Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_0/V13_091.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/UbdxeYe00WBwA21U4w>;
          Thu, 31 Jan 91 03:51:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 03:51:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #091

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 13 : Issue 91

Today's Topics:
               Re: Firm Fred Decisions
              Re: I know who you are...
      Re: Weekly World News publishes Challenger tape transcript
           Re: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST
        Re: Fred (was Re: Firm Fred Decisions)
    Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST)
             Pioneer 11 Update - 01/25/91
       Re: Interest in Commerical Space news ? (1 of 4)
    Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jan 91 13:50:00 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!engine.engin.umich.edu![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions

[e-mail] (Ron Graham) writes:
>
>Here is what's happening with Fred, as we have just heard it:
>
>o  the budget is now for man-tended capability (MTC) only;
>o  the Flight Telerobotic Servicer (FTS) is no longer in the program,
>   and, therefore, Work Package (WP) 03 is also out;
>o  First Element Launch (FEL) is now scheduled for 09/95, with four
>   other launches (10/95, 03/96, 06/96, and 09/96) to get to MTC;
>o  no more than four launches per year;
>o  a lab module will exist only at MTC;
>o  there will be no habitation module or nodes: the Shuttle will dock
>   directly to the lab, serving as your hab module while docked;
>o  18.75 kW of power only;
>o  command and control in the lab;
>o  no permanently-manned capability (PMC) equipment or growth planned;
>o  Delta PDR *may* be held in 08/91;
>o  WP-04 (that's Lewis Research Center) will share an SDP (I'm sorry: I
>   don't know that acronym) with WP-02.
>
>Posted without comment by RG

   It seems you've heard wrong.

   Apparently your source misunderstood what s/he saw/heard. Although
   some of the items on the list are _almost_ 'firm fred decision', e.g.
   FTS has been reduced to 'technology development' status (see the most
   recent Space News for more up to date info on FTS) the rest of your
   list is for the most part 'bogus'...no offense.


--
===============================================================================
 Ken Sheppardson                                  Email: [e-mail]
 Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office   Phone: [phone]
 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA         FAX:   [phone]
===============================================================================

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

Date: 25 Jan 91 16:43:50 GMT
From: eagle![e-mail]  (James Fincannon)
Subject: Re: I know who you are...

I called the number and a recording informed me that due
to public misunderstanding of the intent of the CD-ROM
it was no longer being offered for sale.

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

Date: 25 Jan 91 18:06:00 GMT
From: rochester!sol![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Weekly World News publishes Challenger tape transcript


Personally, I'm rather skeptical -- considering that this is the same
illustrious journal which regularly publishes stories about vampire
babies and statues of Elvis on Mars.  If this transcript had been
published in the New York Times or the Washington Post, I might
believe it -- after all, if you were going to leak this stuff, would
you choose a supermarket tabloid?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Date: 25 Jan 91 09:29:51 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Cornutt) writes:
>[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>Had NASA been up front with the risks and run a better operation the
>>Chalanger disaster PR fallout wouldn't have been that bad. After all,
>>Apollo 1 didn't come close to killing Apollo.
>
>Yes, it did.  At the time, there were a number of calls in Congress to
>kill the program; the speeches sounded almost exactly like what we
>hear today ("we need to spend money here on Earth instead of throwing
>it away in space", etc.).  The program was more or less shut down
>for about two years.  Only a renewed Cold-War threat of the evil
>Russkies (:-) getting ahead of us saved it.

The basic problem with this rebuttal is that "a number of calls in
Congress" is NOT the same thing as coming "close to killing Apollo"!
There have been "a number of calls in Congress" for everything from
impeaching Presidents to creating National Rutebaga Day.  That doesn't
make it happen.  Congress is a place for debating what to do.  You have
to expect to hear from advocates of positions that ultimately won't be
adopted.  This is something I wish these Congress-bashers (not including
David in that group) understood, instead of flying off the handle at any
anti-NASA floor speech as if it proved the whole institution
untrustworthy.

There is little comparison between 1986 and 1967.  Apollo had a sharply
etched goal and a powerful opponent to race against, so that the
question "why go on" had a short and salesworthy answer.  Apollo also
had Lyndon's backing: as long as he wanted that mission done and was
willing to go to bat for it, it was going to happen.  In contrast,
Shuttle had only the most murkily defined mission in 1986 as now; even
the entities who needed it were on record as disliking it.  The argument
more or less boiled down to "it's all we have left."  And no powerful
political patron had gone to bat for NASA in fifteen years: left to
thread its own way through the Beltway minefield, the Agency staggered
Willy Loman-like from customer to customer -- hyping electrophoresis,
talking up SDI, cooking crystal after crystal for dubious industrialists
with Ariane brochures on their desks.

Had NASA been able to demonstrate that the Challenger deaths were
unavoidable and unforeseeable, that there was something vital at stake
worth the risk, and that a forthright, honorable Agency was willing to
tell us everything it knew and do everything possible to learn from the
tragedy, prevent its recurrence and generally ensure that the deaths
were not in vain, then it might not have suffered years of well-deserved
shame.  Unfortunately, that's an unrealistic expectation for the
particular survivalist bureaucracy NASA had become.

--
"DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT blow the hatch!"  /)\   Tom Neff
"Roger....hatch blown!"                   \(/   [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jan 91 21:03:26 GMT
From: idacrd![e-mail]  (Robert McGwier)
Subject: Re: Fred (was Re: Firm Fred Decisions)

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Ronald E. Graham):
> By the way, if you folks in this group were calling Space Station Freedom
> "Fred" before, does that mean we have to call it "Ed" now?  Just asking.
>
> RG



It is beginning to remind me MORE and more of Mister Ed.  I do NOT know
why the American taxpayer, along with the European Space Agency, the
Japanese Space Agency, etc. should wish to bother.  We had more with
Skylab.

Bob

--
____________________________________________________________________________
    My opinions are my own no matter    |    Robert W. McGwier, N4HY
    who I work for! ;-)            |    CCR, AMSAT, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 15:32:14 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]>:

>>We use Soyuz. We mount it on a Delta for 20% the cost of a Shuttle...

>I think you're underestimating the difficulty in mating these two
>completely different animals.

I doubt it would be that hard (but am open to authorative correction).
To mate the Soyuz with the rest of the launcher just involves bending
metal and some electrical connections. Some expensive modifications may
be needed in the launch tower but those would be one time only.

>Ever try making an IBM and a Mac
>work together?

Me? No, but I know people who have :-)

>>[Stuff about ELV and shuttle success rates deleted]

>BOTH success rates are impressive. I don't think anyone can accurately
>say that the shuttle is exactly 1.7% more dangerous than ELVs. There's
>too much guesswork.

I agree. The reasonable conclusion is that both are about equally safe.
Now the question still remains: why are we doubling the price of our
hardware when it adds nothing to safety?

>If we don't learn to operate shuttles, we'll be lauching atop ELVs
>forever.

Not forever, only until the market provides a better solution. That
won't happen until a market exists.

Besides, what makes you think we are learning to operate Shuttles?
In the last ten years Shuttle costs per launch have gone UP not down.

>The NASP program wouldn't exist either.

Why? I'm not saying that ELV's will always be the way to go and I'm not
saying to kill all the research. What I am saying is that our insistance
of using expensive launchers when cheaper alternatives exist wasts money,
hinders the development of the market, and thus holds us back.

When the airline industry was getting started the government provided
support with a gurantee of the market. They accepted the state of the
art and encouraged (with market incentives) the development of better
and better aircraft.

If we developed aircraft back then the way we develop spacecraft today
we would all be taking trains.

>What is true, is that the shuttle, being the expensive vehicle it is,
>is being used for what it is best at -- life sciences, micrograv
>research, delicate deploys, etc.

No, those are the things *SPACE STATIONS* are best at. When and if
we ever get one there will be no justification for a Shuttle.

Note that this doesn't mean all Shuttles are bad, just this one. It
could well be that when things take off so that they can be built in
large runs they will be the best. Maybe SSX will prove the way to go.
I wouldn't want to guess.

>Sure, adding safety and redudancy features increases the complexity
>of the system, which in actually starts to reduce safety. But, after
>seeing all of the glitches the shuttle has usually easily solved
>by these features, I'd rather take my chances having those extra
>systems to use.

Why? By your own admission above they don't add a bit to safety.
Why spend all that extra money if it doesn't get you anything?

>I wonder what astronauts think.

Well many of them have gone up on expendables. Either Collins or
Aldrin in their books on Apollo said that for the forseeable future
we just need to resign ourselves to the fact that we are going to
lose 5% of our crews. A heavy price for the average civilian but
on par with those committed to opening a new frontier.

   Allen

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | America does best when it accepts a challenging mission. |
|   [e-mail]   | We invent well under pressure. Conversely, we stagnate   |
|                 | when caution prevails.   -- Buzz Aldrin                  |

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

Date: 25 Jan 91 23:21:21 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Pioneer 11 Update - 01/25/91


                         PIONEER 11 STATUS REPORT
                            January 25, 1991

     Unsuccessful attempts to switch the receiver were made on January
16, 18, and 20 on the Pioneer 11 spacecraft.  Evidence from power parameters
has confirmed that the solenoid of the switch is actually being pulsed, but the
switch has not moved.  On January 18, unpredicted RFI (Radio Frequency
Interference) at the 70 meter antenna at Spain caused a 31 minute loss of data.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab |
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | It's 10PM, do you know
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | where your spacecraft is?
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | We do!

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

Date: 26 Jan 91 04:31:12 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Re: Interest in Commerical Space news ? (1 of 4)

There seems to be some interest on the net for data on commercial
space.  I have been posting occasional updates on a couple of
commercial space ventures I am following on the Opus-net "NSS"
interest area.  If the net is interested, I'll post some of this
information I run across in this forum as well.  The following is a
sampling of what I propose to upload on an irregular basis.

SPACEHAB INC. GETS SUPPORT FROM SPACEPORT FLORIDA WITH BOND ISSUE.
   Spacehab Inc, which has raised venture capital to build modules
to be used on the Space Shuttle for additional pressurized volume
for experiments has received support from the Spaceport Florida
Authority.  Spacehab is currently lining up its final round of
financing from investors and banks for about $100 M dollars, and
beginning the construction of their module.  They have broken ground
on a new manufacturing and checkout facility in Port Canaveral, near
Kennedy Space Center in Florida.  Spaceport Florida Authority, a
Florida state government authority (like the Florida port
authority), has authorized issuing $50 million in bonds to give
Spacehab a less expensive source of funds for the new facility.
   [Commentary: The Spaceport Florida Authority was recently set up
and this is the first major action by the SFA to support commercial
space in Florida, issuing bonds backed by the Florida taxpayers.
Spacehab has also just received a $184 M contract for 2/3 use of
their modules from NASA.  Last I heard, they were still negotiating
with a large bank for a $75 M credit line, which was being very
conservative and risk-adverse.  This bond issue should reduce
Spacehab's bank loan need by to maybe $25-$50, and since they have
also recently obtained political risk insurance on their project (at
a premium of 30%!), they should be in a much better case to get that
loan to fund their business.]

BATTELLE LABS TEAMS WITH E'PRIME AEROSPACE CORP.
   It was recently announced that Battelle Labs in Columbus Ohio has
teamed with E'Prime Aerospace Corporation in Titusville Florida.
The team is targeting commercial space launch and payload services,
on-orbit industrial processes and small satellites for their
intended market.  It was announced by Battelle they will be able to
begin providing services in 1993 with a rocket using MX-derived
solid rocket boosters to lift payloads of up to 1,200 pounds. They
plan to eventually offer as many as 6 launches per year, and also
plan to use a commercial reusable reentry vehicle, but has not yet
selected a design or contractor.
   [Commentary.  Battelle Labs has a history of interest in
microgravity research and was under contract with NASA in the past
to look at space markets.  They are the largest independent research
lab in the country, although they have not been a primary player in
space commercialization before, and have a background in knowing the
market.  E'Prime aerospace is a small Florida startup desiring to
build an orbital vehicle using a cluster of MX first stage solid
motors.  Based on a prospectus released when they went public about
3 years ago on the Denver penny stock market, they are primarily
comprised of retirees from NASA KSC.  They have launched 1 small
sounding rocket carrying several small payloads for local schools.
There have been some questions raised about their finances (their
stock offering was investigated by the SEC due to some financial
complications) and they have not had much success in marketing.  How
this team stands up to the other ventures for similar business is
unknown.  For small payload launch services they face competition
from OSC (Pegasus and Taurus), SII (Conestoga), Spar Aerospace




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

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

Date: 27 Jan 91 04:09:52 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Why man rate? (was: space news from Dec 17 AW&ST)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>++   There is no need to ask them. We HAVE sent people up on Delta's...
>Sorry about that. I did indeed mean to say Atlas...

Not *entirely* irrelevant, however, since the most worrisome failure mode
is engine trouble, and Atlas and Delta use nearly-identical engines.
(To the point where the last Delta failure grounded Atlas for a while too.)
--
If the Space Shuttle was the answer,   | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
what was the question?                 |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #091
*******************