Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_5/V12_559.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 20KB

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/4bEszz600VcJIARk40>;
          Fri, 16 Nov 1990 02:06:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 1990 02:06:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #559

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 559

Today's Topics:
      Free flying lab (was: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery)
          Re: Reusable Boosters & Insurance
Re: The Ariane V36 failure (was Re: Ariane launches ON TIME! (again))
         T Kelso's Orbital elements in rec.ham-radio
          Re: CRAF/Cassini Update - 11/09/90
          Re: CRAF/Cassini Update - 11/09/90
        Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3)
         SSF Integrated Verification Planning
             Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery

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: 14 Nov 90 10:38:02 GMT
From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!dutrun!dutlru1!dutlru2![e-mail]  (Edwin Wisse)
Subject: Free flying lab (was: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S Schaper) writes:
>Why not let the free-flyer be the one to orbit without the thruster
>corrections, except for the ones necessary to maintain orbit, let the manned
>platform do the formation flying? That may turn out necessary for Freedom as
>ell
>to have the materials sciences on a separate platform - an expanded Columbus,

That is exactly what ESA is doing right now. Freedom does not only consist of
the permanently manned lab, it also includes a polar platform for Earth
observation and a man-tended free flyer. This man-tended free flyer is the
real microgravity lab, it docks to Freedom regularly in order to have its
experiments replaced and maintained by the Freedom crew, it can also be
visited by Hermes, as a matter of fact, its one of the reasons why ESA is
going to build a Hermes. As far as I know the free flyer (they renamed it
some time ago but I cannot remember what its called now) will only fire its
thrusters for return to Freedom, the rest of the time it will just coast.

Edwin Wisse       [e-mail]       BITNET: vlrustc@hdetud1

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

Date: 13 Nov 90 03:36:27 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Re: Reusable Boosters & Insurance

Serre, a few additional comments:

>Question:  Do Shuttle payloads require insurance?

   Answer, yes.  Commercial rates for the shuttle (based upon the
few semi-cmmerical payloads left in the shuttle manifest) run about
the same as for the Delta, and maybe a few percent less.  [The
reason for this, according to the space insurance broker I talked
to, is the successful record for Shuttle launch of payloads - and
the successful retrieval or repair of several satellites.]

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

    I also agree with this.  The primary interest for those missions
is "launch on demand".  Something the DoD has not yet been able to
achieve.

>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.

    Glen, Please!  Where'd you get that impression?  I agree with
you.  I do not have a preference for reusable BOOSTERS!  As a matter
of fact, I think a bulk cargo carrying launch systems should have an
expendable booster to reduce cost and increase system robustness.
(For a variety of reasons, which I'll skip for brevity..)

    My concern with the HLLV costs, and the discussions going on
regarding HLLVs is that they ignore some real-world "manifesting"
issues.  If we are launching lots of bulk cargos, such as hundreds
of thousands of pounds per year of propellent or bulk manufacturing
materials, then a really cheap HLLV makes a lot of economic sense.
If we are trying to launch very expensive, very complex spacecraft,
I'm not so sure that a "cheap" HLLV is the way to do.
    We need a revolution in the way payloads are built more than we
need a new HLLV.  Current transportation costs run about 20% of the
cost of a satellite program - with about 70% of the costs going into
the payload.

    There is a hidden assumption in my opinion, that high
reliability costs money, which will be reflected in the launch cost.
I will submit that we can design systems to be more reliable, and
that future systems will have higher inherent reliability at lower
cost.  However, I have a hard time believing in my guts that we can
get 99.9% reliable without some cost considerations.  Less costly
than today's systems, to be sure, but some of the current claims
using rocket technology are a bit extreme. (SSX is claiming 99.9% at
$185/lb for a manned system.... Ref: Cost Impacts of True
Spacecrafts, S. Hoeser, J.Pract. Applic. Space, Vol1. No.4)
   My feeling is the optimum mix for future space operations circa
year 2000 is a pretty reliable, expendable large booster (150Klbs to
orbit, <$300/lb, rel=.98), a space station(s) of some type for
orbital assembly and to support orbital operations, and a highly
reliable, reusable small manned system for workcrew rotation and on-
of-a-kind, very expensive payloads. (20Klbs to orbit, <$1000/lb,
rel=.999).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor



--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 14 Nov 90 18:08:16 GMT
From: microsoft![e-mail]  (Michael MRAZ)
Subject: Re: The Ariane V36 failure (was Re: Ariane launches ON TIME! (again))


I'd sure like to know what water is doing in a propulsion system.
I don't know anything about the Ariane, but I've never heard
of water used for anything other than cooling the pad or quenching
astronaut/cosmonaut thirsts. ;->  Can anyone enlighten me, please?

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

Date: 14 Nov 90 19:09:46 GMT
From: agate!shelby!msi.umn.edu!noc.MR.NET!ns![e-mail]  (John Logajan)
Subject: T Kelso's Orbital elements in rec.ham-radio

I have been informed that T Kelso continues to post his orbital
elements files in the rec.ham-radio newsgroup.

Ted Molczan also informs me that it costs him money to upload
his orbital elements files to USENET so he won't be doing it
in the foreseeable future -- although he said he would like to
and doesn't mind if anyone gets that info off a BBS and does
it themselves.

--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- [e-mail], 612-424-4888, Fax [phone]

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

Date: 14 Nov 90 22:54:06 GMT
From: unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!topgun!mustang!nntp-server.caltech.edu![e-mail]  (Evan Marshall Manning)
Subject: Re: CRAF/Cassini Update - 11/09/90

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nikhil R. Joshi  [e-mail]) writes:
>> Was the Viking lander at least partially solar powered? ...

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>No, the Viking landers (there were two) used RTGs.  The surface of Mars
>is not a good place for solar power.  You have the usual annoying problem
>of it being night half the time, but the real killer is the dust storms,
>which can cut surface illumination to nearly zero for months at a time.

Also, wouldn't solar panels act like sails in atmosphere?

***************************************************************************
Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT for so | Evan M. Manning
long.  You feel sleepy.  Notice how restful it is  |      is
to watch the cursor blink.  Close your eyes.  The  |[e-mail]
opinions stated above are yours.  You cannot       | [e-mail]
imagine why you ever felt otherwise.               | [e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Nov 90 11:43:42 GMT
From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!corton!irisa!irisa.fr![e-mail]  (Henry Thomas)
Subject: Re: CRAF/Cassini Update - 11/09/90

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Thomas) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> |> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
[deleted]
|> |> 30 minutes! Why can't we send an advanced long-life, Viking-style probe
|> |> to Titan instead?! The Viking lander was "only" about twice as heavy as the
|> |> Huygens probe will be so the lack of a powerful-enough launcher surely cannot
|> |> be the reason? Is this just because of financial considerations again, or...?
|>
|> The reason is maybe that we have NO data of the condition down there:
|>     - Is there any *solid* ground ?
|>     - pressure ?
|>     - temperature ?
|> So with no information, it seems difficult to design a long-life probe.
|> A similar(?) problem occured on Venus, where the probes Venera 11-14 lasted only a few hours. The first ones didn't reached the ground because theirs parachutes where destroyed by the acid atmosphere.
|> On mars, the informations where much more complete, because the ground had been observed by many orbital probes: it was visible.
|>
|> There was an excellent article in the ESA journal (?), some month ago about "Cassini Probe  Huygens Entry techniques" .
|>

Here are some excerpts from this article

ESA Journal  1989, vol 13 pp 175--190 "Cassini/Huygens Entry and Descent Technologies" G Scoon, G, Whitcomb, M Eiden, A. Smith

"The main objectives of the probe's mission  will  be the determination of the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the measurement of  winds and temperature  and pressure profiles from an altitude of 170 km down to the surface" ... " Althoug

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

Date: 13 Nov 90 03:41:54 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3)



>>>[Previous message about future space transportation system mix...]
>>I would suggest a shuttle-like vehicle with a on-pad abort
>>system, and Liquid Rocket Boosters.  I also think it might be
>>possible to retro-fit such a capability onto the shuttle a lot
>>cheaper than designing a new system.
>
>Perhaps. But the resulting system would still be far too expensive
>to operate in a free market.

    True, if run by the government for the bureaucracy.  But if you
are in favor of turning ELV launch operations over to private firms,
why not turn the Shuttle over to a private operation? If you could
strip the system out of the government and turn it over to an
incentive-based private organization, I think it might be worth
another look.
   Based upon my experience and analyses, I think you could
easily eliminate the top three levels of shuttle management, and at
least 30-50% of remaining personnel, which are most of the "fixed"
annual costs.  (There are 20 "Shuttle" people at KSC for each person
who touches the shuttle!)  In my estimation, this would reduce the
annual cost of operations from the current $3.5 billion to $2.0B
within 5 years.  Then, run the system like a trucking company - not
a limo.  That would allow smooth and standardized flows, and fixes
several of the recurrent bottlenecks with specialized missions
including special software loads and special training.  Among other
things, it would also remove the desire to get every last pound of
performance, which would increase operational margin, and in turn,
eliminate 25-50% of the launch delays.
  Adding LRBs would attack costs as well as operations. According to
the MMC and GD preliminary design studies for LRBs, the estimated
recurring costs for LRBs are about $5 M per flight, with about a $2
B development cost. LRBs increase reliability through engine-out on
liftoff capability and more benign failure modes.  They increase
performance by anywhere up to an added 30-50,000 pounds.   At
current SRB costs of about $30 M per flight (at 8 flt/yr rate), this
pays back at 39 flights, or between 3 and 5 years of operations.
    If we can clean house in the operations, we should be able to
get to above 12 flights per year.  Talking this over with some of
the operations research gurus at work, their numbers show you can
get up to 24 flights per year out of KSC with EXISTING facilities
and orbiters  (Note: this is merely through reducing the OPF flow
time to 40 days from the current 95 days, and eliminating the SRB
stacking bottleneck in the VAB. The LRBs eliminate the SRB stacking
bottleneck by allowing the stacking of non-fueled LRB boosters, and
the OPF bottleneck is reduced by merely eliminating the redundant
system checks to ensure the first checkout was correct.)
    Cranking all these numbers in gives $2000 M for 16 flights per
year at 65 Klbs (note: I'm allowing LOTS of margin...).  This is
about $1900/lb (annual cost), without a lot of technical, schedule,
or financial risk.
    Taking more optimistic numbers, $2000 M for 24 flights/yr at
75Klbs gives $1100 /lb.  Which is getting pretty competitive to a
$1000/lb untested HLV - and is available at about the same technical
risk and cost.
    Whether or not this is the best way to go, I'm not sure.  But I
think it deserves a good look along with looks at commercializing
other launch operations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                                 Space technology Investor



--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 13 Nov 90 03:43:51 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: SSF Integrated Verification Planning

Allan, you had asked how SSF was going to perform their design
verification work.  Coincidently, I ran across a description of the
process in the 6 Nov "Aerospace Daily".

   Fundamentally, the NASA SSF program relies on end-to-end testing
of high-fidelity replicas on the ground (which is standard industry
practise).  While the general outlines of the verification process
are established, the exact test procedures and verification
activities are still being planned, according to Marc Bensimon,
deputy manager for Space Station Freedom programs and operations.
   Present plans call for two separate SSF verification facilities.
An avionics facility similar to the Shuttle Avionics Integration
Laboratory (SAIL) in Houston will verify electronic hardware and
software systems, while a "stage integration facility" will test
physical interfaces and interactions among SSF hardware elements.
   After the flight elements are verified as functional in before-
launch tests using these facilities, a replica of each Station
element would be installed in one facility to obtain a complete end-
to-end simulator. (Which one would be cheaper to upgrade to the
continuing end-to-end simulator is still being studied.) Under this
"backfill" approach, "That replica can be a high fidelity prototype,
or it can be an engineering model, or it can be a suitable
representation of that first piece," Bensimon said. "That's
something you've got to determine on a piece by piece basis...and
you run the same kind of test on the replica as you do on the flight
piece itself. That gives you a validation of the replica."
   In addition to testing how well Station elements work together,
the two ground facilities will also help plan upgrades and work
around problems that develop once the Station is orbited. Bensimon
said. "If we're successful, to me the best sign of success on the
Space Station is that 15 years from now you're doing things on it
that today you hadn't imagined yet...So if that's the case, you're
going to be changing an awful lot of things on the Space Station and
a lot of the software is going to change."
   Bensimon said the ground-based verification activities will be
supplemented with microgravity experiments on Station elements that
will behave differently on the ground and in space. "Anything that's
got a phase change in it, where you go from a liquid to a gas, those
kind of things you can develop a process on the ground and try it on
the ground, but the gravity effects, because of the buoyancy of the
gases and so on, (are) difficult to simulate on the ground," he
said. "...We'll do as much ground development as we can, but
eventually you're going to have to prove it out in flight."
   "There is an effort in the program to identify where we feel
flight tests are necessary," Bensimon said. "Some of them they're
going to be doing KC-135 zero-G flights, and they're going to be
doing some Spacelab experiments and so on."
   Bensimon said verification planning is going on throughout the
Space Station program, with integration contractor Grumman
responsible for the overall job and "significant efforts" underway
at the various work package contractors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                          Space Technology Investor



--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 14 Nov 90 04:07:06 GMT
From: pilchuck!amc-gw!thebes!polari![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Subject: Re: LLNL Astronaut Delivery


+Why not let the free-flyer be the one to orbit without the thruster
+corrections, except for the ones necessary to maintain orbit, let the manned
+platform do the formation flying?
-
VERY heavy on propellant, current Freedom weight budget does not allow
for that amount of propellant consumption.  Manouvering a 250 tons
ship takes a lot more propellant than for a 5 ton free-flyer.
Freedom has a sever weight problem, and that concept cannot be
accomodated.

+That may turn out necessary for Freedom as well
+to have the materials sciences on a separate platform - an expanded Columbus,
+and let the manned platform do the biological experiments and have the SEI
+and OMV's to service the Columbus and EOS platforms.
-
Ahem, OMV was cancelled......
SEI means Space Exploration Initiative, and makes no sense in the
context you used it.....you must mean something else...what ?


+Perhaps an LLNL spun
+section could be added to the station. Even sent up first to house astronauts
+for construction phase? Thoughts, as this is also problematic.
-
why does anybody need a spinning  station ? They are a pain in the neck.

+Could Hermes be launched from an upgraded Titan IV (LRB's)? We could purchase
+some for crew transfer, freeing the aging shuttle fleet for what it does best.
-
Titan-IV has a heavy backlog, and is not available for anything.
Latest NASA thinking on ELVs, according to Space News, would be to
consider use of Atlas or Delta.  Titan-IV is not in the running.
Hermes is designed to be launched on Ariane, and those will certainly
be available.

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #559
*******************