Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_5/V12_564.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/QbFBwiG00VcJEBpU5g>;
          Sat, 17 Nov 1990 01:56:46 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 1990 01:56:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #564

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 564

Today's Topics:
              Computers On Orbit
              Magellan Update - 11/15/90
               Re: New Shuttle Engines
             Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations
              Re: SPACE Digest V12 #546
      Low inclinations [was Re: STS 38 Observation Guide (Long)]
        Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3)
         Mysterious Lights over Europe on 5 November
               Re: New Shuttle Engines
         Re: STS 38 Observation Guide (Long)

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: 15 Nov 90 05:30:09 GMT
From: uokmax!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!am.dsir.govt.nz!dsiramd!marcamd!mercury!kcbbs![e-mail]  (George Muzyka)
Subject: Computers On Orbit

I am wondering just what is being planned in the way of computer
workstation activities for when Freedom gets operational.
It was delightful to hear on VOA about 2 and one half years ago that
several leading U.S. computer (and related) companies were selected
for developing significant parts of the Space Station.

With the noticeable trimmings off Freedom's near-term budget I'm really
hoping the computer hardware and software plans for Freedom are not
being hit too hard. A lot of join effort is suppose to be going into
those computer specific applications, right? So here's a couple of questions
that came to mind:
1. How do you consider the choice of what storage medium/media that
   they will need to use? And if the hard disk drive is still going
   to be a main source of secondary storage, then wouldn't there be
   the possibility that those hard drives will have some advantages
   in microgravity? More precision, more data storage? Correct me if
   I'm wrong - there's only been a laptop along when there's an active
   Ham on a Shuttle flight. Shouldn't there be at least a Student
   Experiment testing and demonstrating how common all garden computer
   parts can perform up there on orbit? How about a compact HDD in one
   of those SE cannisters accompanied by some interfacing board demonstrating
   its part.
   Or if Freedom astronauts expect to be using networked workstations
   (IBM and MD's newer line of Unix stations maybe) - then we better
   start understanding how it can possibly work up there in those non-standard
   conditions. Why not test out a small system's Unix aboard the Shuttle,
   and link up with Usenet. Eh?! Give us a whole new ballgame of figures
   to crunch on and dream up newer generation logistical machines that
   will last out those conditions and exploit them.

2. The network of ground-based radar and optical satellite tracking
   as you may know needs a new boost, we have the need for higher
   resolution and just simply more quicker response object tracking
   and detection. Shouldn't the Space Station take a leading role in
   setting up that hoped for new general of space tracking. So I wonder
   what plans are at the moment in that area. All those iddy-biddy bits
   of debris items that really need to be detected before there are
   collisions with great Americans and great Soviets building up their
   new generation stations for their business work, now that the
   setting up costs are virtually a thing of the past. Some might disagree.
   :-) $$$$$$$$
   I look forward to the new generation of NORAD/NASA/... tracking,
   but rumour has it that they are having trouble getting the funding
   for it. :-( Maybe Freedom can bring about a spinoff in that domain.

Well over to you, the experts...

PS - The tail of this message is not necessarily the opinion of yours
truly. We have no idea what to replace it with. :-(


 |  /                  /~~                Public Unix BBS 24hrs | Ban French
 |_/ /\  |~\ |~\ /\   |   |~ | | /~ | (~  Auckland  NEW ZEALAND | nuclear
 | \ \,\ |,/ |,/ \,\  |   |  |_| \_ | _)  KC BBS: 09-817-3714   | testing in
 |  \    |   |         \__                Voice:  09-817-5569   | Pacific

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

Date: 15 Nov 90 23:55:31 GMT
From: julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 11/15/90


                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                          November 15, 1990

     The Magellan project experienced the third loss-of-signal incident
shortly after 9:00 am PST today, when the Magellan spacecraft failed to
return to earth communications after the mapping pass of orbit #825.  The
S-band signal was reacquired about 40 minutes later, and engineering
telemetry indicated that the control system had detected a "heartbeat loss"
similar to the incidents in August.

     The spacecraft had switched some components, such as the gyros designated
as primary, but was continuing to execute its command sequence.

     Telemetry signal levels indicate that the high gain antenna is off earth
point by 1-1/2 to 2 degrees.  This is beyond the limits of the high rate
X-band communications, so we are not able to receive the radar data being
played back by the spacecraft.

     At 9:58 am PST the spacecraft performed a star calibration, but the update
would have been rejected because the 1-1/2 degree correction is greater that
the bounds set within the attitude control system.  The innovation bound will
be set higher in conjunction with a ground command to update the spacecraft's
onboard quaternion, so that the next STARCAL (star calibration) will correct
the spacecraft attitude and the exact pointing of the high gain antenna.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 15 Nov 90 02:48:56 GMT
From: m2c!wpi.WPI.EDU![e-mail]  (MEGAZONE 23)
Subject: Re: New Shuttle Engines

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Cronau/10000) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>The definitive Shuttle C proposal wanted to use life-expired shuttle engines

What is the status of the Shuttle-C program now?
>I can understand why reviving the Saturn program would be damn near impossible,
>but what problems were encountered with reviving just the F-1 engine program?

I heard that NASA 'lost' the plans to the F1 and that the private companies
that are interested in the engine are going through the long a tiring process
of reverse engineering one. Seems the plans were lost during the early stage
of shuttle development, around the time officials were looking at dumb
boosters again. hmmmm.

###############################################################################
#  "Calling Garland operator 7G," EVE           Email [e-mail]    #
# MEGAZONE, aka DAYTONA, aka BRIAN BIKOWICZ     Bitnet Use a gateway. Sorry.  #
###############################################################################

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

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 12:38:11 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]> Mr. Radley writes:
>+Since it will cost several hundred million $$ to do a rotation, this
>+is a major consideration.

>US Law allows radiation dose up to 3 rem per calendar quarter for any worker
>(29 CFR 1910.96 (b)) provided the lifetime dose is not exceeded.

From memory, the dose on the LLNL Earth Station is on the order of 3 to 5
rems per year. Far less than the Freedom dose. They orbit lower in the
atmosphere and also have a water lined "storm shelter" to go to in case
it gets too intense during periods of high solar activity.

>LLNL is presumably governed by AEC and/or DOE and State of California
>radiation regulations which may be different, probably more stringent.

They are well within the limits. One thing DoE labs know a LOT about
is radiation.

>This may determine rotation times, rather than 0-g, and would negate the
>benefit of artifical G.

Nope.

>If 90 days is the limit, no point in spinning the station.

Other than the valuable experience of seeing if artificial G works and
finding out how much is needed. If we are going to have people living
on the moon, it would be nice to know how they react to long periods of
lunar G. Another benifit is that we shave billions off life cycle costs
by rotating (pun unintended) crews less often.

Why don't you think reducing life cycle cost by a couple of billion
is a good idea?

>  Going off-line, this will be my last post until ca 27 Nov,
>flamethrowers please note.   I shall return  O<~

Have a good Thanksgiving.

  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: Thu, 15 Nov 90 12:08:31 EST
From: AERE6978 <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V12 #546

  SIGNOFF Space

    Jason Bloomfield    AERE6978@RYERSON

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

Date: 14 Nov 90 13:50:38 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Nick Watkins)
Subject: Low inclinations [was Re: STS 38 Observation Guide (Long)]

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Ted Molczan):
> At first thought it appears absurd that a U.S. imaging reconsat would be
> placed in a low inclination orbit.  However, a case can be made for doing so.
> In the past, the U.S.S.R. and China were the primary reconnaissance targets,
> which necessitated the use of high inclination orbits.  Early U.S. reconsats
> used 70 deg to 80 deg inclination orbits.
It has been done before, but at 60 degrees not 30 or so. See the discussion
of LTTAT Agena launch of 22 July 1972 in Curtis Peebles' book
"Guardians", where  he links this launch to Mid East ceasefire
observations. Other launches of this type of satellite were into the
higher inclination orbits that Ted mentions. Plus ca change ...


Nick
--

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

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 08:46:53 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reliability and Insurance (3 of 3)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]> Wales Larrison writes:
>>>I would suggest a shuttle-like vehicle with a on-pad abort
>>>system, and Liquid Rocket Boosters....

>>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?

Sounds very good to me. Don't misunderstand me, I am in favor of what
works. You won't find me rejecting anything just because it uses
the 'wrong technology'. If it gets us up there cheaper I'll like it.

>   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.

I suspect that is true.

>(There are 20 "Shuttle" people at KSC for each person
>who touches the shuttle!)

Why am I not suprised?

>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.

That will get you to six to eight flights a year at a cost of
$333 to $250M a flight (ignoring amortization of development and
replacement).

>  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.

This translates to a savings of $25M per flight. After 39 flights
you will save 25M * 39M = 975M. Still less than the 2B development
cost. On the other hand, the Shuttle would lift twice as much so
it may balance out on cost/pound. However, it looks like this does
not factor in the cost of money. Is this correct?

>    If we can clean house in the operations, we should be able to
>get to above 12 flights per year...

I'll accept this as 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.

Again, this sounds reasonable to me.

>    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.

I'll accept that cost and risk of each is within a factor of two
(which is pretty close for this sort of thing) but I still consider
the HLV's to be of less risk.

However, wiht crew the system you describe would lift more than
some of the HLV options so it sounds good to me if it will work.

I know Rockwell was considering a Commercial Shuttle a while back.
Do you know why they abandoned the idea? With these changes it sounds
like a very viable option. You should write up some white papers
and send them to Congress.

>    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.

Agreed.

BTW, thanks for this post. It was very enlightening.

  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: Thu, 15 Nov 90 11:30:05 AST
From: LANG <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]>
Subject: Mysterious Lights over Europe on 5 November

According to the Associated Press, mysterious lights observed by
thousands of people in the night sky over France on the evening of
5 November came from pieces of a Soviet rocket re-entering the
atmosphere.  Quoting French and U.S. space agencies, AP stated that
the rocket had been used to launch a telecommunications satellite on
3 October.

================================================================================
 Richard B. Langley                            BITnet: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
 Geodetic Research Laboratory                  Phone:  [phone]
 Dept. of Surveying Engineering                Telex:  014-46202
 University of New Brunswick                   FAX:    [phone]
 Fredericton, N.B., Canada  E3B 5A3
================================================================================

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

Date: 15 Nov 90 17:33:18 GMT
From: csus.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: New Shuttle Engines

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (MEGAZONE 23) writes:
>>>The definitive Shuttle C proposal wanted to use life-expired shuttle engines
>
>What is the status of the Shuttle-C program now?

Stalled, pending funding.  It doesn't help that a whole lot of irrelevancies
got loaded in on top of the basic Shuttle C design in the funding plan.  It
would almost make you think that somebody didn't want it to succeed...
--
"I don't *want* to be normal!"         | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry."                        |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 15 Nov 90 20:04:34 GMT
From: isis!scicom![e-mail]  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: STS 38 Observation Guide (Long)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ted Molczan) writes:
>
>                       STS 38 Visual Observation Guide
> It is assumed that the inclination will be 28.45 deg as reported by AV WEEK.

I'll be watching for a longer than usual roll immediately after shuttle
liftoff indicating a larger inclination.

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #564
*******************