Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_576.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

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/UcDTK4G00WBw8P3k4e>;
          Sat, 25 May 91 01:26:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 25 May 91 01:26:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #576

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 576

Today's Topics:
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
              Re: Why the space station?
          Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED
        Re: Hypersonics ... paritcularly Hotol
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
               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 09:34:42 GMT
From: ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>And once again, the U.S. shows that it is not a partner to trust in
>international space projects.

Yes, we better give the Japanese that Y16.8 trillion gift,
while they chip in less than one-twentieth of that.  (No need
to translate it into dollars -- the U.S. govnt. borrows it from
Tokyo, gives it to Tokyo, then keeps paying interest to Tokyo,
to perpetuity.  Might as well keep things simple, keep it in yen).

BTW, nobody promised anything except some NASA officials.  If this
is indeed a very shameful thing, the proper recourse is seppuku.


--
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 14:44:19 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

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

        ...........................

> The real problem of course is our socialist aerospace system.
                                    ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
 We
> spend all we need to to have a good space science program AND
> a good exploration program. We just don't spend our moeny very
> wisely. The House action today (and if the Senate supports it)
> is IMHO a step in the right direction. We need to exploit this
> and turn it into an advantage.

I see no hope for a decent space program, now that the cold war is
over, as long as it is even handled by any combination of governments.
What we need is for the government to allow those who want to do it to
do so without restriction from government restrictions.

This is the thing to lobby for.  Then those who believe in space science
can raise money from various sources for it, and those who believe in
man in space can do likewise, and the various profit and nonprofit
organizations can cooperate to get the job done.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)   {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: 16 May 91 16:33:05 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED

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

>[...] Antartic asteroid sample return mission...

>[...] Antarctic manned mission...

>If this hold up, this is a GREAT moment for space exploration.

If the two exerpted lines above aren't the biggest load of sh*t I've seen
in months, I don't know what is.

We have more asteroid chunks on earth than we know what to do with...we've
analyzed hundreds and hundreds of them over the years, from all points of
the globe.  If a GREAT moment for space exploration is calling a rock-hunting
trip to Antarctica a 'manned sample-return mission', then I want nothing to
do with these GREAT moments.

--
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_

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

Date: 16 May 91 09:48:26 GMT
From: att!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Why the space station?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fraering Philip) writes:
>
>>Mars will not be as easy to quantify with an Apollo-style sampling
>>as the moon was. Anyway, even with HLV, the scale I just described
>>would have to be assembled in space or the mission foregone.
>
>Watch out, another solution in search of a problem is rearing
>its ugly head...
>
>Returning Martian polar samples wouldn't require any sort of assembly.
>You would land a small drilling rig on the pole, bring up a nice
>long thin core, take pictures of it as it came up, and chop pieces
>out of it at intervals for on-site analysis or return to earth
>via rendesvous and sample transfer in Martian orbit.  The lander/drilling
>rig is all one piece, the orbiter is a separate peice.  There is no
>benefit from assembly; forcing assembly on the mission could
>severely handicap the functions.

This smash and grab mission profile is what we seek to avoid which is
why we were talking about a long duration mission with a capable
rover drill rig to give us hundreds of sample cores from hundreds
of sites. I suspect that Mars is not so homogenous that a single
borehole would answer the questions we would like to ask. I'm not
even sure that the Moon is homogenous enough that the Apollo
missions, which in later stages did include a rover, answered the
questions we'd like to ask. For the scale of mission we are discussing,
there is no way the probe could be lofted in one piece from Earth's
surface without an HLV well beyond current plans, or assembly in orbit.

It all depends on what you want to do. If a single tantalizing peek
satisfies you, then we could mount a crash program to start a tiny smash
and grab probe on it's way in five years. We could then launch another
every five years for 500 years and eventually get the same data supplied
by our one roving probe. Or if you'd prefer a better chance of understanding
the planet in a much shorter timeframe and at lower total expense, a more
capable mission could depart in twenty years. But that kind of probe requires
that we start taking the basic infrastructure steps *now* to be in a position
to launch it in twenty years. That means HLVs and quite likely a space
assembly station as well as considerable advances in robotics, AI systems,
long lag teleoperation, and long term operability. We've had glimmers of
the latter with the Voyagers, but we really need to consider designing
in self diagnosis and self repair as well as considerably more redundancy.
All of these steps would have application in other missions as well so
their total cost need not be charged solely against a Mars probe. We
would have a *system* in place for launching advanced probes anywhere
in the solar system that we chose. This, as opposed to the one shot
spectatular smash and grabs, is what I would like to see put in place.

Contrary to what people on this list would like to believe, space is
huge, planets are huge, development programs are time consuming,
capable probes are huge efforts, and we must have much more patience and
foresight than we'd like to get the job done right. Depending on miracles,
anti-matter drives, space warps, that L word, or other postulated break-
throughs, is unlikely to get the job done on schedule and on budget.

Gary

Thought for the day:

"I believe in the lever and the inclined plane, the wheel I'm not so
sure about." A reliability engineer's maxim.

Gary

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

Date: 16 May 91 20:03:15 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: SPACE STATION FREEDOM WOUNDED



 ET and ISF type stations are nothing.
The taxpayer will end up funding them anyway,
certainly not venture capitalists, who only funded ventures
underwritten by the government.
   Pity the manned space program is being dessimated.
A persoanl disaster for me I might add, and thousands of
skilled aerospace workers who will become hamburger flippers.
   Thanks a lot.
Let me know when you succeed in selling the Brooklyn bridge
to pay for your ideas.

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

Date: 16 May 91 20:44:35 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hypersonics ... paritcularly Hotol

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Sidnell) writes:
>The last I heard (< 6 months a go, here on the net) was that some strange
>deal with the Soviets was in the offing, which involved some cut down version
>of Hotol with a "conventional" first stage (whatever that is).

There was talk about a Hotol derivative using conventional rockets launched
from the back of an Antonov Mriya.  This would have avoided the problematic
engine technology proposed for the original.  Favorable noises were being
made about it, but I have heard nothing recently.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 16 May 91 21:45:28 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

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

Oh? Less manuals than the Apollo? Nice. Convenient.

>>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.

Since the Soviets haven't put a price tag on Soyuz or the engineers, I
can't see how you can. They could just say no, claim "national security" and be
done with it. Or offer you a real great deal on a Buran :-)
.
>>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.

The astronaut corps will fight it tooth and nail. I don't blame them. Soyuz has
poor orbital manuvering capability, no robot arm, no workspace. We didn't think
about rescueing satellites with Apollo tin cans. We couldn't with Soyuz.

>>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.

Rockwell International and Lockheed will sit idly by while you propose this
money saving concept? Bahahah. Got some news for you. Their PR budgets are
bigger than yours and Joe Penny-Pinching Congressman.

I can't see DoD running SDI research in a Soviet tin can, for some odd reason.

>>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.

Compatable, compatable, compatable HOW? Volume and mass, yes. Manned research?
No. Power for experiments, no. You need something to hook it to.

Which space station are you docking with? The LLNL gasbag or Fred? You want to
burn a couple of billion dollars worth of associated hardware along with the
Shuttle, apparently.  Everything that has been designed for the shuttle
bay, all the current MANNED labs.

>The people who get cut out will redesign and relaunch; we will
>still save money.

Sure. You're going to ask people who were put on hold for close to 3 years
post-Challenger to go back to the drawing board. I want to see you say that to
the grad students and professors you end up screwing over to save a few bucks.

>>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.

A lot of dark-horses outside of the Pentagon were bemoaning about how EXPENSIVE
our weapons systems were, how FRAGILE, how MIS-MANAGED and prone to FAILURE.

Somehow, scrapping what we have debugged and starting from scratch and
expecting a "Happily Ever After" Scenario is kinda bogus.


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

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 21:24:09 -0400
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

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

>>>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.

>Oh? Less manuals than the Apollo? Nice. Convenient.

Yes it is convenient. Of course if she is having problems, my parents
next door neighbor who is a professor of Russian can help out. We also
have an engineer here where I work who speaks it rather well.

Now that we have that problem out of the way...

>Since the Soviets haven't put a price tag on Soyuz or the engineers, I
>can't see how you can.

You should stay more current. I have spoken with the president of the
company which markets Soviet hardware in the US. Soyuz is available and
can be had for $50M each (presumably less in quanity).

>>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.

>The astronaut corps will fight it tooth and nail.

So we get new astronauts. Soyuz has an excellent operational record and
I don't see why a few astronauts should be allowed to strangle the
US space program.

>I don't blame them. Soyuz has
>poor orbital manuvering capability, no robot arm, no workspace.

Who cares? All we need it for is transport to the station. It has
shown itself to be very good at that task.

>We didn't think
>about rescueing satellites with Apollo tin cans. We couldn't with Soyuz.

Any satellite rescued by the Shuttle for return to Earth lost money.
We are better off keeping them there. As for repair, for about 40%
of the third year savings from an approach like this we can build the
OMV to get satellites. Then they can be repaired in a orbital dry dock.
This will save the taxpayers money instead of costing them money like
we do now.

>Rockwell International and Lockheed will sit idly by while you propose this
>money saving concept? Bahahah. Got some news for you. Their PR budgets are
>bigger than yours and Joe Penny-Pinching Congressman.

Sounds like we don't have a problem. If they transfer their PR budgets
to their development departments then they can build the hardware we
need.

As to Congress, you are correct; if we all sit here then we won't see
anything change. On the other hand, if we all push for an effective
program we can get it.

>I can't see DoD running SDI research in a Soviet tin can, for some odd reason.

Even as we speak the DoE is doing work using a Soviet military reactor.
They bought it form them. If SDIO doesn't want to use the available
hardware then let them build their own. They aren't worth holding up
everybody else.

>>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.

>Compatable, compatable, compatable HOW? Volume and mass, yes. Manned research?
>No. Power for experiments, no. You need something to hook it to.

The Titan is just for transport. Experiments get power from the space
station. Crews go up on another Titan. If we have a HLV then both can
go up at the same time.

>Which space station are you docking with? The LLNL gasbag or Fred? You want to
>burn a couple of billion dollars worth of associated hardware along with the
>Shuttle, apparently.  Everything that has been designed for the shuttle
>bay, all the current MANNED labs.

There are no current MANNED labs. There are however lots of designs for
simple labs. Skylab is an existance proof that it can be done.

>Sure. You're going to ask people who were put on hold for close to 3 years
>post-Challenger to go back to the drawing board.

In some cases, yep.

>I want to see you say that to
>the grad students and professors you end up screwing over to save a few bucks.

You may consider billions 'a few bucks' but I don't. As to the professor,
it is HE who owes the explanation to me. He is the one spending my money.

>Somehow, scrapping what we have debugged and starting from scratch and
>expecting a "Happily Ever After" Scenario is kinda bogus.

Since 90% of this plan uses off the shelf hardware I don't see how you
can justify this.

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

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #576
*******************