Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V12_5/V12_580.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 21KB

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/YbGBmg200VcJQGBU4i>;
          Tue, 20 Nov 1990 02:35:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <EbGBlv600VcJAG=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 1990 02:34:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #580

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 580

Today's Topics:
             space news from Aug 13 AW&ST
            Magellan Update #2 - 11/19/90
          Ariane Launch Manifest (Nov. 1990)
        Estimated Visual Magnitude of Freedom and LLNL
      Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations, and falling off of.
                 Re: Goddard
                LLNL, Freedom

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: 18 Nov 90 22:25:58 GMT
From: wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Aug 13 AW&ST

[I'm not *quite* as far behind as the date would suggest.  This is from
a copy of the space-related parts of the Aug 13 issue, kindly supplied
by Nick Watkins after the Post Orifice ate my copy of that issue.]

Cover:  Japan, imaged by Japan's MOS-1 Marine Observation Satellite.

ESA awards Dornier contract for ERS-2, the successor to Europe's first
Earth-resources satellite.  ERS-1 is ready for launch, slated for Ariane
in April.  ERS-2 will probably go up in 1994, when ERS-1's nominal life
ends.

Space Commerce Corp proposes commercial launches of Proton from Florida,
anticipating new government space policy which reportedly will permit
such things subject to negotiation of fair pricing "rules of the road".

JSC to build very large pool for free-fall simulation of space station
assembly; construction will start late this year and end in mid-1993.

Congress is pushing for a top-to-bottom reassessment of SDI, after
imposing deep cuts in the FY91 budget request and explicitly rejecting
development and testing of Brilliant Pebbles.

DoD audit finds that USAF overstated costs in a 1988 analysis of buying
satellite parts directly from subcontractors instead of via the prime
contractor.  The USAF analysis said it would cost more that way; the
auditors say it would have cost less.

US military dispatches communications teams to Saudi Arabia to set up
satellite ground stations.  At least one DSCS-3 military comsat has been
shifted to give better Gulf coverage.  It is also alleged that at least
one Defense Support Program missile-warning satellite has been moved to
watch the Gulf area for tactical-missile launches.

Schedule for the GOES-Next Clarke-orbit weather satellites jeopardized
by mirror problems.  [Unrelated, repeat unrelated, to Hubble's.]  The
two main imaging mirrors were found, in thermal vacuum tests, to have
a tendency to warp in temperature extremes.  The design was extrapolated
from smaller mirrors in earlier satellites, and it appears that the
computer analysis used was oversimplified.  There were hints of trouble
starting last year, but the early test hardware had other problems and
only recently was a mirror problem definitely implicated.  Solutions
are being investigated; it might be possible to reinforce the mirrors
without having to redesign them.  NOAA is anxious to keep GOES-Next on
schedule for first launch early in 1992, because only one GOES satellite
of the current generation is still operational and it will be getting
old by then; even now there are problems, because two operational birds
are really needed for full coverage.

GOES-Next development problems continue to cause friction between NOAA
and NASA [the subcontractor].  There has been a substantial cost overrun,
which NOAA blames on NASA incompetence and NASA blames partly on NOAA
specification changes, and a major schedule overrun (originally the first
GOES-Next was supposed to be aloft by now).

HST inquiry tentatively identifies mirror flaw as due to defective null
corrector used for measurements in manufacturing.

Magellan loses one of its gyros July 20, annoying but not disastrous.

Long set of articles on the Japanese space program in general and the
development of the H-2 (Japan's Titan/Ariane-class booster) in particular.
The H-2 and other big projects are done by NASDA.  The science agency,
ISAS, is much smaller, and prefers to stay that way to maintain its
efficiency and continuity.  ISAS's current projects are an uprated
version of its solid-fuel booster (dubbed the M-5, roughly Atlas-class)
and a lunar probe carrying multiple surface penetrators.  NASDA, however,
is talking about getting into the science business with a Mars orbiter
to be launched by H-2 in 1999.

Misubishi leads coalition of Japanese companies in forming Rocket System
Corp, to commercialize aspects of H-2 operations.  There is no immediate
intent to offer H-2 services commercially, and indeed there is doubt of
whether it would ever be price-competitive, but commercial participation
is expected to permit useful economies, like buying boosters in substantial
lots (which NASDA cannot do within Japan's government budgeting practices).

H-2 engine problems continue, and NASDA has tentatively decided to reduce
first-stage thrust somewhat to go easier on the engines.  The possibility
of adding a third SRB to compensate for this is being studied.

Studies underway on doubling the size of the HOPE unmanned-spaceplane
project, from 10 tons to 20.  This would require an uprated H-2 with six
SRBs rather than two, or liquid strap-ons of some sort, but would quadruple
the cargo load that could be carried to the space station.  HOPE first
flight is still set for 1997, assuming major funding comes through (the
decision is theoretically imminent, although it may be postponed until
the H-2 is out of trouble).

NASA refuses to sell NASDA hypersonic wind-tunnel time for HOPE development
work, citing technology transfer.  NASDA will buy tunnel time from US
commercial firms and from France instead.

SDI interceptor test vehicle flies a 14-second hangar test, including
locking its sensors onto a satellite passing overhead.  The test was
similar to one flown last year, but the satellite tracking was new and
so was the fact that the test vehicle only weighed about 15kg.
--
"I don't *want* to be normal!"         | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
"Not to worry."                        |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 19 Nov 90 21:21:04 GMT
From: mintaka!think.com!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update #2 - 11/19/90


                          MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                           November 19, 1990

     The Magellan spacecraft has sent back images of some unusual features
on the surface of Venus.  The most intriguing image is one showing what
looks like seven pancakes, that was apparently formed by a series of
oozing volcanic eruptions.  Each "pancake" volcano measures about 15 miles
in diameter and are about 2500 feet tall, and are near perfect circular
symmetry.  The volcanoes are clustered near each into three groups, with
two pair of volanoes overlapping each other, and the third group having
three overlapping volcanoes.

     The image of Maxwell Montes, the highest mountain on Venus at about 7
miles, has what appears to be snow covering it sides.  However, with a
surface temperature of 700 degrees Fahrenheit, it is very unlikely that snow
or ice would form on Venus.  Clues of the composition of the surface can
be obtained from the radar emission, and the the radar emission from
the areas covered by the "snow" has indicated that the snow may be iron
pyrite, also known as fool's gold.

     Images of horseshoe shaped formations were also sent back by Magellan,
which are considered to be unique in the solar system.  It has been
speculated that these horseshoe shapes were formed by material being
deposited from vaporized ejecta from incoming meteorites, which were
caught in the planetary winds high up in the atmosphere and later deposited
on the surface.

     Enormous riverbeds were also seen winding their way through hills,
resembling those seen on Earth.  However, unlike the rivers on Earth,
it is thought that the rivers on Venus were rivers of molten lava that burned
its way into the surface as it flowed for hundreds of miles.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   Jet Propulsion Lab | [e-mail]
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  M/S 301-355        |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/   Pasadena, CA 91109 |

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

Date: 19 Nov 90 02:17:55 GMT
From: usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!news.nd.edu!laotse![e-mail]
Subject: Ariane Launch Manifest (Nov. 1990)

Here is the Ariane launch manifest that was published in the October 1990
issue of Spaceflight. I will try to post any other manifests I can obtain
on Ariane, Delta, Atlas, Titan, and other launch vehicles from around the
world.

Flight    Date       Vehicle   Payload
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 V40    20 Nov. 90   Ar 44P    Satcom C1, Gstar 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 V41    15 Jan. 91   Ar 44L    Eutelsat II-F2, Italsat 1
 V42       Feb. 91   Ar 44LP   Astra 1B, MOP-2
 V43       Mar. 91   Ar 44P    Anik E1
 V44       Apr. 91   Ar 40     ERS-1, Datasat X, Tubsat, Uosat F, SARA
 V45       Jun. 91   Ar 44L    Intelsat VI-F5
 V46       Jul. 91   Ar 44LP   Eutelsat II-F3, Inmarsat II-F3
 V47       Sep. 91   Ar 44P    Anik E2
 V48       Oct. 91   Ar 44L    Intelsat VI-F1
 V49       Nov. 91   Ar 44L    Superbird E, Inmarsat II-F4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:
1) The payloads for V46 and V47 may swap.
2) In V49, Superbird E has a relaunch priority. Telecom 2A may
   substitute for the V49 payload.

--
Steven Pietrobon, [e-mail]
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA

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

Date: 18 Nov 90 14:51:38 GMT
From: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]  (S Schaper)
Subject: Estimated Visual Magnitude of Freedom and LLNL

What might the EVM's of these two be if and when constructed?

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

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

Date: 18 Nov 90 14:51:37 GMT
From: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]  (S Schaper)
Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations, and falling off of.

Tethers. another KISS technology. OH, I like the MMU, but we need 50 ft/sec
delta-v for recovery. and it would have to do this how many times per EVA?
But, if you tether your astronauts to the ladder, and tether the tools to
something like their suits, when you drop a hammer :-), you can pick it up,
like you can on the ground, and if the astronaut slips, he can recover the
ladder. More than once per EVA if he or she is particularly clumsy, or it is a
difficult reach to fix whatever, or whatever.
   But 4rpms??? I'd rather see no more than one, but even that is going to be
dizzying for a lot of people.

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 11:15:36 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Goddard


>                        THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF
>                THE ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF THE ATLANTIC
>                    Volume 2, Number 4 - November 1990
>    Copyright (c) 1990 by the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic.

>                            MAD FOR THE STARS:
>                    VISIONS OF ASTROUTOPIAE, PART ONE
>                            by Craig M. Levin

>      ... Despite having constructed and flown actual rockets, though,
>    continued skepticism and apathy towards the dream of spaceflight
>    eventually led Goddard to take his rocket research from New England
>    and transplant it in the vast arid spaces of New Mexico, where his
>    work could grow in relative privacy.

I was under the impression that the continued crashes and explosions which
terrified the neighbors and alarmed the authorities also had something to
do with the move.
     John Roberts
     [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 19 Nov 90 15:52:41 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: LLNL, Freedom


>Date: 2 Nov 90 18:27:27 GMT
(SPACE Digest was down for a week, then our machine was broken for a week)
>From: mips!sdd.hp.com!samsung!umich!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!fmeed1![e-mail]  (Russ Cage)
>Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap (if NASA builds it)

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
>...
>>Don't you think LLNL will go through similar cost increases as
>>reality starts to dawn, and the magnitude of the task is truly
>>appreciated ?
>"Reality dawning" assumes that some difficult-to-rectify mistakes
>have been made.  Fred is going through this with the EVA problem.
>I think it is a bit presumptuous to assume that LLNL will make the
>same mistakes as today's NASA; they're more like Von Braun's NASA.

While I like the LLNL proposal, and admire its daring and innovation, I
believe they're getting a tremendous amount of mileage out of the fact
that so much of what they plan to use doesn't exist yet or hasn't been tried
yet. Future boosters are always stronger, cheaper, and more reliable than
existing ones, and their development is always going to be cheap and fast,
with no mistakes. Unforeseen problems never arise, or they can be "allowed
for". It's like a political campaign between a brash new challenger and an
experienced incumbent. The challenger can make all sorts of outrageous
promises that the incumbent can't honestly make, because of previous
experience in how difficult it is to fulfill such promises.

For a single example, consider dealings with contractors - LLNL obviously
is never going to hire a contractor careless enough to contaminate a fuel
system with glass spheres from another project, or to use a carefully
calibrated measurement device incorrectly. NASA would like to make the same
claim, but they can't, because they know it's happened in the past, and is
likely to happen again.

In this context, the LLNL proposal reminds me of the earliest NASA, when the
world was new, everything was going to be great, and the first three or four
launches blew up. After that, NASA decided to concentrate on cautious design
and quality control, and the record was greatly improved. Sure LLNL is going
to pull some real blunders. However, I think they still deserve a chance, or
more likely two chances, because they can build one, lose it, build a second
one, have 2X cost overruns, and still come out at a pretty good overall price
for what looks like a useful station. The possible applicability of the
technology to future efforts such as a lunar base or Mars vehicle/colony
is also attractive.

>...If LLNL has allowed enough extra in the launch-weight budgets
>for replacements, the premature deterioration of the batteries
>or solar panels would be dealt with by replacing them.  The
>older, heavier, previously-qualified hardware could be used
>for such replacements.  If replacement is not required, a
>newer, lighter, cheaper technology is qualified by default
>and at a cost savings.

Based on Allen's quote from the report, the question was not about the choice
of chemical reaction, but about the form of containment, therefore basically
a safety and reliability issue. To evaluate whether this is a valid concern,
one must know (a) whether a containment problem would merely affect the
performance of the power storage system, or whether a leak/explosion could
directly threaten station and crew, and (b) if the problem were only one of
reliability of the power supply, exactly what the impact would be of a loss
or degradation of the power supply. And of course all of this information
should be integrated with the calculated probability of such events taking
place. I definitely do not have enough information to make a judgement on
this issue. (Anybody?)

The fact that the LLNL reply to this comment ignored the issue to the point
of oblivion is the most disconcerting thing I've seen in the LLNL proposal.
I hope it was just a poor choice of wording. They might have calculated that
any additional risk from the changed packaging was acceptably small, but the
wording implied they were not even aware there was a question. And the
car-battery reference was unfortunate.

>...So put Fred on hold.  It's certain that the time can be used
>to fix some of the nasty design problems (excessive EVA, etc.)
>which have surfaced.  The more of these which are fixed before
>metal is bent, the better and cheaper the result will be if it
>turns out that it is indeed the better choice.

A complete hold is not necessary. Adjustments can be made in level of effort
(annual expenditure) for the two projects based on the amount of progress
they appear to be making. This would be a hedge against either approach
proving to be unworkable.

>...Again, an odd statement.  It has been shown that another launch
>moratorium such as the one following Challenger would cause the
>re-entry of Fred, er, Freedom.  Yet management has closed its
>eyes and prayed that this will not happen.  Tell us, Charles,
>just what are NASA/Boeing planning to do to prevent the re-entry
>of Freedom in the case of the Shuttle being grounded again?

The long grounding after Challenger was the result of a concatenation of
events and conditions that would be a valid topic for an extremely long
discourse, and hopefully this will never recur to the same extent.
In addition, I believe one of the requirements of the new design is that
Freedom be able to survive several years without a visit. Also, if it were
a question of a slight risk to a $1-2 billion shuttle to save a $30 billion
station from certain destruction, I suspect even Congress might be willing
to go along with it.

>NASA seems to have no fallback position in case of a failure.
>This means that the total probability of success is the
>product of all the sub-project successes; one failure means
>the entire project fails.

This is the press's view of the reaction of Congress to the assertion by
NASA that given the projected reliability of the Shuttle and the total number
of launches over the 30-year lifetime of Freedom, the loss of at least one
orbiter would be highly likely, as shown by simple high school math (which,
unfortunately, seems to be beyond the capability of much of the press and
Congress). It is not NASA's view of what should be done. I have never heard
a NASA spokesman declare "oh sure, if we lost an orbiter we'd want to cancel
the station right then, there'd be no point in going on". NASA would be
perfectly happy to get another orbiter and a replacement station segment -
it's the public, the press, and Congress who might chicken out. LLNL, while
seeking to improve reliability of the launch (at least), is willing to take
pretty significant risks in other areas, and will need periodic launches for
resupply and crew rotation. Somehow they feel confident that this same public,
press, and Congress are going to approve of their risk-taking. I wish them
luck - changing these heretofore-fixed attitudes toward risk would be a boon
to all of space exploration.

>Russ Cage    Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department
>Work:  itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage   (CHATTY MAIL NOT ANSWERED HERE)
>Home:  [e-mail]  (All non-business mail)

Which, unfortunately, does not seem to be reachable by my machine. Any
alternate paths?

      John Roberts
      [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V12 #580
*******************