Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_4/V13_461.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

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/Ic5vcQu00WBwE2Ok5D>;
          Fri, 26 Apr 91 01:26:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <8c5vcIy00WBw42N04=@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 01:26:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #461

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 461

Today's Topics:
               Re: Saturn V blueprints
          Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18
          Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D
               Re: Saturn V blueprints
            CD ROM images at ames
             Re: Mars media alert
             Re: Mars media alert
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #458
                  sci.space
           Re: Uploading to alpha Centauri
           Charting a decade of the Shuttle
             Re: Saturn V vs. ALS

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: 24 Apr 91 12:40:23 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>Read the rest of my post.  We can be pretty sure the Saturn V will be expen-
>sive because it is so old.

Several estimates have been done on the cost. Those estimates range from
far better than ALS to better than what we have now. These estimates have
been done by people who built the things and are willing to sign on the
dotted line.

Now exactly why is it that they are wrong in their assessment?

   Allen
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back |
|   [e-mail]   | to you, hunt it down and kill it.                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 13:17:40 GMT
From: iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jan Peter Laribij) writes:

>> Okay! What is everybody doing WRONG? How can we (meaning all of Earth) develop
>> a reliable, economic orbital delivery system?

>Politely ask how the Russians did it ;-)

We already know. Their approach is to use what works and to improve it step
wise as time goes on. They never use anything unless it is well understood
and poroven.

We on the other hand, do the opposite. We throw out all our technology
about every ten years and start over. As a result, we never get any
experience with anything.

   Allen
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back |
|   [e-mail]   | to you, hunt it down and kill it.                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 14:35:29 GMT
From: usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Government vs. Commercial R&D


    Nothing really to do with space but rather the ongoing 'Bash the
    Japanese' thread which seems to have started, so...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (will) writes:
>
>>    I don't entirly agree with the Anti-trust thing, I mean if America
>>    can allow murders to run rabid, crazies to mass murder 10+ people
>>    and put them back on the street, allow police officers to beat up
>>    people for enjoyment.  I think congress can overlook a simple little
>>    thing like Anti-trust.  Besides with half of America on drugs I really
>>    don't think anyone is going to notice.  At least this is what is printed
>>    in the Japanese news, that an average Japanese will read.
>
>Sounds like the Japanese aren't nearly as smart as people seem to give them
>credit for.  This is the same media that claims the Japanese people are from
>Mars, right?
>
>Sounds like the seeds of Japanese decline are starting to sprout...

    God forbid I should mess up a 'Bash The Jap' festival, but what
does the Japanese media's failings (common or uncommon, true or false)
have to do with their ability to keep their economy rolling? Journalism
is not an area they have done well in historically (Check their coverage
of the Lockhead scandal in the 70s, for example), but they seem to have
prospered in spite of this.

    Maybe the point is that since the Japanese hold irrational views,
(or at least some do) these views will cripple their ability to maintain
their current economic strength. In that case, anyone have any figures on
what percentage of Japanese hold irrational views and how that figure compares
to other nations' dingbat population? To be truthful, what the original
poster said sounds a bit like *some* Japanese hold 'The Wogs begin at Calais'
views on the outside world, which is sad, if it is true, but prejudice
towards foreigners never stopped other nations from gaining temporary
positions of great power (Anyone want to argue the the British Empire, Roman
Empire or the United States of America did not have periods in which their
nations held outsiders in contempt, while those nation were growing in
power? Note choosing those three examples is not in anyway implying that
they are the *only* three examples).

    Perhaps, and I know this is a silly idea, the key to dealing
with the Japanese isn't pointing out their perceived weaknesses, but
rather their strengths, and if it is appropriate, emulating them in
those areas. I don't think saying 'Look how silly the Japanese are;
they believe X' is a useful means of dealing with them.

                                James Nicoll

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 22:38:34 GMT
From: stanford.edu!msi.umn.edu!umeecs!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:

>Summary:  Fixed price for Procurement = good.
>      Fixed price for Development = foolish.

The vast majority of all products which exist or have ever existed are done
on fixed price efforts. Consider Boeing; if the 777 costs much more than
budgeted to develop then is budgeted then Boeing will go belly up.

>(I think General Dynamics, McDonnell Dougls and the Pentagon would
>all concur after the A-12 problems and cancellations!)

The Pentagon wouldn't agree. Nither would Lockheed which just
developed the winning ATF design on cost and on schedule. Their
Skunk Works has developed the worlds most complex aircraft in
short order on schedule and budget. It takes good management but
it is routinely done.

  Allen
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer | If you love something, let it go. If it doesn't come back |
|   [e-mail]   | to you, hunt it down and kill it.                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 03:26:53 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!nstn.ns.ca!IRIS1.UCIS.Dal.Ca![e-mail]  (Greg Roberts)
Subject: CD ROM images at ames

On a related note, I was trying to produce some source code to convert IMG
to GIF on the PC, but did the writing on the IRIS. The files open fine on the
IRIS, but not on the PC. I will rty to get that fixed within the next few
days, and if I can't, I will have them removed until I can do them again.
Sorry about that, but I was trying to get some out before exams.

cheers..

Greg Roberts, TUNS

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 04:25:53 GMT
From: crash![e-mail]  (Benno Eichmann)
Subject: Re: Mars media alert

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>In the May issue of Life magazine, the cover story outlines a six stage
>approach to changing Mars into an Earth-like planet by the middle of the 22nd
>Century.  Perhaps recent remarks by the Vice-President were about this future
>Mars.  If you want to know what he knows, read the May issue of Life. :-)

Related to `Alternative-3' work using some facilities on the moon?  Status?

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 04:36:20 GMT
From: crash![e-mail]  (Benno Eichmann)
Subject: Re: Mars media alert

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>In the May issue of Life magazine, the cover story outlines a six stage
>approach to changing Mars into an Earth-like planet by the middle of the 22nd
>Century.  Perhaps recent remarks by the Vice-President were about this future
>Mars.  If you want to know what he knows, read the May issue of Life. :-)

Anything like "Alternative 3" by Leslie Watkins and David Ambrose suggested?
(from: Sphere Books Limited, Macdonald & Co Ltd, 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5TZ;
ISBN: 0 7221 1126 6  World Affairs;)

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

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 07:37:43 CDT
From: The Wizard <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #458

On Thu, 25 Apr 91 02:18:34 EDT <space-request+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE> said:
>If Congress were interested in developing a lot of private
>experience for a private buisnesses in space exploration
>and development of space resources, I heard somewhere
>something like what I propose.
>
>Congress should allocate (through lotteries, appropriations,
>etc) a large cash prize on the order of
>US$100,000,000 for the first person/organization to
>go to the moon and spend an amount of time on the surface.
>
>Any comments as to how to make this work?

First off, shouldn't there be a requirement to get back?  :)

Another item is to consider long-term objectives -- an individual is not
likely to be able to do this on their own, and a corporation would not really
be concerned with a prize, they would rather have the fame to go with it.
(If they were a private company.)

Thirdly, where is this money hiding exactly?  It would be very tempting to
some of our representatives in D.C. to pass this off as an asset...

What requirements would you put on 'activity' on the lunar surface?  Getting
a tan line?  Weather analysis?  Seismic studies?  In essence, whatever the
traveler wants to do, or accomplish specific goals?

I feel that it would be a great idea in principal, but putting it into
practice could be a problem.

  Wiz :->    ([e-mail])
-----
MOD 1.01 - On a clear disk, one can seek forever.

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 13:39:15 GMT
From: usc!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: sci.space


There are two camps that have been too busy refuting one another
rather than actually coming up with a solution (myself included).

I have heard from a number of people that a Saturn V based launcher
is being considered by a private (?) company to build.

I wish that group good luck.

I think the ALS offers the OPPORTUNITY to do much better than
anything we have done to date.  That is its justification.

I felt the Saturn V would be a nightmare of parts scrounging and
attempting to cobble modern parts into a Saturn V type rocket which
might affect reliablility and the things that made Saturn great, and
why caution should therefore be used in 'deciding to build it.'

(and why availability of engines doesn't mean much since there are
so many other parts to get , but I digress)

Anyway, that is a sum of my opinion,

I have gotten into the mood of construction of a proposal or
something, so unless someone responds to my invitation to
the 'proposal building,'  I have nothing else to say.

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Brent L. Irvine     |            These are MY opinions   |
| Malt Beverage Analyst     |            As if they counted...:) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 13:38:49 GMT
From: media-lab.media.mit.edu![e-mail]  (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: Uploading to alpha Centauri

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Young ) writes:
>
>  Boy, this sounds a lot like Dr. McCoy's problem with the transporter
>on Star Trek.  Scientifically, it's a more efficient way of transport,
>but the ethics of it are up in the air.  It's even worse than Star Trek,
>since instead of disassembling and reassembling an exact copy, you would
>have multiple copies of the same person.  Generally a bad idea; I prefer
>conventional methods of reproduction.
>         Scott


Well, sure, the ethics are of this are up in the air.  Even so are the
ethics of "conventional methods of reproduction".  And what should be
the punishment for having twins?  And isn't confronting the world with
inexact copies even more controversial than copies of what you already
know.
  Seriously, it is interesting to consider why there seems to be such
a general horror of the human clone idea.  Enough to be a common plot.
Is it some sort of incest-taboo reaction?  Or a Freudian rejection of
... ?

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 20:55:51 GMT
From: aio!vf.jsc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: Charting a decade of the Shuttle

Here is my entire Posting... I inadvertly left the body of the message out...

From the Johnson Space Center's
Space News Roundup Vol. 30 No. 15, April 12, 1991
with a correction in the April 19, edition:

"that shows for all intents and purposes, we've launched  1,200 tons of payload
every decade. It took us 215 launches in the '60s, 152 launches in the '70s
and 102 launches in the '80s.  The Shuttle with 4 percent of all U.S. Launches,
has launched 41 percent of all the mass. Not including the orbiter."

It article means that the Shuttle accounted for 41% of the '80s mass
The article also lists the total payload weight to orbit:

in 38 shuttle flights (up to STS-35):

People flown: 199
Days in orbit: 225.07
Man Hours in orbit: 28,688
Orbits: 3572
Max alt average: 189
Statute miles flown: 94,300,612
Total No. Payloads: 292
Orbiter Weight at liftoff (lbs): 9,061,659
Pounds to Orbit ( not including orbiter): 1,055,421
Payload deployed (lbs): 533,898
Payload Returned to Earth (lbs): 546,427
EVA man-hours: 136.66

Also the shuttle has a success to failure ratio of .974 with 1 being perfect.
Higher than any other US booster.

Ariane, the only other vehicle designed in the '70s and operated in the '80s,
had five failures in the first 40 flights.

--

Mike Kent -      Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC
        2400 NASA Rd One, Houston, TX 77058 [phone]
        [e-mail]
--

Mike Kent -      Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC
        2400 NASA Rd One, Houston, TX 77058 [phone]
        [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 20:40:39 GMT
From: mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!dullea.ipac.caltech.edu![e-mail]  (Karl Stapelfeldt)
Subject: Re: Saturn V vs. ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (K.MacArthur working for bwebber) writes:
>>
>>     The problem with resurrecting the Saturn V today is the same
>>same problem that caused the launcher to go out of production in the
>>1970s :  It is just too damn big for our current needs.  The only
>>viable Saturn V payload in the next 10 years would be Space Station
>>hardware; the Saturn V is so big that after 1-2 such missions we wouldn't
>>need it again.  It clearly is not worth rebuilding the Saturn V with
>>this kind of expected utilization.
>
>    I disagree.    What about the possibility that once a large and
>reliable launcher is proven that more things will be created to fill the
>available capacity?   You can't set up a market until somebody takes the
>risk and provides the infrastructure.  Usually that somebody is the govt ...


      I think you make a valid point.  However it is more likely to be
applicable (in the nearer term) to a smaller ALS rocket than to a
resurrected Saturn V.  Our next launcher should stay one step ahead
of current users so that new, larger spacecraft can be developed
to take advantage of a capability they know exists.  The problem with
the Saturn V is that the payload size is just too big for the market now
or in the next 10 years.  It is better to make our next step a 40 %
increase over the Titan IV payload (rather than a 400 % increase).
The market can't be expected to jump so far in one step.

                                          Karl Stapelfeldt
                      [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #461
*******************