Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_4/V13_465.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/sc5wHW600WBwI2o05s>;
          Fri, 26 Apr 91 02:12:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 02:12:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #465

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 465

Today's Topics:
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
     Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not...
               Re: Saturn V blueprints
           Charting a decade of the Shuttle
           Re: Uploading to alpha Centauri
               Re: Saturn V blueprints
               Re: Saturn V blueprints
          Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18

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 Apr 91 13:55:45 GMT
From: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!isis![e-mail]  (Glenn A. Serre)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

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

   ...

   Not magically appear, I think NASA has been committing(sp?) resources
   to the shuttle at the expense of other systems.  Now that they can, we
   have ALS!

This last sentence isn't too clear.  Are you saying that NASA can move
resources from the Shuttle to ALS developement?

   ...

   I think the stagnation of launcher technology is more of a refusal
   of NASA to use anything other than the shuttle for launches. (Until
   recently)

Air Force launch technology is pretty stagnant, too.  I'd have to agree with
Henry that it's due more to the fact that all launches are operational.

   > *not* have to debug the design significantly.  For example, we know the
   > engines run reliably without serious combustion instability... and that
   > is several years' development bypassed right there.

   BUT, engines could be made that burn less fuel and therefore lift
   even more to orbit.  Maybe rocketdyne could modify the F-1 to
   bring it up to date.

This is how we got the SSMEs.  Increasing performance does not decrease
cost, nor does it increase reliability (neccessarily).  The Saturn V could
lift plenty of weight (mass, whatever) to orbit: 265,000 pounds.


   > >You just said that you'd need to revise the drawings and retest, etc.
   >
   > No I didn't.  Please read what I wrote.  We have to figure out how to make
   > it again; we don't have to figure out what to make.
   >
   Unfortunately, this can be just as expensive.
   I am not trashing the idea of using good ideas from Saturn V, just that
   resurrection of the Saturn V may be a big boondoggle.  For instance,
   the avionics would have to be completely redone, the matereals would
   or should be made lighter, and the engine technology should be brought
   up to date (less fuel = more lifting power).

I disagree completely.  The materials do NOT need to be made lighter.  The
Saturn V worked as designed.  The F-1 engines were low-pressure, high-thrust,
and they worked reliably.  Maybe if we had been building and using F-1s since
the Apollo days, they would now be somewhat improved, but we scrapped the
tried and true Saturn for the complex, high-performance Shuttle and its
SSMEs.

   --
   +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
   | Brent L. Irvine     |            These are MY opinions   |
   | Malt Beverage Analyst     |            As if they counted...:) |
   +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
--Glenn Serre         |Soon-to-be former Payload Integration Engineer for
[e-mail] |Martin Marietta Aerospace Group, Space Launch System
                      |Company.
                      |Next job:  Script writer for Cayenne Systems, Inc.
--
--Glenn Serre         |Soon-to-be former Payload Integration Engineer for
[e-mail] |Martin Marietta Aerospace Group, Space Launch System
                      |Company.
                      |Next job:  Script writer for Cayenne Systems, Inc.

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 23:50:20 GMT
From: sun-barr!newstop!exodus!concertina.Eng.Sun.COM![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Fraering) writes:
>
>Is a heavy-lift launch vehicle really needed? The vast majority of
>commercial payloads are rather small compared to the payloads of the
>large vehicles being developed, and I suspect that it would be easy to
>break up the larger payloads into smaller payloads assembled on-site
>if the smaller vehicle proved cheaper.

1.  We already have medium and light launchers (not that they couldn't
    be made cheaper and more cost effective).  And mayhap current commercial
    payloads are sized to fit these existing launchers 'cause if they aren't
    the only game in town, waiting for the shuttle is a pain. (And now no
    commercial launches from the shuttle now, right?)

2.  Very large payloads are, in part, nonexistent because of the nonexistent
    launchers to toss them overhead.

3.  Some big projects could reasonably be done with *big* launchers, while
    breaking them up into parcels of smaller packages (to be assembled later?)
    may turn out to be less than delightful.



--
------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 15:11:06 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints

[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

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

I saw a show on PBS a few nights ago (may have been the McNeil/Lehrer
Newshour) talking about the ALS development and fly-off competition.
It was indeed done under fixed price contracts, of about $600M
as I recall. However, apparently >both< prime contractors spent
more like $1B each on the project. I don't know about the schedule,
but they blew the budget significantly...according to Norman Augustine,
only 25% of the 81 major programs that he studied (in Chapter 37 of
the revised version of "Augustine's Laws", 'Hope Springs Infernal')
exceeded their proposed budget by more than this fraction (67%).

This doesn't necessaarily reflect on the management of the programs,
by the way. It >may< have been a calculated business risk.
Both companies would likely have been willing to take this risk,
given the size of the production contract that they stood to win
if their design was chosen by the USAF. So, the loser has to swallow
a $400M marketing cost...
--

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll [e-mail]

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

Date:         Thu, 25 Apr 91 11:51:33 EDT
From: "Wm. L. Ranck" <[e-mail]>

Hello folks,
   I've been reading the Saturn V vs. ALS discussion for a few days now
and I've decided to toss in my 2 cents worth.  I will land firmly on both
sides of this fence.
   First I find Michael Kent's signature line especially ironic.  Here is
a person saying how the old technology of Saturn V is not worth reviving
and new is better, with a signature line that says 'Apple II forever!'.
Am I the only one that finds this funny?
   Next, since Henry Spencer brought up the 747 let's talk about that.
There is some 1960s technology that is still being built, still going
strong and doesn't really show signs of being 'retired' anytime soon.
Of course the flip side of that coin is that Boeing bet their entire
company on that project back in the 60s.  They built a whole new factory
to build a whole new aircraft that they had to sell a bunch of to ever
hope to recover their costs.  This was done without any written contracts
in hand.  This says a *lot* for private industry developing commercial
products.  This was not a military or government project.
   If the 747 is still being built with upgraded avionics and materials
then why not a Saturn V?  Surely the pieces that would have to be
replaced because they are no longer available would have smaller and
lighter counterparts.  It's not like you would have to make extra room
for the components.  Yes it would take some engineering, but I'm never
very convinced by people who say 'evryone who knew how to build that is
either dead or retired, we can't possibly learn how to build it again'.
Give me a break, people learned how to do it the first time so relearning
the process is certainly possible.
   So, I would say that it is possible to build a totally new vehichle and
get it right and have a good system.  But, it would also be possible to
recreate the old system with some updates and make that work.  Which
should we do?  I don't know enough to form an opinion, but then neither
does Congress though that never stops them.

Bill Ranck
(speaking strictly for myself.)

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 19:46:46 GMT
From: aio!vf.jsc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: Charting a decade of the Shuttle

--

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

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 15:33:58 GMT
From: sun-barr!olivea!samsung!caen!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu![e-mail]  (Mark William Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Uploading to alpha Centauri

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Let's say that the folks on Alpha refreeze, rescan, and retransmit one of the
>crew back to Earth.
>Let's say that this third generation copy arrives back on Earth and meets the
>original crewman ( who, for the sake of this experiment, stayed in his freezer
>for the 8.5 year round trip).
>Question. Which one gets to go home and sleep with the wife?

Why, both of course. Technically, she's still only married to one man. :)

>If you believe in an immortal soul, do both of them now have one?

Both.  In fact they same the *same* soul, because they are one.
In fact, there's only one soul in the entire Universe (mine), and that which
you call your soul is merely a manifestation of mine.

(Of, course given that, then what is mine is yours, so you may make the same
claim)

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 22:42:45 GMT
From: 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] (Doug Mohney) writes:

>>No this is on budget as well as schedule. Unlike other fighter
>>competitions this time the Air Force required significant buy
>>in by the contractors. Both where expected to put up about half
>>the development money. In fact, they may have come in a tad under
>>budget.

>You are incorrect. They put in MUCH more than half the development money.

I would be interested in your sources. When the contract was awarded
my department was working on computers which eventually ended up in ATF.
My project was sub to McAir and many of those people worked their ATF
proposal and negitiations with Northrup. The numbers I saw then on both
total cost and contractor share where in agreement with what I and others
have posted.

>The losing contractor (as I previously mentioned and which
>you chose to ignore) lost lots of money,

I didn't 'chose to ignore' it. It is perfectly obvious that the losing
contractor lost lots of money so there was no need to comment on it. this
also happens in the commercial world. Douglas aircraft spent huge amounts
of money on the MD-11 and is now nearly broke because of it. Northrup
lost one billion $$ on the F-20. GD spent half a billion on commercial
Atlas and may lose most of that as well.

Perhaps the Air Force will pick up more of the tab in the future but
this time the Air Force's more commercial acquisition process seems to
have worked for ATF development.


>from a commercial good. The producers of the ATF have a locked-in monopoly;
>there is no 40/60 split of goods, as with certain second-sourcing of missiles.

There are still many many flaws in the military procurement system. This is
one of them. That doesn't mean that the development wasn't done right.

>The winning contractor will recoup the expenses of his investment through
>selective bookkeeping and profits over the years,

Selective bookeeping is an open question. As to profits, of course they will
recoup their development expenses. What's wrong with that?

>with no incentive to hold
>prices down, other than the threat of Congress cancelling/ordering fewer planes
>in the future.

Ah! But with ATF prices that is a very real threat!

>Using the military as an "example" of proper procurement and estimation is a
>VERY VERY poor example. I suggest you look up the cases of the C-5, B-1, and
>B-2. Oops, forget the A-12, but it was cancelled.

This thread started because people where questioning the ability of
engineers to accurately predict the development costs of things like
Saturn V's (or ATF's). I use the military BECAUSE they have a dismal
record but one that can be improved with better procurement.

   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 23:41:30 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!concertina.Eng.Sun.COM![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Saturn V blueprints

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>Using the military as an "example" of proper procurement and estimation is a
>VERY VERY poor example. I suggest you look up the cases of the C-5, B-1, and
>B-2. Oops, forget the A-12, but it was cancelled.

You should probably make that "government procurement and estimation performance"
rather than just "military...".

Pick your agency.




--
------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 14:24:13 GMT
From: aio!vf.jsc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Atlas Centaur bites the big one, 4/18

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jan Peter Laribij) writes:
>
>>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.
>

I disagree with you.  The Russian protron booster has a launch success
percentage LOWER than any US booster.  I do not have the specific figures, but
our boosters: Atlas, Delta, Titan, Saturn, Shuttle  have launch successes in
the high 90's.  The Russian boosters are in the low 90's

As far as throwing out our technology every ten years:

The Atlas has been in continous use for over 25 years.  The titan was developed
in the 1960's and has been continously improved over the years.

All of our unmanned boosters have gone thru weight reduction programs,
component replacement programs (new parts to replace ones that are not
available any more), and major upgrades.

In my opinion, NASA was faced with the undesireable choice of continuing the
Saturn 5 or developing the Shuttle.  I think NASA made the right decision.

--

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

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #465
*******************