank of Meritorious Executive.

     Szalai received a bachelor's degree in electrical
engineering from the University of Wisconsin in 1964 and a
master's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of
Southern California in 1970.

     He and his wife reside in Lancaster, Calif., with their
three children.

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

Date: 6 Nov 90 19:39:28 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!ccserver![e-mail]  (M.S.Bennett Supvs= Prof Pendry)
Subject: Call for new news group : sci.space.seds


SEDS is one of the largest space student organisation in the world- USSEDS was
founded 10 years ago to put pressure on congress to uncancel a number of
probe missions - in this it was successful.

Now SEDS is growing into a multi-national organisation with branches across the
world (Italy, Tiwan, Canada). We have links with the ISU and Eurasia (the
European Space student group).

We clearly need some means of giving people an easy mode of access other than
BITNET mail servers - NEWS would be an excelent method.

I await your responses, if any - (would that mean you did not object?)

            Yours M.S.Bennett
--
/------    -------    -----\       /------   |  ======================  |
|          |          |      \    |          |  M. Sean Bennett         |
\-----\    |----      |       |    \-----\   |  UKSEDS TECH.OFF.        |
       |   |          |      /            |  |  Janet:[e-mail]  |

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

Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 12:05:39 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap
Newsgroups: sci.space

This is becomming less a discussion of LLNL's plan and more of the
problems with Freedom. In addition, it is clear that Freedom as currently
envisioned will never be built. Congress will not pay for it. Therefore
this will be my last reply (nothing new is being said anyway). Mr. Radley
is welcome to have the last word.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Radley) writes:
>+1. Using the LLNL as a Freedom replacement is NOT part of the
>+   Great Exploration.
>-
>Many people are touting LLNL as a replacement to Freedom.

My preference is to let them fight it out. Fund both until one is
up and working then kill the other. A little competition goes a long
way.

>+1. The price of large new engineering projects cannot be predicted
>+   in advance.

>I never said that.    I said LLNL has no track record, so their
>projections are questionable.

BTW, how many space stations has your employer built? If the answer
is not at least 3 then I would say you don't have a track record either.

>+Again, according to the original schedule, Freedom was to be
>+permanently crewed in 91 (next year) at a cost+ of $8B.

>You quote feasibility study estimates as guarantees, which they never
>were.

No I quote the original cost and schedule as provided to Congress
in 1984.

>+ Maybe the schedules havn't changed, but that doesn't mean they can
>+be met.  Example: Freedom will use 27 Shuttle flights for assembly
>+over five years. You don't seriously think that can be done do you?

>First element launch date is not dependent on flight rates, and that
>date is very realistic.

The Shuttle manifest has about 40 flights on it before Freedom. They
are assuming a flight rate of 10 per year. Nobody outside NASA seriously
thinks this is possible. If flies in the face of the past ten years
experience. A realistic rate would be four per year which means that when
Freedom FEL comes up there will be TWENTY flights ahead of you. Is Freedom
going to tell those people to take a hike?

>At least Freedom's schedule is based on
>a vehicle which exists,

No. Freedom's schedule is based on a hypothetical reusable spacecraft
which flies ten times a year for $200M per flight. That vehicle does
not exist in any form. It will not exist when Freedom is launched.

>LLNL is making extravagent promises based on
>an HLV which has not even been designed, let alone flown.

The HLV on the other hand has 90% of its design completed. A number
of experts have said it was viable and they had no doubt that MDAC
and Martin could build them. For example, when Mr. Charles Radley
was asked what doubts he had about these vehicles he said:

     "I have no doubt MDAC and Martin can deliver those [HLVs].[1]"

[1] Article <[e-mail]> toward the end

>+They have been political because NASA didn't listen to Congress
>+in the design. Congress wanted a microgravity research facility.

>Really ?

Yes.

>If so then why in other posts do you talk about providing
>artifical gravity on LLNL ?   That makes microgravity research
>impossible !

Actually, it makes micorgravity better. By putting the microgravity
facility in a crew-tended free flyer it won't be subjected to the
vibration which Freedom will subject it to.

>It also makes studies of biological effects of zero-g impossible.

You could add a zero-G module in the middle if you want. Or if the
LLNL station demonstrates the viability of the concept you can build
large 0G stations for a very very small amount of money.

>Micro-g and life sciences are Freedom's forte'.

Louis J. Lanzerotti, of the Augustine commission, recently said in
testimony before the Senate space subcommittee [2]:

   I feel it is my responsibility to advise [Congress] of our
   continuing concern about the utility of the space station if
   it proceeds as currently planned. Current proposals for space
   station Freedom suggest that it may not be of oprimum use to the
   two primary communities for which it is intended - life science
   and microgravity sciences.


[2] Avation Week, Oct. 22,1990 page 25

>+Question: Congress is mandating that Freedom's dependance on the Shuttle
>+and unrealistic launch rates end in the next redesign. Is this a political
>+or technical reason?

>Can you substantiate that statement ?   David Anderman says you are
>mistaken.  Nothing in the current session language mandated that.

Oh yes. See the above quoted Avation week article or the front page
of Space News from the same week. You will be directed to do a redesign
in 90 days to minimize dependance on Shuttle, use expendables, and
assume reasonable Shuttle launch rates.

They are recommending that you build a set of smaller modules which
can be integrated on Earth and launched in one piece. A crew-tended
microgravigy facility will be first followed by a small habitation
module, a life science module, and finally another habitation module.
I hear the Europeans are going the same route.

This will be the final form of Freedom. If you go with something much
different, Congress won't pay for it. Some will call this micromanagement
but here it is needed. To quote Thomas Paine:

   The space station project faces mounting technical problems,
   soaring costs, unrealistic dependence on regular shuttle flights
   and declining public support.

   The program's basic assumption that regularly scheduled, economical
   high capacity shuttle launchings can be counted upon is no longer
   reasonable. The current space station program is no longer endorsed
   by most scientisis and is delaying, not advancing, the Presidents
   SEI goals.

Now if this redesign happens, I would tend to support it (provided
commercial needs are met).

>Space qualifying and man-rating are not the same.  They are not
>subjective, but are clearly defined methodologies.

So tell me, what is the value of man rating when man rated systems
end up being no safer but four times as expensive as the non-man
rated ones?

>You mean they will design, build and fly twelve precursor (Gemini)
>spacecraft to develop the technology,

Yep. Those missions have already been flown (the program was called
Gemini). That knowledge didn't just erase itself you know.

>then fly five unmanned
>prototypes, then four incremental manned mission before deciding
>to GO FOR IT.....in three years and all for $ 1 B, right ?

The station flies up unmanned and inflates itself. When the
environment is OK, people go on board. What's wrong with this?

>+Yep it has. Tell me, in 90 $$ how much does an Apollo capsule
>+cost?

>The tooling for Apollo has been destroyed, and there are very few
>drawings left.  Apollo's cannot be built for all the tea in China.
>You will have to build a new  vehicle.

You didn't answer my question. How much in 90 $$ does an Apollo
CM cost? Please provide a source. After all, how can we estimate
the true cost of developing a suitable capsule without looking at
past experience?

>200 M gives you Titan-III.    Titan-IV is $ 300-400 M.

Nope. A Titan III costs $125M list (Avation Week Jan 8, 1990 page 43).
A Titan IV is less than 200M (150M according to Tech. Review).

>Shuttle estimates depend on launch rates, highest I have seen is $ 600 M.

That's on the low end of reasonable. Still three times the cost of
the Titan IV which lifts just as much.

>+Again, can you be more specific? When McDonnell Douglas says they
>+can cluster Deltas to lift a 100K pound payload for $500M in three
>+years on what do you base your belief that it can't be done? When
>+Martin Marrietta makes similar claims about the Titan, why are they
>+wrong? What error in costing did they make?
>-
>I have no doubt MDAC and Martin can deliver those.

Well I'm glad to see we did close one issue. We agree that the HLV is
a pretty low risk thing to do (otherwise you would have doubts).

>Two Titans gives a very small assembly, compared to Freedom, it gives
>you a rather expensive Skylab equivalent.

Two Titans gives you more interior room than Freedom.

>Interesting idea, unfortunately four of the five references you
>posted appear to be internal LLNL and contractor reports, which I
>cannot obtain through University of California library system.

Why not write LLNL and ask them?

>Pads 40 and 41 are already in use by USAF and commercial users.  The
>launch rates you quote require at least one new additional pad.

Yes the pads are in use. That doesn't mean they are unavailbe all
the time. According to OTA, no new pads are needed to achieve
this launch rate.

At current launch rates we have way more expendable capacity than we
have Shuttle capacity. That's why Congress in mandating the use
of expendables.

Finally, I note that Mr. Radley has not made any major points against
the LLNL approach. His only complaint, testing, is invalid because
LLNL does do testing using methodologies considered adaaquate for
Apollo. Mr. Radley has given no detailed assessment of why LLNL
testing methodology is flawed for the level of risk assumed and his
other comments indicate that he doesn't understand how the program
works.

Since I have not doubt that Mr. Radley is an honorable and intelligent
person, I would hope he would take the trouble to read up on the
LLNL approach. Read what they have published and ask them your questions.
You may be suprised at the answers.

  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    |

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #536
*******************