Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_601.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-05 | 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/IcH8MIa00WBwQcwk4H>;
          Wed,  5 Jun 91 02:35:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  5 Jun 91 02:34:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #601

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 601

Today's Topics:
           Re: Rational next station design process
           Re: All except Henry, skip this article
           Re: All except Henry, skip this article
             Re: Building Infrastructure
         Rational next station design process
         NASA Headline News for 05/15/91 (Forwarded)

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: 21 May 91 01:58:56 GMT
From: agate!tornado.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: Rational next station design process

The dangers of not explicitly going from step zero... 8-)
Nick Sazbo correctly points out that a manned station does not inherently
fulfil the set of 'space users needs'.  My intent was to demonstrate a set
of needs that can (and in fact only can) be fulfilled by a manned station.
If you don't feel that such needs are a priority item, feel free to say so,
but don't criticize an approach to designing a station on those grounds.
Obviously, a station would only be a part of a complete space program.
But, it uniquely can supply us with long-term human experience in space,
which we will need when/if we begin manned exploration of the solar system.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>A rational approach (as far as I know, _the_ rational design approach) to
>>aerospace design is to follow the following steps in designing a vehicle:
>>
>>Mission:
>>    What can we do with a manned space station?
>
>I am sorry to say, this design approach is not at all rational.
>
>Instead of _assuming_ a design concept "space station", start with the
>question: "what do space users need?"  The major space users being
>defense, commerce (mostly communications), and exploration.
>
>If we start out with the question "what can we do with a manned
>space station", then of course we can make up some justifications
>for it.  If we start out with the question "what do space users need",
>then we can design the most useful infrastructure to extend our reach into
>space.  It may or may not have anything to do with a "space station" --
>we must examine many alternatives and be prepared to change or
>preconceived notions.
>
>Unless we take this step farther back in the thinking process, we are
>just fooling ourselves into believing we are making something useful.

How about "What do some space users need?".  You can't design a single system
to completely fill an infrastructure: obviously, there are things that
are done in space (Defense, Communications, unmanned exploration) that have
very little to do with a station.  However, if you agree that manned
exploration is a long term goal (and don't even start on this one, Nick,
that's an explicit assumption), then a number of the missions can only be
accomplished on a Manned Station.  And, as long as we're there for the bio
stuff, we might as well do some other useful things...

>Other points to consider:
>
>* What _else_ needs to be done, besides the above tasks (opportunity costs).
>* How can the above tasks be done most efficiently (examine alternatives:
>  sounding rockets, animal experiments in a variety of orbits, ...)

As I said, lots of things don't have anything to do with a station.
Most of the mission items I select down to can't be done any other way.

-george william herbert
[e-mail]

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

Date: 19 May 91 15:44:34 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge![e-mail]  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: All except Henry, skip this article


You know, next time you should use fnords to subliminally keep
everyone who you don't want to read the article from reading
it. Uff da!

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

>For about the fourth time I will repeat what I have been saying.
>SIRTF and AXAF are saved _this year_ in the Congressional committee
>by the cutting of Fred.  SIRTF, AXAF, and many other actual and
>potential programs are saved in _ensuing years_ if Fred is cut
>permanently.  The evidence couldn't be more overwhelming.

>From the $2G this year, to $3G next year, and up to a peak of $10G
>in ensuing years (according to GAO estimates), for a total of
>$120G in new programs made possible.  Economists call this
>"opportunity cost".

You misunderstand. Fred probably wasn't going to see that money
anyway.

>I hope I don't have to say this again, people are getting tired
>of repitition in this newsgroup.

Gee, whatever gave you that idea??? :-)

>I'm not dreaming, I'm doing simple arithmetic.  Of course, you
>don't like "bean counting".  Fine: stop eating beans.

You are dreaming if you think the congresscritters are really
considering things in that fashion, instead of maybe using Fred as a
bargining chip to get more pork money for their own districts, or are
even thinking of a long-term plan for space exploration.

--
Phil Fraering || Usenet (?):[e-mail] || YellNet: 318/365-5418
''It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable
madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is
beyond the reach of a strong left arm.`` - Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle, _The Mote in God's Eye_

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

Date: 20 May 91 04:39:05 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: All except Henry, skip this article

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>From the $2G this year, to $3G next year, and up to a peak of $10G
>in ensuing years (according to GAO estimates), for a total of
>$120G in new programs made possible.  Economists call this
>"opportunity cost".
>
>I hope I don't have to say this again, people are getting tired
>of repitition in this newsgroup.
>
I'm afraid you will have to. As far as I am concerned, Congress would
never have paid $120 billion for Freedom, this money DID NOT EXIST. It
simply would not be available. This $120 billion will NOT go to other
space or science programs, since this money was never available..
>
>I'm not dreaming, I'm doing simple arithmetic.
>
Well, you seem to be assuming that Freedom would have recieved its full
requested budget for the rest of the program's life. Knowing the
Congress of the United States, this sound like dreaming to me.

                                      Frank Crary
                      UC Berkeley

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

Date: 19 May 91 20:59:14 GMT
From: hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Building Infrastructure

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?

Well, here is what happened with oil rigs: some company decided that
an oil rig was needed. To design it a bunch of engineers got up and
rode on government supplied roads to their jobs. They talked over
phone lines belonging to a government chartered monopoly with other
engieers. Sometimes they had to visit the other engineers so they
drove on the govenrment supplied roads to an airport built with
government subsidized money and operated by the government. They
they fly on aircraft built partly using government funded research
and encouraged by the government sponsored Kelly Act. When they where done
wiht the design they built it.

To build it some iron ore was dug up in the UP of Michigan. It was
transported over government subsidized rail lines to a port built
with government funds and maintained by the Cost Guard. There is was
loaded onto an ore boat where it started off to the steel companies
in Penn. On it's way it passed through several channels and a set of
locks built by the Corps of Engineers (part of the govenrment). Finally
it arrives at another port built with government subsidized funds
and unloads onto a train which goes over tracks built with direct
government land grants...

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.

>>This is the approach we need to take. If we want to reduce launch
>>costs, let's gurantee a large market at 75% of current prices and
>>reduce that price periodically.

>Fine, but don't dictate the size of rocket or satellite, the "best"
>or "paradigmatic" orbits, or the best payloads to launch.  These
>decisions best made by the industries serving the marketplace.

Like the Kelly Act, this approach is intended to create markets.
Just as the market for air travel before the Kelly Act was nothing
compared to air travel after, we need the same thing for space.

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.

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

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

Date: 20 May 91 19:12:43 GMT
From: agate!tornado.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Rational next station design process

A rational approach (as far as I know, _the_ rational design approach) to
aerospace design is to follow the following steps in designing a vehicle:

1. Mission
2. Constraints
3. Architecture Tradeoffs
4. Architecture selection & optimization
5. Detail & bend metal & fly


    Let's apply this to a space station.

Mission:
    What can we do with a manned space station?
    * Human Biological Research
    * Human Psychological ""
    * general Bio Res.
    * Space Infrastructure Field Testing
    * some Microgravity work
    * some Astronomy/Astrophysics work
    * some Materials Processing (for profit?)
    * Space Vehicle Refurbishing/Repair (field study on practicality)
    * ... (fill in blanks.  I think that mostly covers the field)

    So, how many of the above do we Want to do?  Freedom wanted to do it
all, at once.  Current CW is that it's impractical.  Limit our goals: what
can be done elsewhere, and what doesn't need to be done from that sort
of platform that badly?  That prunes the goals down to
    * Human / Other bio
    * some Microgravity
    * Infrastructure Field Testing
    * some Mat. Proc.
    * exploring potential for Vehicle Refurbish/Repair (* this is neat but
        not necessary.  consider it as an add-on for later?)

Constraints
    Let's set reasonable goals for now.
    1. Must be budget-smart in current govt. economic situation
    2. Should be compatable with all current space vehicles
    3. Minimize new technologies essential to station (we can test, but not
        rely on...)
    4. Should be able to fly in 5 years from project start.
    5. Project Start should be assumed to be 1992-4
    6. Political Reality should be considered but not drive.

Architectures
    A few possible architectures, with notes:
    * Freedom-oid (cans & truss): costly, maximum expandability
    * Mir-oid (just cans): cheaper, less flexible
    * Shuttle ET (pot. + cans or truss): unknown technology to remanufacture
        an ET in orbit, but large and cheap if it works
    * any more ideas?

    Once we total up the potential architectures, next step is to go
in and do a matrix of what does what how well.

    Feel free to offer more options, criticism, etc. of my choices.  Once
we've tweeked the missions and the Constraints and added any more Architectures
that appear possible, we can start on a relative worth matrix.

-george william herbert
[e-mail]

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

Date: 18 May 91 06:46:46 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 05/15/91 (Forwarded)


             Headline News
Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA Headquarters

  Wednesday, May 15, 1991    Audio Service: 202 / 755-1788

This is NASA Headline News for Wednesday, May 15, 1991 . . .

The NOAA-D environmental satellite was successfully launched
into a 522-statute-mile-high orbit yesterday aboard an Atlas-E
launcher from Vandenberg Air Force Base.  The spacecraft was placed
into a sun-synchronous orbit which allows it to view the entirety of
Earth's surface every 12 hours.  Launch occurred on time at 11:52
am EDT.  Performance of the Atlas vehicle was described by
Vandenberg launch officials as nominal and, based on data from
vehicle inertial reference units, was an extremely smooth ride.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Work on Columbia on launch pad 39-B is nearing completion.
Activities remaining includes final ordnance installation, set for
tomorrow, and aft compartment closeout, set for Friday.  The seven-
member STS-40 crew is scheduled to arrive at Kennedy Space
Center from Houston on Sunday, May 19, at 1:30 pm.  The  launch
countdown process is scheduled to begin at 5:00 pm, Sunday.  Launch
of Columbia and the STS-40 mission is presently scheduled for
8:00 am EDT, Wednesday, May 22.

During the STS-40 mission, NASA Select TV will also be
transmitted on Spacenet 1, transponder 18, to provide coverage to
Alaska and Hawaii viewers.  Two-hour edited versions of each day's
mission activities will be transmitted daily on Spacenet 1 from 12:00
am to 2:00 am EDT.  Spacenet 1 is located at 120 degrees West
Longitude.  Transponder 18 is on 4060.0 MHz.  Regular NASA Select
TV transmissions will continue on Satcom F2R.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Office of Space Flight monthly press briefing will occur
Monday, May 20, from 12:30 pm to 2:00 pm EDT in Room 425, FOB
10-B.  Associate Administrator for Space Flight, Dr. William Lenoir,
and Richard Kohrs, Space Station Director, will be the briefers.

                   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

George Washington University recently honored Gen. Elmer Brooks,
NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Management.  Gen. Brooks
was honored as one of GWU's 1991 distinguished alumni in
recognition of his career achievements.  GWU established the honor,
the university's highest, in 1937.  Prior to joining NASA in 1989, Gen.
Brooks served 30 years with the Air Force.  He received the Defense
Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, and several Air
Force Service Commendation Medals.


Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA
Select TV.  Note that all events and times may change without notice,
and that all times listed are Eastern.

Wednesday, 5/15/91
    12:00 pm    STS-40 cardiovascular investigations briefing with Dr.
          Leon Farhi, from JSC.  LIVE

    12:30 pm    STS-40 cardiopulmonary investigations briefing with Dr.
          Harold Guy, from JSC.  LIVE

    1:00 pm    Air & Space Report #256.

    1:15 pm    Magellan-at-Venus final status report, from Jet Propulsion
          Laboratory.  Magellan will have completed one full mapping
          cycle of the planet. LIVE

    2:00 pm    STS-40 musculoskeletal investigations briefing with Dr.
          Kenneth Baldwin, from JSC.  LIVE

    2:30 pm    STS-40 briefing on other disciplines and tests with Dr.
          Gary Jahns, from JSC.  LIVE

    3:30 pm    STS-40 Get-Away-Special cannister briefings from
          Goddard Space Flight Center. LIVE


This report is filed daily at noon, Monday through Friday.  It is a service of
NASA's Office of Public Affairs.  The contact is Charles Redmond, 202/453-
8425 or CREDMOND on NASAmail.  NASA Select TV is carried on GE
Satcom F2R, transponder 13, C-Band, 72 degrees West Longitude,
transponder frequency is 3960 megaHertz, audio is offset 6.8 MHz,
polarization is vertical.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #601
*******************