Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_597.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-04 | 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/YcH7bbe00WBw0cU05=>;
          Wed,  5 Jun 91 01:43:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  5 Jun 91 01:42:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #597

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 597

Today's Topics:
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
             Re: Building Infrastructure
           Ulysses Status for 05/15/91 (Forwarded)
     Saturn V performance (was Re: Saturn V and the ALS)
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
         Omnibus Space Commercialization Act of 1991
       Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated
         Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded
             Re: Building Infrastructure
               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: 19 May 91 17:25:46 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!quest![e-mail]  (Steve Schaper - SSB)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS


do you really think that in the current budget environment, NASA would get the  billions committed to the Shuttle if the shuttle were cancelled? I rather suspect some senator up for reelection will see it a good coup for his frank-mailings.

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

Date: 20 May 91 05:43:25 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!uwm.edu!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Building Infrastructure

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

>Like the Kelly Act, this approach is intended to create markets.

Not at all.  The Kelly Act was aimed at a _current market_, mail
delivery.  Furthermore, a primary motivation was to strengthen
the secondary industry, aircraft production, since it was important
for the defense.


>If I where doing it I would set aside funds for lowest absolute
>cost to orbit, lowest incrimental cost to orbit (lowest cost/lb)
>and lowest cost for a launcher which could carry humans (this would
>mean big enough to carry people not 'man rated'. I wouldn't constrain
>it any more than that.

Yes, but how low?  Cost to what orbit?  Why is delivering humans
into orbit important?  What current, or even near-future,
market does that serve?  What about delivery and processing of
extraterrestrial materials in competition with launching from earth?

Unless the program takes into account all of the permutations in a
fair and market-oriented manner, it could end up jeopardizing rather
than encouraging the development of self-sustaining space industry.




--
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: 18 May 91 06:48:45 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Ulysses Status for 05/15/91 (Forwarded)

Article: 1269 of nasa.nasamail.p
Newsgroups: nasa.nasamail.p
Path: ames!daemon
From: [e-mail] (DIANE AINSWORTH)
Subject: Ulysses Mission Status May 15, 1991
Message-ID: <OJJB-2948-9163@nasamail>
Sender: [e-mail] (The devil himself)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 15 May 91 15:38 PDT
Approved: telemail

                     ULYSSES MISSION STATUS
                          May 15, 1991

     The Ulysses spacecraft remains in good condition as it
cruises through the ecliptic plane on its way to Jupiter.  Today
Ulysses is approximately 498 million kilometers (309 million
miles) from Earth, traveling at a heliocentric velocity of
approximately 79,200 kilometers per hour (49,300 miles per hour).

     Following discussions at the spring science working team
meeting in Heidelberg, Germany, steps were taken to schedule
longer, 10-hour passes to permit the spacecraft's real-time link
to operate at a continuous bit rate of 1024 bps even when the
onboard tape recorder is being played back.  A new maneuver
strategy has been implemented to maintain the expected data rate
at baseline levels during the remainder of Ulysses' journey to
Jupiter and after it exits the ecliptic plane.

     To maintain continuous bit rate links during each extended
pass, operations team members will perform Earth-pointing
maneuvers more frequently to keep Ulysses pointed more precisely
at the Earth.  During this reporting period, routine slew
maneuvers were performed yesterday, May 14, and were planned for
tomorrow, May 16, and Monday, May 20.

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

Date: 21 May 91 00:24:59 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!transfer!lectroid!sw.stratus.com![e-mail]  (Tarl Neustaedter)
Subject: Saturn V performance (was Re: Saturn V and the ALS)

The May 20 aviation week has some details on Saturn V performance vs
ALS and Shuttle-C proposals. An article by Thomas Frieling advocates
reviving the Saturn-V first (S-1C) stage with newer 2nd & 3rd stages.
The interesting point is actual data comparing Saturn V vs Shuttle-C.

              mass to LEO
             -------------
Saturn V S1C: 130,000Kg
ALS:           50,000Kg - 90,000Kg
Shuttle-C:     50,000Kg
Energiya:     100,000Kg - 250,000Kg

[The Energiya data is supplied for comparison, it's what I have from
 Glavkosmos via SCC, believe as much of it as you wish.]

Other comparisons of interest:

               Thrust
              --------
Shuttle SSME:  470,000 lb
S1C F-1:     1,500,000 lb [Saturn V first stage motors]
S-2 J-2:       230,000 lb [Saturn V second & third stage motors]

Predicted cost of system development:
Shuttle-C:   $1.2 Billion + 6 years
ALS:         $9.5 Billion + 10-12 years
Saturn V:     ?.?         + 4-6 years

The article unfortunatley reads like it was written by a Believer,
and any figures (in particular relating to cost) should be cross-checked
before being used. Of interest is that the author contends that the
additional carrying capacity of the Saturn V is a major plus; Surprising,
given discussions that we wouldn't have a lot of use for payloads in that
range, and that the soviets can't find payloads for two energiyas sitting
on the ground today at Baikonur.
--
         Tarl Neustaedter    [e-mail]
         Marlboro, Mass.    Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

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

Date: 18 May 91 23:34:49 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>>An Apollo CSM would be a poor choice for a crew transport...
>
>He said "CM", not "CSM".  The service module would be largely superfluous
>in this role.

I don't think the command module alone could serve as a crew transport. Such
a transport would require at least 48 hours of autonomus power and life
support capability (For safty in the event of some failure,or as the soviets
do, for a slower docking approch to save fuel.) If I remember correctly, the
Apollo CM has almost NO independent capability (e.g. it needs a service
module, execpt for a very short time before and during reentry.) While
a smaller service module could certainly be designed, the whole point of
using Apollo hardware was to avoid new designs.

                  Frank Crary
                  UC Berkeley

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

Date: 18 May 91 20:50:51 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!samsung!umich!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Omnibus Space Commercialization Act of 1991


Last Thursday I received a copy of the Space Commercialization bill
for the 102ND Congress. It is similar to last years bill with some
additions. Some highlights are:

1. Requires all federally funded launches to go up on commercially
   provided launchers unless certain conditions apply.

2. It still requires the government to inventory and sell unused
   space facilities.

3. It still provides tax deducitons for people buying stock in a
   commercial launch facility.

4. Requires NASA to lease unused facilities

5. Makes it harder for the government to require cost and pricing
   data for commercial launches.

6. Requires the govenrment to use only reasonable performance specs
   and not design or construction specs in bids.

7. Loosens some anti-trust laws as they affect space.

8. Gains on sale of space corporation stock are tax free.

9. Bonds sold to finance space launch facilities become tax free

10. Profits on sale of items manufactured in space are tax free.

11. Specifies the duties of the Office of Space Commerce.

12. Requires each federal agency with more than $100M in R&D funding
    to give Congress a report containing a plan of space related
    work they will do and periodic followup reports on progress.

13. Requires the government to purchase space infrastructure from the
    private sector whenever possible.

This is likely to be the big space policy bill in this Congress. It
is very agressive and will take a lot of work to get enacted but it
is doable. More details as they become available.

   Allen

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

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

Date: 19 May 91 19:39:42 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!transfer!lectroid!sw.stratus.com![e-mail]  (Tarl Neustaedter)
Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated

I'd like to support the call for a moderated sci.space.?? group, and have
been asked to post my reasons on this group. To avoid this starting a posting
war, please don't follow up to this posting (other than in e-mail) unless you
check to see that only a few postings on this subject are already present.

Reasons for asking for a moderated group:
    1) I've several times come within a keystroke of de-subscribing to this
       group due to the redundant traffic. I'm a space fanatic, but I
       have a job which needs my attention, and I also read other groups.
    2) There are frequently *many* answers to a single question. A moderator
       can reduce that down to the few most concise answers, and reduce
       the number of repeated postings.
    3) There are frequently arguments carried out here. After the first
       two or three messages, these get old.
    4) There are occasionally postings to this group which don't belong. A
       moderator could screen these out.
    5) Certain subjects come up again and again. Adding an FAQ posting
       (which is difficult without a moderator) could reduce these.
    6) Certain subjects continue interminably. After a while, the discussion
       loses value and should be shut off.

For examples where a moderated group has drastically reduced traffic, see
comp.risks and rec.humor.funny. For examples where the moderator has reduced
traffic to about a minimum without being draconian (and has also made postings
a lot more readable), see sci.military. For an example of where the moderator
enhances the discussions, see comp.dcom.telecom.

For an example of where a moderator is clearly needed, see rec.sf-lovers.
I read over a hundred science fictions books a year, want to know what is
going on in the SF world, but I can't afford the time to read that group.
This group, sci.space, has been migrating in that unfortunate direction.
--
         Tarl Neustaedter    [e-mail]
         Marlboro, Mass.    Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

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

Date: 19 May 91 01:24:52 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Fred cut, AXAF and SIRTF funded

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>The cut did _not_ go to HUD.  This is utter myth.  Half of the $2
>billion went to NSF and EPA -- at least one of those a much better
>investment in space technology than Fred -- and the other half went to
>AXAF, SIRTF, and EOS.  If Fred had not been cut, AXAF and eventually
>CRAF would have been, thus greatly diminishing our chances of affordable
>human habitats within our lifetimes.  With SIRTF and other exploration
>missions like CRAF alive, we stand a fighting chance of gaining the
>knowledge we need to bring habitat costs down.
What exactly do you mean by money "went to" NSF, EPA and the AXAF, SIRTF
and EOS programs? Are you trying to say that the House gave these programs
MORE money than they asked for? This is not my understanding at all. Rather
these programs would have recieved LESS than was requested, if Freedom had
been funded. In no way does this mean that these programs benifited from
Freedom being zeroed. It means that they were not hurt because of it. There
is a BIG difference between gaining money and not loosing money. (If your
boss does not give you a raise, could you say that he gave you money, since
he chose not to fire you?)

                      Frank Crary
                      UC Berkeley

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

Date: 20 May 91 00:52:40 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Re: Building Infrastructure

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
> >>No large infrastructure project has ever been done without major
> >>government involvement.
>
> >Where did the thousands of billions of dollars worth -- over 1,000
> >times more $$$ than available to NASA -- of oil rigs, oil pipelines, ...
> >on this planet come from?

[A bunch of stuff about riding on government built roads, etc]

> I won't go on as I think the point is made. I'm not defending all of
> these actions and I think many of them are outdated. But I don't think
> we wold be as well off today without them.
>
Unfortunately, you didn't make a point except:  Much of our infrastructure
is government owned or government generated.

This does not support you contention that no major infrastructure project
wasn't government funded.

Look at our industry's infrustructure.  Mostly privately financed.
*SURE* the government builds things like roads and (did) intra continental
phone service.  It is making it *easier* for citizens to do buisness and
do all of those big infrastructure projects you say our industry never
did.

It also depends on your definition of _large_ and _involvement_.
  Make _large_ big enough and you can say that no one has ever done
anything large..... :)
Dilute _involved_ enough and you can say that there is nothing that
is done indapendant of the Government.

The whole arguement hinges on whose definitions you are to use.

As for myself, I feel that the private sector has done plenty of _large_
infrastructure projects.  Many pipelines, oil rigs, chemical plants,
auto plants and supporting industries.  Chip factoreis, etc.
These fit my definition of large, and satisfy my involved credential.
(And, yes, I know the transistor was invented in Bell Labs - a monopoly,
yet still privately owned)
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|    \\\\||||////    |  Brent Irvine     ([e-mail])    |
|    ////||||\\\\    | These opinions are mine...as if they counted! :) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 20 May 91 04:02:55 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>I hope not.  A mission so mammoth that it requires international
>participation is sure to be a boondoggle.
>

While a big, "mammoth" international mission could easily turn into a equally
mammoth administrative mess. For this reason I strongly disagree with the
Planetary Society and others who feel a manned Mars mission MUST be
international. However, there are many, smaller projects where international
cooperation could be a big plus. The Hubble Space Telescope's Faint Object
Camera and the Titan Atmospheric Probe (Huygens) on the Cassini probe are
examples of cooperation with the European Space Agency. These joint efforts
of this type could also be a risk if we dump the space station, and prove to
the rest of the world that we cannot be trusted.

                      Frank Crary
                      UC Berkeley

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #597
*******************