Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_516.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/oc:X6MS00WBwEAkU4b>;
          Fri, 10 May 91 01:37:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 10 May 91 01:37:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #516

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 516

Today's Topics:
      Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494)
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
        Re: Alexander Abian wants to blow up the moon?
                Re: IT'S OVER
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #492

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: 7 May 91 16:59:55 GMT
From: hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494)

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

>If anyone does know of more solid figures, please, post them. (Mary?)

According to a NASA presentation to the House Science Committee we spent
$13.81 billion on the stages, engines, and vehicle integration. An
additional 2.37 was spent for facilities for a total of $16.19B. This
estimate is in 1991 dollars.

  Allen

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

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

Date: 3 May 91 20:49:18 GMT
From: csus.edu!wuarchive!usc!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!math.lsa.umich.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

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

 AW> There is nothing in what I have said which precludes halting
 AW> progress in launch technology. You must understand that using
 AW> the latest technology in almost any operational system is a
 AW> kiss of death. If we learn nothing from the Shuttle, let's at
 AW> least learn that. You want research? I agree, let's do
 AW> research. But at the same time, let's build our operational
 AW> systems with mature well understood technology. Saturn fits
 AW> that bill much better than ALS (although not as well as HL
 AW> Delta or Titan V).

 AW> You want more recent technology in the Saturns? So do I. That
 AW> is why we need a program of continuous improvement to get it
 AW> in. Want the very latest materials used? Fine. Start an effort
 AW> to build a composit nozzle if you like. When it works, we add
 AW> it to the existing design.

Several things that I think that most people are missing about the ALS.

The ALS is NOT an attempt to build a latest, state-of-the art,
Lamborghini-class launch vehicle.  Rather, it is a "Ford Pickup" class
hauler.  The end goal is minimization of launch costs, NOT maximization
of performance.  To this end:

1) The system is being built for >reliability<.  This means that any rocket
will make it to orbit.  Design features to this end include:

  - Redundant and very reliable engines.  In a move admittedly borrowed
    from the Soviets, the engine design trades weight for simplicity, thus
    increasing reliability.  The system is being designed so that an engine
    can fail and the rocket is still capable of making it to orbit.

  - More reliable avionics.  The flight control system is using modern,
    fly-by-wire, multiply redundant avionics.  One key element being proven
    now is an electrical actuator that will replace unreliable hydraulics.

2) The system is being built for >availability<.  This means that the rockets
will be available when the payloads are ready to go; you won't have to
schedule the payloads around available rockets.  Elements of the ALS to
support this include:

   -Combining the booster manufacturing plant, the payload/booster assembly
    plant, and the launch pad in a single site.  Parts of the system don't
    have to be transported around the country.

   -A vastly simplified launch pad; There isn't even a launch tower.

   -A rocket can be available on 30 days notice.

3) The system is being designed for >low cost<.  The simpler, more
inexpensive engines and the fly-by-wire avionics (electric actuators are
cheaper than hydraulic systems) were mentioned before.  At the design goal
of 25 launches per year, the system will cost 300$ per pound to orbit.  In
addition:

  -the ALS is not merely >A< vehicle, it is a family of modular
   vehicles.  You can use two stages to launch a small payload to orbit,
   strap on additional boosters (identical to the first stage) for
   heavier payloads.

  -The system is designed around common, standardized interfaces and
   services; You don't have to redesign the rocket for every payload type.

  -One interesting element being tested now is the ability to recover the
   engine core from the booster, allowing reuse of the engines (the most
   expensive part of the booster).  The section of the booster that
   contains the engines (the lower 8 feet or so) is jettisoned (the fuel
   tank is not recovered) and returns to a splash-down via parachute.


I should also point out that the ALS is a joint NASA/DoD project, and that
every effort is being made to keep anything having to do with it from
being classified.  Everything is in the open and is public domain.  Look
for an article about the ALS in an upcoming edition of Ad Astra, the
NSS magazine.

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Apr 91 18:06:48 GMT
From: unisoft!hoptoad!pacbell!pacbell.com!mips!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!suned1!slced1![e-mail]  (Lloyd E Vancil)
Subject: Re: Alexander Abian wants to blow up the moon?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Duff) writes:
>
>If the Earth were tilted to 0 degrees and the Moon obliterated,
> what would be the impact on
>life on Earth?  Sure, it would be Springtime all
> year round, but I would think that would be
>devestating for plant life whose life cycles are base
> on the seasons.  Also, no more tides!
>
>Could life continue without the moon?
>
Yes say good by to Apples.. and many other fruits.
Not to mention,
     What does this guy propose to mitigate the effects of this one impact?
Does he suppose that this thing will splash down like a tennis ball in a bath-
tub?

    The theories I've read reguarding the extinction of the dinos
conjur an object some 40 km in length smacking good ol' momma Earth and
precipitating a world wide, decades long winter.
    From my observation of the impact of a few hundred burning oil
wells in the Gulf, on the temperature over the region,
I think the estimates of "nuclear Winter" and "Nuclear
fall" are off on the low side by at least an order of magnitude.

    Could it be that an object largeenough to change the rotation of
the earth or the tilt of the axis would simply obliterate us all?  And
who/what would come next?  Cockroaches with tools?

--
 | suned1![e-mail] | * S.T.A.R.S.!   .       +      o       |
 | [e-mail]    | The Revolution has begun!   .     +    |
 | sun!suntzu!suned1!lev         | My Opinions are Mine mine mine hahahah!|

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

Date: 6 May 91 22:43:10 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave![e-mail]  (John A. Weeks III)
Subject: Re: IT'S OVER

In article <[e-mail]6> [e-mail] (dweeb) writes:
> STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION WILL BE CANCELLED AFTER THE 1991-92 SEASON.

Too bad...it is a fun show.  At least it ran longer than the original.

> IT IS OFFICIAL FROM THE PRODUCERS OF THE SHOW. I AM SO GLAD, THAT HAS TO
> GO DOWN IN THE ANNALS OF HISTORY AS ONE OF THE WORST RATED SHOWS OF ALL TIME
> NEXT TO THE 1988 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION. GOODBYE STTNG, YOU WILL NOT BE MISSED

I tend to choose my TV based on quality and my personal interests.  If
ratings mattered, we would all be watching nothing but "Cosby".  In fact,
I tend to discount the worth of any person who will admit to watching a
"rated" show (except Cheers, of course).

If you didn't enjoy the '88 democratic convention, we have nothing futher
to discuss.  The crowd chanting "where was George", the "silver foot in
his mouth", and Jesse's speach were all highlights of the otherwise dull
'88 election.

Now what does any of this have to do with sci.space.  Will humans ever
develop warp drive?  Are there any holes in the quantum theory and
relativity that might allow warp drive?

-john-

--
=============================================================================
John A. Weeks III               [phone]             [e-mail]
NeWave Communications, Ltd.                        ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john

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

Date: 7 May 91 16:31:43 GMT
From: hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:

>Several things that I think that most people are missing about the ALS.

With all due respect I think it is you who are missing the point. Everything
you say below about the design goals where said about the Shuttle as well.
Why is it any different this time?

>The ALS is NOT an attempt to build a latest, state-of-the art,
>Lamborghini-class launch vehicle.  Rather, it is a "Ford Pickup" class
>hauler.  The end goal is minimization of launch costs, NOT maximization
>of performance.  To this end:

Depends on who you ask. Several ALS people do indeed say that one ALS
goal is technology development to keep the US ahead in launch technology.
In fact, what this thing is depends on who you ask (kind of reminds the
old timers present of the Shuttle). The Air Force thinks it is a Titan
follow-on which lifts 50K pounds. To NASA it lifts 150K pounds. They
are so far apart that the Vice President recently put off any decision
until 93.

>1) The system is being built for >reliability<.  This means that any rocket
>will make it to orbit.  Design features to this end include:

So was the Shuttle. Why will this be any different?

>2) The system is being built for >availability<.  This means that the rockets
>will be available when the payloads are ready to go; you won't have to
>schedule the payloads around available rockets.  Elements of the ALS to
>support this include:

So was the Shuttle. Why will this be any different?

>3) The system is being designed for >low cost<.  The simpler, more
>inexpensive engines and the fly-by-wire avionics (electric actuators are
>cheaper than hydraulic systems) were mentioned before.  At the design goal
>of 25 launches per year, the system will cost 300$ per pound to orbit.  In
>addition:

So was the Shuttle. Why will this be any different?

BTW, the current price is $500 to $1,000. They now admit that $300 was
never practical. Kind of makes you feel good about the future doesn't
it?

But this number is interesting. Two contractors have offered to build
for a fixed price launchers which will launch 100K pound payloads. They
will do it in half the time and 5% of the cost of ALS. Operational costs
of these launchers would be about the same as ALS.

In this time of high taxes and deficits why do you insist on spending
dollars on what we could have for pennies?

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

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

Date: 6 May 91 23:51:13 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #492

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Re: Galileo flyby of ateroids.

>Sure dropping Jupiter for a 'few measly asteroids' would seem to be a waste.

>But dropping Jupiter for the most abundant, accessible resources and plantetary
>science specimens in the Solar System is a FANTASTIC idea.

Only if you are going to get some valuable data in the process.  Below, you
mention that the only data we have on asteroids is spectroscopic.  What do
you think you are going to get from Galileo?  It doesn't have any way of
actually analyzing the composition of an asteroid firsthand, which is what
is needed.  Let Galileo go on to Jupiter, damaged or no, and send a mission
to some asteroids with penetrators, the best way to analyze them.  Remember,
we are still going to get asteroid data from Galileo, plus information on
the moons.

>Remember that, unlike the Planets, we can (eventually) study every gram of the
>Asteroids, given the time and determinantion.  We will never study the interior
>of any of Jupiter's moons, let alone Jupiter.

How do you know that?  There is absolutely no reason we cannot study the
interior of Jupiters moons, in a manner similar to how we have studied the
interior of Earth.  Jupiter is a bit of a trick, but since we don't have
*any* solid (non-theoretical) information on the composition of Jupiter
below the cloudtops, any information we can get will be a bonanza compared
to what we have now.

>This not only means the Asteroids would make better scientific specimens, but
>also means we can recover all the heavy metals (i.e. gold, iron, lead, copper)
>that are forever hidden at the center of the other planets.

We are a *long* ways from this kind of space exploitation; waiting an extra
ten or twelve years to get the data won't make any real difference in our
schedule of space exploitation.

>And finding those heavy metals could be the incentive that private industry
>needs to get their butts busy building a space infrastructure.

Again, we are a *long* ways from this stage.  Scrapping a valuable Jupiter
mission to gain a few years in getting some poor data (remember, you're not
going to find out what is at the core of these asteriods with Galileo) on a
few asteroids isn't going to get private industry out there any sooner.
They'll still have to wait on a penetrator mission at the very least, which
may well be delayed by sending Galileo to asteroids.

>You would like to see a space infrasturcture wouldn't you?

Sure.  But junking Galileo won't accelerate the process, so why bother?

>>Am I the only one here who understands that you won't get optimal
>>data using a planetary orbiter to look at asteroids?

>Sure, I understand it fine.  I'm not suggesting that Galileo would even make
>a GOOD ateroid probe, let alone the best possible.

If it's not going to make a good probe, then it's not worth diverting it from
a mission it was designed to do.

>But, IMHO, even a really lousy view of a large number of asteroids would be
>more valuable than any view of Jupiter's moons, for exactly the reasons I've
>given above, especially if a mal-function meant that we'd get a lousy view
>of Jupiter's moons, too.

We already have lousy views of asteroids...why do we need *more* lousy
views?  And, as has been said before, we're going to get some more lousy
views *anyway*, plus Jupiter data.

>If I had the cash, (So you're the new Lotto winner?) I'd donate the whole
>wad to JPL, if they'd spend it on a decent Apollo Asteroid probe.  I really
>want to see if this civilization is going anywhere or not, and and the rate
>things are going, if it doesn't start soon, I'll be dead before it happens
>(if it happens).

This is exactly what needs to be done; a dedicated asteroid penetrator
mission.

One thing that I didn't mention above, and that you seem to have forgotten,
is that CRAF (Comet Rendezvous and Asteroid Flyby) is in the planning
stages now; it'll get more data from asteroids than Galileo will, by a
long shot.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology      P.O. box."  - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]    _The Number of the Beast_

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #516
*******************