Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_589.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-03 | 18KB

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/UcGmHUi00WBwMYhE5e>;
          Tue,  4 Jun 91 01:28:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  4 Jun 91 01:27:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #589

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 589

Today's Topics:
            SPACE Digest V13 #563
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
            SPACE station or NOTHING!!!!!
        UNITED SPACE FEDERATION, INC. UPDATE 6

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]

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 17 May 91 13:44:23 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Fri, 17 May 91 01:58:49 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #563
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Subject: Should Galileo be rerouted?

>>Yes, more flybys would give us more information.  Galileo is currently slated
>>to take a look at TWO big rocks.  What if they happen to be just rock?  No
>>volatiles, no metals, mo water, etc.

>What if the dozen or so rocks that Galileo could attempt to peer at were
>also just rocks?  If the first two are useless rocks, what makes you think
>the next dozen are going to be any better?

What if, indeed.  I'm suggesting we find out.  You're saying the knowledge is
less valuable than what we'd learn at Jupiter.  This is the crux of our
disagreement, and I think neither of us will concede what is essentially a
feeling, or at best, an opinion.

If you would like to argue it, I will point out 1) The relative knowledge
we have of each of these areas, and which is far behind the other, and
2) Which of these will be more important as space-based resources.

>What do you think CRAF (Comet Rendezvous and Asteroid Flyby) is for?  CRAF
>will be optimized for the task of looking at asteroids, as opposed to
>Galileo, which is going to turn instruments designed for other purposes
>to the task of looking at rocks as a sideshow?

CRAF is still being planned.  Galileo is flying toward the asteroids as we
speak (type?).

Again, my whole argument assumes Galileo is busted.  If it's not...

>I wouldn't bet on more than a dozen asteroid flybys, tops.  Remember,
>the asteroid belt isn't a flying ring of packed rocks...the individual
>asteroids are separated by thousands and hundreds of thousands of miles,
>over millions and millions of cubic miles of space.  Add to that the
>fact that you are pretty much going to be flying simple elliptical orbits
>with only minor nudges from the rockets on board, and you are looking
>at months between asteroid encounters...and Galileo won't live forever.

Neither will Voyager.    "I wouldn't count on a flyby of Uranus..."

>>If galieo is broke, then it already has been diverted from the mission it was
>>designed to do.  Why not change the mission?

>Because the mission can likely be salvaged.  The antenna may yet deploy,
>or they can send the relay satellite out to Jupiter on a fast orbit.  The
>knowledge waiting for us at Jupiter is worth it.

Again, 'assuming it's busted'.  "salvaged" means "not busted".
(though I still think that the knowledge at the 'stroids is more valuable)

>Assuming CRAF still has its penetrator on board, (I heard it was having
>budgetary problems a while back) CRAF will do exactly what is needed to
>help us start understanding what resources are out there.  Galileo will
>not.

Maybe Galileo could SOLVE those 'budgetary problems'.  And Galileo COULD
tell us if the resources are there, though the details may wait a while
longer.

>>Seriously, here's my perspective;
>>Given:  We don't know what's at either place.

[paragraphs on the discoveries of Voyager deleted]

I mispoke.  Replace with "We don't know what most of the 'stroids are made of"

>We have some idea of what asteroids are composed of, from spectral data
>and pieces that have come to earth.  Galileo can add some more spectral
>data, perhaps slightly better than what we have now.  CRAF will (likely)
>render that data obsolete in a few more years.

Definition of "few", please.
And I think Galileo will give us better than 'slight' knowledge.

>>Given:  If there were equal resource abundances at both places, the 'stroids
>>        would be better.  (delta-vee, travel time, gravity well, etc)

>Probably so.  Too bad we're nowhere near the ability to exploit asteroids.

Expoiting the Asteroids is the beginning of the bootstrap process that would
make us 'near the ability'.  Finding stuff on them would bring us closer than
we'd ever been, in terms of clear goals, motivation, chances of success, etc.

>>MY conclusion;  Blow Jupiter 'till we know what's at the 'stroids;  I think
>>at this point in time, science for it's own sake should take a back seat to
>>science for maximization of resources.

>Again, we aren't in a position to exploit asteroids in the interval between
>Galileo and CRAF, so why are you wanting to abandon all the knowledge we
>can gain at Jupiter for obsolescent data on asteroids?

I assume that you know the schedule for CRAF?  And know that we couldn't start
on the Asteroids, given the correct motivation?

Would you concede that Galileo could increase the budget and decrease the
scheduling of CRAF to the point of saving, say, twenty years? Ten? Five?
Pretty substantial, if you consider the possible payoff at $ 3e+12 / year.
Sure, it's speculatory.  So is invoking NASA flight schedules.

>>I'm not suggesting setting up multi-$$ operations.  I'm suggesting that IF
>>Galileo is broken, It's value could be increased by altering it's goals.

>But the goal you are thinking of won't do that...
>
If you feel that the answer to the questions ;

"Is CRAF far more important than we thought?"  and
"Are the Asteroids potential resources"

 are less important than information about the Jove's, fine.  I don't.

Tommy Mac
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 17 May 91 20:26:22 GMT
From: agate!stanford.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!samsung!umich!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) 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.

Like I said, I know people who fit the bill. Does anybody out there
actually think this would be a major problem?


>"man-rated" has a special and technical meaning to NASA.

I know. My point is that man rated launchers have operational
records just as good as the non-man rated ones. From this we
conclude that man rating adds cost but doesn't affect safety at
all. So why do it?

This should come as no suprise. The driving factor behind the
vehicle safety is the cost of payload, not the crew. The payloads
are generally worth far more than the crew in economic terms.

>only a safe design, but also crew escape modes,

This would indeed be an important aspect of the design.

>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.

And I feel sorry for them. But we must live in the real world. Freedom
was for years getting smaller and smaller yet costs whern't dropping
at all.

We got to face reality; it just wasn't working.

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

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

Date: 17 May 91 22:47:09 GMT
From: mintaka!think.com!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (joefish) writes:
>>[discussion of shuttle mistakes and whether NASA will repeat them]
>>tenaciously clinging to new-booster designs using shuttle SRBs and SSMEs?
>
>NASA clings to the SRBs and SSMEs because they are in production,
>and it would cost twice as much to put anything in production
>to replace them.

If you don't consider the SRBs and SSMEs to be mistakes that NASA needs
to learn from and avoid repeating, then just what *do* you think the
mistakes of the shuttle project were?

If the objective is a reliable launcher, it will not contain SSMEs, and
probably will not use SRBs.  Yes, this will increase development costs.
Maybe not very much if you use the perfectly-good Saturn engines instead.

>Even if an antique kerosene-oxygen engine were used in the
>first stage, there is no better engine than the SSME to use
>for the second stage.

Nonsense.  Either the J-2 or the RL-10 would be a better choice than the
SSME.  Their performance is not quite as good, but it's close, and their
reliability and cost is orders of magnitude better.  Their thrust is
rather lower, but this is not that crucial for upper stages.  The RL-10
is rather small but is *in production* and is an extremely reliable and
well-behaved engine.  The J-2 is bigger, but its reliability is harder to
assess because of its rather short career and reviving production would
take some work.  The SSME, while larger than either and with a slightly
higher exhaust velocity, is inordinately costly and its reliability record
is dreadful.  (The shuttle astronauts, while not being fond of the SRBs,
rate the SSMEs as the single most worrisome component of the shuttle.)

>The SRBs are much less complicated than the F1 assembly,
>and are probably more reliable in both failure to be ready
>to launch and failure during flight.

The record to date indicates otherwise, although the data is somewhat sparse.
Slightly more SRBs have now flown than F-1s.  To date there has been one
catastrophic in-flight failure.  USAF experience with large solids suggests
that a failure rate of 1-2% is reasonably typical.  65 F-1s flew, with no
failures.

The SRBs are *not* simple; 5000+ parts are removed, inspected, and reassembled
on each SRB after each shuttle mission.  And the safe functioning of the
motors themselves depends on the minute details of the physical properties
of huge masses of fuel.  The seeming simplicity of solid motors is illusory.
They also have a massive inherent disadvantage in that they cannot be tested
before flight.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 May 91 21:09:00 GMT
From: aio!vf.jsc.nasa.gov![e-mail]
Subject: SPACE station or NOTHING!!!!!

I feel that if the space station gets cut then NASA will never see that money
again.  Space Science will NEVER see that money again.  For people who did not
want the station because it did not suit their particlar project:  Now you
have NOTHING!

The money will go to "reduce" the national debt.  While everyone was busy
yelling about how the space station would not meet their particular needs,
it lost the support it needed to come into being.  You can't always get what
you want..... so lets have nothing instead..... what a mature solution!

I know that one vote by a committee does not kill the station, but it is in
DEEP trouble.  Would you rather have the station or NOTHING.

Flame away at me if you want to.  I don't care.   Its just my opinion.

--

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

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

Date: 17 May 91 02:08:05 GMT
From: vax5.cit.cornell.edu![e-mail]
Subject: UNITED SPACE FEDERATION, INC. UPDATE 6

*************************************************************
*UNITED SPACE FEDERATION, INC. / UPDATE FOR 16th of MAY 1991*
*************************************************************
*  An International Civil Space Agency By 1993              *
*       An Idea Whose Time Has Come !                       *
*************************************************************

              Main Goals of the Organization

1)  To intergrate international ( Multinational ) space efforts in a
orderly and symbeoticaly beneficial way, through the membership
of an international civil space agency.

2)  Provide a alternative to combative and destructive uses of
science and technology.

3)  To insure nationstate structure does not migrate to the Moon
and Mars ( or any where beyond Earths orbit ) by making these
domains international ( Multinational ), ( Earth ), areas of control
only.  This will be the only way to avert future military conflicts
in space, or on other planets, and will insure all the peoples of the
world community will benefit from its development.

                        What is the USF

       The United Space Federation is a not-for-profit Corporation
which was conceived and founded in 1986 in Virginia Beach,
VA.,USA, the purpose of which is to establish an international civil
space agency with a mandate to promote and and implement
multinational commercial and scientific exploration of space.  The
charter of this proposed space agency would forbid it to work with
national military organizations and would discourage projects
which entertain narrow political and/or economic biases.

       The hope of the Founder and Directors is that the USF's efforts
will produce more rapid advancement in already existing fields
such as Space Physics and Engineering, Life Sciences, Earth
Observation, Astronomy, Meteorology,  and Telecommunications
than is possible when scientific work and civil commercial
activities are "overly" restrained by national barriers.  This
proposed international civil space agency would also stimulate
research, and exploratory efforts, into the development of extra-
global ( e.g. Lunar, Martian, Ect. ) resource exploitation and
transportation and into means of removing environment
contaminating industrial "processes"(THIS DOES NOT MEAN WASTE)
to points beyond Earths eco-system.  The preservation of
industrial / technological civilization as we know it will require
breakthroughs in these and other, as yet-undefined areas.

       International commitment to the above projects through this
proposed international civil space agency will be an important
step in the direction of the restructuring of national economies of
major industrial nations presently dependent of war-related
research and production.  Jobs in the war (defense) production
sectors which are being threatened as a consequence of the
winding down of the Cold War, between the USSR and the USA,
could be rescued by redirecting them into the newly developing
space-related science and technology sectors resulting from the
formation of this proposed space agency.

       The ideals of a viable global environment, world peace through
international cooperation, and world wide prosperity comprise the
basic elements of the good life desired by men and women
everywhere regardless of nationality, religion, or political
ideology.  The USF will vigorously endeavor to realize these ideals
through the world community by promoting and implementing
space research, technology, and exploration.  For more information,
please contact: ( Send self addressed  stamped envelope )

                                            Board of Directors
                                       UNITED SPACE FEDERATION, INC.
                                        International  Headquarters
                                               P.O. Box 4722
                                       Ithaca, New York  14852-4722
                                      In the United States of America

     E-MAIL :     BITNET      -   [e-mail]5
                  BITNET      -   USF@CORNELLA
                  INTERNET    -   [e-mail]
                   VAX        -   [e-mail]

              Thank you for your time and support, Godspeed!
                                             Sincerely,
                                             Rick R. Dobson
                                             Executive Director
                                             United Space Federation, Inc.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #589
*******************