Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_4/V13_499.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 20KB

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/Ac9Y=Oq00WBw02705i>;
          Tue,  7 May 91 02:02:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <gc9Y=[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  7 May 91 02:01:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #499

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 499

Today's Topics:
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #470
  Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster)
     Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not...
  Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster)
             Saturn V blueprints
              Re: Why the space station?
  Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster)
         NASA Headline News for 05/02/91 (Forwarded)

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: 1 May 91 21:22:56 GMT
From: mips!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!unixhub!slacvm![e-mail]  (Jon J Thaler)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #470

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tommy
Mac) says:
>The computer that was used on the original Apollo Landings had only 64K of
>core memory.
>
>It's teeny sure, but they did it with tubes back then.

Are you sure about this?  The IBM 360 series computers (all solid state)
had existed for several years before the first Apollo landing in 1969.

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

Date: 2 May 91 01:16:24 GMT
From: igor!rutabaga![e-mail]  (Bill Baker)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Smith) writes:
>In my mind there is no _technical_ reason why we could not build a better
>booster today.  We have the technology and plenty of smart people.  However,
>the politics (not just government, but company internal) that seem to
>inevitably follow these projects ensure that we can't.  The revival of
>the Saturn V, in my mind, is being pushed to avoid the endless paper studies
>and creeping featurism that have plagued all the other space initiatives
>in the last 20 years.  Once we have a working Saturn V, then we can go back
>and improve it to be the Saturn VI.  Let's get something that flies first,
>eh?

It seems to me that "creeping featurism" is *the* main problem, but
that doesn't mean we have to be Luddites about our choice of boosters.
Why not build a *non-man-rated* Real Big Booster as an adjuct to the
Shuttle?  This wouldn't be the everything-to-all-people mess of ALS,
just a keep-it-simple-stupid expansion of the Saturn V type of large
booster.  Build an upgraded F-1.  Don't try to make it an SSME clone
with finicky turbopumps.  Use dumb engines and use a lot of them.

Not rating it for manned flight would help in terms of both
engineering and politics.  Because it can't carry astronauts, it
threatens only a limited amount of the Shuttle's mission (this keeps
the Shuttle hacks at NASA from toropedoing it).  It also makes it a
lot cheaper.  Design is cheaper.  Production is cheaper.  Insurance
(very important for commercial applications) is cheaper; pick a
reasonable failure rate (1 in 50 launches, say) and absolutely don't
fall below it.  Predictability is more important a lower failure rate;
insurance companies love predictability.

Of course, there is no real mission for a booster with twice or three
times the lift capability of the Saturn V.  It would cut down on the
number of FRED flights, but that's about it.  So why do it?  Time and
again, missions have been found or created to use the potential of new
capabilities.  Use the RBB to haul up FRED and loft many satellites
per launch (a bit dubious, perhaps, but with strong-arming you could
force everyone to use it initially).  Scrape up a few more planetary
survey missions.  Pretty soon the cost per pound for the RBB is
getting real low, cheap enough to make the launch costs of a Mars
mission negligible.  Cheap enough to make the next space station a
real habitat in space.

If we build a launcher, they will come.

The only serious creeping feature I think should be included is using
hydrogen instead of kerosene for fuel.  I know this is a big
difference but we have to stop thinking of rocket launches as special
cases with regard to pollution.  The shuttle has shown that hydrogen
is a viable fuel, and the exhaust is as pure as you can get.

None of these individual ideas is particularly original, but I haven't
heard any speculation about building an unmanned booster that is
*bigger* than the Saturn V.

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

Date: 2 May 91 02:04:18 GMT
From: world![e-mail]  (unicorn)
Subject: Re: slight problems with HLV's in general, Saturn or not...

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

>Many payloads are as big as they can get. There is a chicken and egg
>problem. Nobody will build bigger satellites without a launcher and
>nobody will build a bigger launcher without demand.

AWST reported that one of the reason that the Russian heavy lift vehicle
has not flow again is that there is no payload for it.  I think that the
US should com up with a list of prospective payloads for the first few
years of the vehicles life.

The Wizard of AHs

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

Date: 2 May 91 04:14:23 GMT
From: mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Baker) writes:

>Not rating it for manned flight would help in terms of both
>engineering and politics.  Because it can't carry astronauts, it
>threatens only a limited amount of the Shuttle's mission (this keeps
>the Shuttle hacks at NASA from toropedoing it).  It also makes it a
>lot cheaper.  Design is cheaper.  Production is cheaper.  Insurance
>(very important for commercial applications) is cheaper; pick a
>reasonable failure rate (1 in 50 launches, say) and absolutely don't
>fall below it.  Predictability is more important a lower failure rate;
>insurance companies love predictability.

>Of course, there is no real mission for a booster with twice or three
>times the lift capability of the Saturn V.  It would cut down on the
>number of FRED flights, but that's about it.  So why do it?  Time and
>again, missions have been found or created to use the potential of new
>capabilities.  Use the RBB to haul up FRED and loft many satellites
>per launch (a bit dubious, perhaps, but with strong-arming you could
>force everyone to use it initially).  Scrape up a few more planetary
>survey missions.  Pretty soon the cost per pound for the RBB is
>getting real low, cheap enough to make the launch costs of a Mars
>mission negligible.  Cheap enough to make the next space station a
>real habitat in space.

Great idea. Not only would this booster leave us stuck with the shuttle,
but you'd strong-arm everyone into using it.

Look, if the booster really did fill the needs of people, why is
"strong-arming" needed?

Pardon my language, but what in God's green earth (or solar system) is
wrong with simply building the sort of thing people need?

The people over at SDIO have done studies showing SSTO, if it works
(and it is a lot better bet than designing a big dumb booster from
scratch) captures some 100% of commercial payloads, 80 % of civilian
payloads, and well, I forget the military number.

A booster that didn't destroy $150 million satellites would also
be nice. Maybe some sort of launch escape system? ("Remember that
case back in April, Watson?" "You mean the one with the giant rat,
Holmes?" "No. I mean the case of the missing smileys").

Let's face it: if you need to make people use your booster, you
haven't built a very good one.
--
Phil Fraering
[e-mail]
Joke going around: "How many country music singers does it take to
change a light bulb? Four. One to change the bulb, and three to sing
about the old one."

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

Date: 2 May 91 07:53:00 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!caen!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!hardy.u.washington.edu![e-mail]  (Brett Vansteenwyk)
Subject: Saturn V blueprints

There are a few things I would like to be sure about here in terms of
deviating from an existing design for this rocket (or any rocket, for
that matter).

The following will result in the need for a re-design and test on the order
of building a whole new rocket in the first place:
  [1].Mating an existing engine with a whole new rocket body.  Usually the
    tolerances are such that you are pushing the boundaries of physical laws
    as it is, even on an existing design.  Things like length and size of the
    feed pipes to the engines, static and inertially induced head from the
    tanking, and so on will kill you if you don't have these right.  Pogo is
    an example of when these sorts of things aren't right.  You pretty much
    have to engineer the rocket as a whole.
  [2].Going from kerosine fuel to hydrogen fuel.  To really do this, you first
    must start by throwing away the existing engine.  Then consult a really
    good psychiatrist for having done this.  Seriously, this sort of thing will
    change flow rates, chamber pressure, etc. etc. for ALL the components which
    were optimized around one (and only one) operating condition.
  [3].Changing the number of engines used.  See [1] above.  If you change the
    number of engines to have a less massive launcher, you will have to come
    from the point of view that you are basically mounting on a whole new
    rocket body.  The whole configuration is optimized around a single flight
    condition.

I wish I knew enough to give a sense of what a "minor" deviation is in a
rocket design.  Basically, though, when it comes to the Saturn V, the basic
configuration must remain the same or else all the advantages of resurrecting
it are lost--the basic size, weight, # of engines, and what they burn has to
remain the same.  A Saturn VI could use improved materials in a more extensive
way than a "resurrected" Saturn V, but again, the basic configuration would not
change a whole lot.

What would this "basic" configuration be?  It would seem that the first two
stages would remain, but that the third stage and up would not be needed in
many cases, and thus need to be "optional".  This is enough of a redesign
challenge right here.

One interesting spin-off would be that, instead of people putting dibbs on
spent External Tanks, they might be claiming S-V second stages--could you
imagine how much room you would have with one of these?  When Skylab was
launched, the second stage actually orbited for a while, and I believe it
claims the title as the largest thing ever orbited.

On a completely frivolous note, I remember that the "Voyage to the Moon" ride
at Disneyland (the one with the seats that jiggled) made you walk through a
simulated Mission Control circa the year 2000.  Although this ride has been
changed to something else, the thing I remember about that Mission Control
room (aside from the gooney bird making the crackup landing) was that they
were using Saturn V's as their workhorse launcher.  Wouldn't it be funny if
we really were using Saturns by the year 2000?  (The sad thing is that these
people in this simulated Mission Control never stopped using theirs.)

                --Brett Van Steenwyk

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

Date: 25 Apr 91 04:33:32 GMT
From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kieran A. Carroll) writes:

>Van Allen is one of these, indeed the prototypical scientist-against-manned-
>spaceflight.

Yes, _that_ James Van Allen -- the guy who discovered Earth's radiation
belts and saved some astronauts from getting their asses fried.

The same James Van Allen who has explored strange and powerful new
magnetic fields, radiation belts, and a wide variety of other unprecendented
phenomenon across the solar system.  One of the greatest space explorers
in human history.  It is very worthwhile to heed his views, IMHO.



--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"Living below your means allows you to live better than living above your
means." -- Dave Boyd    The above opinions are my own and not related to
those of any organization I may be affiliated with.

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

Date: 2 May 91 18:03:11 GMT
From: hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Baker) writes:

>Not rating it for manned flight would help in terms of both
>engineering and politics.  Because it can't carry astronauts,...

Why can't it carry astronauts? "Man rated" launchers have failure rates
little different from non-man rated launchers. Why spend all the extra
money when it buys you nothing?

The driving force in launcher safety is NOT the lives of the crew.
Payload replacement cost IS the driving factor. The average payload
today is worth far more than the crews who launch it.

>None of these individual ideas is particularly original, but I haven't
>heard any speculation about building an unmanned booster that is
>*bigger* than the Saturn V.

The Synthesis Group will be proposing a vehicle which lifts 600K
pounds.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |        Allen's tactics are too tricky to deal with      |
|   [e-mail]   |             -- Harel Barzilai                           |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 2 May 91 19:16:01 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 05/02/91 (Forwarded)


             Headline News
Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA Headquarters

  Thursday, May 2, 1991    Audio Service: 202 / 755-1788

This is NASA Headline News for Thursday, May 2, 1991 . . .

Yesterday afternoon the Discovery crew successfully completed
three thruster firing maneuvers at a distance of 6-1/2 miles from
the Shuttle Pallet Satellite.  The maneuvers completed the Infrared
Background Signature Survey far-field survey requirements.  Strategic
Defense Initiative program managers reported they received good data
during the thruster firings.  Earlier today the crew moved to within 1-
1/2 miles of the SPAS to remotely command that satellite to observe
two engine firing sequences by the orbiter.  All operations at the near-
position were performed smoothly and on schedule.

Today's orbital activities involve three spacecraft -- the SPAS
satellite, orbiter Discovery, and a chemical release satellite deployed by
the crew last night.  Discovery later will separate from the SPAS for
five orbits before initiating rendezvous operations to retrieve the
satellite at 4:33 pm EDT today.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Columbia was rolled out to launch pad 39-B during the night
and was hard-down by 6:50 this morning.  The terminal countdown
demonstration test is scheduled for Monday and Tuesday, May 6 and 7.
The STS-40 Spacelab Life Sciences crew will arrive at Kennedy Space
Center about noon Sunday, in anticipation of the test.  The STS-40
mission flight readiness review will be held at KSC the following week,
May 13 and 14.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Endeavour's trip from Palmdale to Houston has been delayed
because of turbulence over the Rocky Mountains.  The shuttle carrier
aircraft crew will be watching weather closely the rest of the day to
determine if they can fly as far as El Paso tomorrow.  Weather from
Texas to Florida is currently stormy and expected to remain so through
the weekend.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Joust 1, a commercial suborbital rocket carrying 10 materials and
biotechnology experiments, will be launched from Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station launch complex 20 Monday, May 6 at 7:00 am.
The mission is sponsored by the University of Alabama, Huntsville's
Consortium for Materials in Space (one of the NASA Centers for the
Commercial Development of Space).  The University will hold a press
briefing tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 am, at the Kennedy Space Center to
describe the experiments.  The briefing will be carried live on NASA
Select TV.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The national competition finals for MATHCOUNTS will be held
tomorrow from 8:00 am through noon at the Sheraton
Washington.  MATHCOUNTS is a program for 7th and 8th graders
designed to stimulate their interest in mathematics and other
technical fields.  NASA is one of several sponsors and this year will
provide a 4-day workshop at the Langley Research Center for one of
the finalists.  NASA will also sponsor the top five students at Space
Camp this summer.

The program was initiated several years ago by the National Society
of Professional Engineers and involves a grass roots campaign by
society members working with local grade school teachers and
students.  The engineer and teacher work to involve kids in a series of
competitive activities associated with math.  The program has three
principal elements: to involve students in the upper level of elementary
school; to encourage kids to study math by showing that it can be fun;
and to provide adult and peer recognition for students who are
involved in mathematics activities.  The program reaches over 1/2
million students each year, and 224 of them are in town today
for the finals.  In addition to the engineering society and NASA, the
CNA insurance company, Cray Research, General Motors, the
Department of Education , the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, and more than 50 additional organizations are
cooperating partners in this program.

Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA
Select TV.  Note that all events and times may change without notice,
and that all times listed are Eastern.

Thursday, 5/2/91
    All day    Payload and crew flight deck activities, live from Discovery
          and flight controller activities, live from Johnson Space Center.
    3:56 pm    Payload bay views of Earth, live from Discovery.
    4:00 pm    Flight director change-of-shift briefing, live from JSC.
    4:33 pm    Payload bay views of Earth, live from Discovery.
    7:15 pm    Discovery thruster plume observations, live from SPAS.
    9:00 pm    Playback of STS-39 flight day 5 activities, from JSC.
    11:00 pm Flight director change-of-shift briefing live from JSC.

Friday, 5/3/91
    All day    Payload and crew flight deck activities, live from Discovery
          and flight controller activities, live from Johnson Space Center.
    5:48 am    Flight deck views live from Discovery.
    7:15 am    Flight director change-of-shift briefing live from JSC.
    9:00 am    Joust 1 preflight press briefing, live from KSC.
    3:00 pm    Flight director change-of-shift briefing live from JSC.
    6:00 pm    Chemical release operations live from Discovery.
    9:00 pm    Playback of STS-39 flight day 6 activities, from JSC.
    11:00 pm Flight director change-of-shift briefing live from JSC.

This report is filed daily at noon, Monday through Friday.  It is a service of
NASA's Office of Public Affairs.  The contact is Charles Redmond, 202/453-
8425 or CREDMOND on NASAmail.  NASA Select TV is carried on GE
Satcom F2R, transponder 13, C-Band, 72 degrees West Longitude,
transponder frequency is 3960 megaHertz, audio is offset 6.8 MHz,
polarization is vertical.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #499
*******************