Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_572.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/wcD:wai00WBw8JPk4J>;
          Fri, 24 May 91 02:13:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 24 May 91 02:13:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #572

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 572

Today's Topics:
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
             Re: R-100 and R-101
          MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT - IMPACT POSSIBLE
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
              Re: Why the space station?
               Re: Saturn V and the 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: 16 May 91 16:15:59 GMT
From: hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

>>Put a Soyuz on a Titan. It will work just fine. Use the money saved
>>to build a space station. Send the spacelabs up to LEO and keep them
>>there. Service with Titan IV as needed.

>HOW MUCH TIME AND MONEY IS IT GOING TO COST TO CERTIFY SOYUZ ON A TITAN?

I figure about a billion or so over maybe two years. Don't forget, since
a Shuttle flight costs three to four times as much it's worth a lot to
do it.

>Do you have any clue? Let me give you a few hints here: A) Translating the
>documentation and technical specs into English

The wife of a friend of mine could do it in a couple of weeks. There is
also no shortage of Soviet engineers who speak english to help when needed.

>B) Certifying Titan IV as man-rateable

No need. It is already as safe as the Shuttle. Glenn Seare also posted
figures to show that Gs and vibration are within human tolerance.

>C) Integrating Soyuz and Titan into a package & "dry-firing" sans
>crew at least once or twice D) Writing, testing and working out new launch
>procedures for your little hybred at the Cape.

Figure that as part of the billion. If you don't agree, let's see your
detailed figures.

>You can't snap your fingers and do this. Nor will you get ANY support (non,
>zip) for it.

Nobody said you can just stap your fingers. All anybody said is that
it can be done. As to support, ideas very much like this are indeed
finding support in Congress.

>It's bad enough to get people to accept Soviet UNMANNED launchers.
>Not to mention the political lobbying from the unions to "Buy American" if
>your idea was half-heartedly considered.

If those people want to buy American, let them. Perhaps we can buy that
from the billions we save in the second year of no Shuttle launches.

>You still ignore what will happen to Shuttle-dependent payloads, including
>scientific experiments designed to fit into the bay, SpaceLabs, and cooperative
>efforts with the European Community.

Titan IV is compatable wiht the Shuttle. Some we can modify, some dock with
the space station. I'm sure some will be cancled but it will be worth it
since we will get orders of magnitude more science for orders of magnitude
less money. The people who get cut out will redesign and relaunch; we will
still save money.

>Perhaps you really don't care about sacrificing ESA/NASA joint ventures, but
>I think ESA has been screwed enough already.

As a matter of fact, no I don't. We are squandering billions operating this
thing. We could do much more for far less. If that entails short term
sacrifices, fine.

  Allen

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

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

Date: 16 May 91 16:55:10 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!concertina.Eng.Sun.COM![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: R-100 and R-101

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Clive Feather) writes:
>cc.bell <DLB
>Reply-To: [e-mail] (Clive D.W. Feather)
>Organization: IXI Limited, Cambridge, UK
>Lines: 15
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>The R-101 had grave trouble flying at all, needed hasty and ill-advised
>>lengthening to have any hope of meeting its performance specs, and was
  ^^^^^^^^^^^

Needed to increase lift by stuffing in more gas bags.  There were a *lot*
more problems beside this one.

>>generally over budget, behind schedule, and below expectations... and on
>>its maiden voyage to India, this flagship of socialist progress crashed
>>on a hillside in France with no survivors.

The R-101 lost 48 of the 54 on board.

The departure couldn't have been encouraging to the crew:  They had to
dump 4 tons of water ballast to depart (it was leaking hydrogen pretty
badly...reducing lift), and set course at 1,500'...when the pressure
height was only 1,000'.  (Pressure height is the height at which lifting
gas begins to be automatically valved off because of expansion.)

>There are several ex-R101 crew members who would be surprised to hear
>that. I can provide names if you want. I think that some of them might
>still be alive.

As might be some of the R-100's crew.  It flew quite well, but once the
R-101 went down, the R-100 never again flew again and was junked.




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

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 12:37:51 MDT
From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:[e-mail]> (CARY OLER)
Subject: MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT - IMPACT POSSIBLE
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"[e-mail]"

                        --  MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT  --

                                 MAY 16, 1991

                              Flare Event Summary
                          Potential Impact Assessment


                                    --------



MAJOR ENERGETIC EVENT SUMMARY

     A major flare erupted from Region 6619 on 16 May.  This flare was a
complete surprise.  We had just sent out a cancellation for the potential
major solar flare warning when this flare promptly erupted.  Region 6619 had
shown no signs of major flare development.  It was stable and was not even
producing any significant low-level M-class flaring.  No spot movements were
observed prior to the flare.  It seemed to be a typical dormant region.  We
acknowledged a slight risk for a major flare from this region, but were
fairly confident that nothing would materialize.  This event proves just how
unpredictable flare phenomena can be.

     The flare was rather powerful, rated a class M8.9/2B and was associated
with strong Type II and IV sweeps.  The event was located at N30W54.  Radio
bursts were detected from this flare; the 2695 MHz burst was 5,000 s.f.u..
The integrated x-ray flux from this flare was moderate, at 0.320 Joules. A
satellite proton event has been expected for over the past six hours, but
nothing has yet materialized.  If protons fail to arrive within the next
three hours, protons likely will not materialize.  Polar latitudes are
alerted to the increased potential for PCA and/or a polar cap disturbance.
If protons arrive, polar latitudes can expect higher absorption levels, and
errors on navigational signals passing through or near the polar latitudes.

     There is uncertainty regarding the possibility for future major flares
from Region 6619.  This region gave no forewarning before it produced todays
major flare.  It may do so again before it departs the western hemisphere.
We are somewhat skeptical whether it will produce another major flare.  It
has been quiet and stable since the end of todays major flare and may in fact
resume a stabler, less active condition.  All things considered, we are
calling for generally low to moderate solar activity with a risk for another
isolated major flare from Region 6619.

     The Potential Major Solar Flare Warning has been reinstated until Region
6619 departs behind the west limb.


POTENTIAL TERRESTRIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

     A risk exists for a low to moderate terrestrial impact from this latest
flare.  The probability of a geomagnetic impact is somewhat dependent on
whether we intercept any solar protons.  If we don't intercept any solar
protons, generally unsettled to active geomagnetic conditions can be expected
over the middle latitudes with possible periods of minor storming over the
higher latitudes.  If solar protons do arrive, the impact will likely be
stronger, with possible active to minor storm conditions over the middle
latitudes and periods of major storming over the high latitudes.  The
projected time of arrival of a possible interplanetary shock is near mid-day
on 18 May.  Conditions on 18 and 19 May could be more disturbed.

     The next STFR, which is due to be released shortly, is being revised at
the present time to include the potential risks from this last major flare in
the forecasts.

     A geomagnetic storm warning may be issued if solar protons arrive within
the next several hours.


**  End of Alert  **

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

Date: 17 May 91 02:32:00 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>also no shortage of Soviet engineers who speak english to help when needed.
>
"who speak english" might not be a good idea. For a man rated vehicle,
"fluent in technical, aerospace-terminology English" would be required.
Also, having trained (e.g. in space craft operations) people do the
translation is vital. (I once heard that "hydrolic ram" was transtated
as "water goat" by a translater that didn't follow the context.)

>>B) Certifying Titan IV as man-rateable
>
>No need. It is already as safe as the Shuttle. Glenn Seare also posted
>figures to show that Gs and vibration are within human tolerance.
>
"man-rated" has a special and technical meaning to NASA. It involves not
only a safe design, but also crew escape modes, demonstrated redundency
on all mission critical failure modes, etc... While man-rating a Titan
would not be a big job, it would take time (or a Presidential order to
ignore safty requirments.
Now might be a good time to start man-rating a Titan, though, just in
case, and to keep our options open.
>

>>Perhaps you really don't care about sacrificing ESA/NASA joint ventures, but
>>I think ESA has been screwed enough already.
>
>As a matter of fact, no I don't. We are squandering billions operating this
>thing. We could do much more for far less. If that entails short term
>sacrifices, fine.

This may not be a "short term sacrifice" The ESA and Japan treat the inter-
national agreement to develop and operate Freedom as an legal treaty with
another nation, and that it is a binding international law. Of all the
nations contributing to Freedom, only the US feels that they can freely
change the design (or trash it) whenever they please. If we do dump
Freedom (as opposed to orbiting something that still meets our agreement
with ESA/NASDA/etc...) then we may NEVER be able to enter into another
jont venture with anyone. By dumping Freedom, we FORCE these parties to
"squander billions" themselves, without even warning them...

                     Frank Crary
                     UC Berkeley

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

Date: 16 May 91 08:29:34 GMT
From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fraering Philip) writes:

>>[I write]
>>Returning Martian polar samples wouldn't require any sort of assembly.
>
>You don't understand; I'd like to see several dozen of these as a start,
>from dephs ranging from the surface to several km down.

Well, I'd like to see a couple dozen Bussard-powered interstellar
probes,  manned missions to every planet in the solar system and
to Beta Pictoris, and oh let's throw in a few free O'Neill colonies
while we're at it.   Sure, Congress will wise up and pay for it
one of these years. Gosh, I guess that means we need assembly. :-)

Explorers really do want to explore, and the whole solar system
not just polar ice of one planet.  They have to ask for real money.
Sooooo, their designs are likely to be slightly different from what
our wild imaginations can come up with, when searching for bizarre
reasons to support an obsolete concept.

Even given all that, several dozen _still_ don't require assembly.

Looks like the space station paradigm has broken down to the
last stage of bizarre silliness.... didn't realize it, but it's going
to be fun, watching its last moments.... :-)



--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

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

Date: 16 May 91 14:32:51 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>Yep. Costs are:
>
>1. Develop two HLV's:                $1 billion
>2. Integrate Soyuz with new
>   vehicle:                          $1 billion (should be less than this)
>3. Build econo-lodge station:        $2 billion (I'm splurging here as well)
>                              total: $4 billion
>
>Which is a lot less than a years Shuttle costs.

Glad to see you can be as creative at math as the 70s NASA managers. The only
thing which might be close is the Soyuz intergration.

>>Oh? So how do you fit SpaceLab modules on top of a Titan V and then bring them
>>back in 7, 10, or 30 days?
>
>Titan IV is compatable with the Shuttle so it should go up with no problems.
>As to bringing it back down, let's not. Let's keep it up there so it can do
>more experiments.

Euh, too-de-loo, excuse me. SpaceLab wasn't designed as a free flier. You need
power, environmental controls, and living quarters for 7 people. Oh? You forgot
the people? Ohhhhhh. Plus integration of a docking module.

>>What do you propose to tell the European Community?
>>"Sorry, folks, redesign again because we are..." How do you bring back
>>satellites and haul around 7 people at once? How do you provide a robot arm and
>>experiments in tethered satellites?
>
>At the moment there is no need to bring back satellites. Any satellite
>you can name should be either repaired in space or tossed. None are worth
>bringing back and relaunching at Shuttle costs.

Repaired by what? Soyuz doesn't have a robot arm, doesn't have a big cargo bay,
doesn't have a lot of consumables for on-site repair capability. You'll
have to convince the astronaut community to move from a decent-sized vehicle to
a tin can. They're going to support downsizing like that? Riiiiiigh.

Fetching something in a non-standard orbit?

>As to transport to Freedom, you just use multiple Soyuz and on the HLV
>and launch as needed. Still a lot cheaper than the Shuttle.
>
>>How do you tell all the poor bastards who have based their graduate research
>>work to fit into a Shuttle bay that they have to rework their experiements Yet
>>Again?
>
>I will say: Good news! Your experiments will still work since the Titan
>fairing is compatable with the Shuttle. Not only that, you will have an
>order of magnitude more chances to do experiments since we now have a
>station.

The Titan fairing does not provide power, or human beings to fix things (a la
Astro 1). You adding the cost of adding fuel cells and tin-can launches to put
people up?

     Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #572
*******************