Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_768.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-03 | 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/QcQMNKG00WBwE8Wk5H>;
          Wed,  3 Jul 91 04:09:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  3 Jul 91 04:09:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #768

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 768

Today's Topics:
              Re: Fred's Operatic Death
             Re: Access to Space
            Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise
          What should we spend on astronauts
               Re: Launch failure today
           Re: Excavating (mining) in space
               Re: Freedom Cost

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]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 18 Jun 91 18:57:51 GMT
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!news.arc.nasa.gov!skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer)
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards AFB, CA
Subject: Re: Fred's Operatic Death
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) writes:

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

>>  'Do NASA employees post self-serving propaganda (also 'should NASA...')'
>>  argument deleted.

>I have the damned feeling I've seen this thread before. How did the
>tiff that ended with Ms Shafer briefly leaving sci.space start?

Wit Nick Szabo claiming that NASA employees should only post stuff that
Nick thought was OK.  That is, it was OK for the informational stuff
to appear, but if one disagreed with Nick .....

I'm a lot calmer now that I don't read Nick's shit.  (Not nicer, just
calmer.)

--
Mary Shafer  [e-mail]  ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
           NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                     Of course I don't speak for NASA
            "Turn to kill, not to engage."  CDR Willie Driscoll

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 18 Jun 91 00:37:59 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains
Subject: Re: Access to Space
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
[In reply to Allen Sherzer]

>We need self-sufficient infrastructure, which is what I have been
>advocating.  You have been promoting 1960's tin cans, which have
>nothing to do with infrastructure or the economical habitation of space.

Well, let me think.  Past technology is right out, (as it should be, IMHO)
and current technology is out, so what does that leave for development
of manned presence in space?  We'll never get to space if we don't try
to learn about it, and that's what we're doing right now.  Each step in
the manned space program (X-15/manned capsules/Shuttle/NASP) is or
will be another step towards a viable manned presence, each of which built
on the program before it.  There will always be unmanned projects worthy
of funding, but if we follow your logic then there will never be a manned
one worthy of it.  I much prefer the way we do things now.

>Meanwhile, most of the technology and exploration needed to expand our
>self-sufficient infrastructure remains unfunded, due to the neglect of the
>NASA leadership and promoters of astronaut programs such as yourself,
>greedily soaking up the bulk of the funds for short-term, astronauts-now
>projects.

Yeah, yeah, and if we did things your way, the technology and development
needed to improve our manned capabilities in space would remain unfunded,
due to the absorption of funds by greedy unmanned-science types.  Where's
the gain?  Fund them *both*, as we are now.

>Furthermore, over 90% of the self-sufficient industry is in GEO and SSO,
>not LEO.   Putting $multi-billion centralized satellites in LEO is
>pork barrel, not infrastructure.

Communications satellites are a pretty loose defintion of 'industry'; I
am not terribly impressed by an example that uses passive objects in high
orbit that do little more than bounce and amplify signals sent from the
ground.

GEO is easier to reach, safer for both manned and unmanned endeavours,
and easier to get back from; I see nothing wrong with working in it.

>>And yet they still feel the need to build Hermes so they can have a manned
>>program.

>Only as a sad mimicry of the U.S.   Europe (largely France) also has

And the Soviet Union.  China and Japan are also working on manned
space programs.  Great Britain is considering launching manned vehicles
from the back of a Soviet transport craft.  But hey, they're all just
copying the U.S., so we can dismiss their efforts as pork-barreling
and groupiness, too.
--
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_

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 18 Jun 91 15:59:01 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!sol1.gps.caltech.edu![e-mail]  (Carl J Lydick)
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Subject: Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Carter) writes:
>The terminal velocity of a cable of density 1.7 must be
>considered.  If the cable is only an inch or two in diameter
>and the lengths are not long enough to whip the ends up to
>high speed ("range-safety" equipment is indicated!), terminal
>velocity will not be high, and damage will be small.

I've never seen a proposed beanstalk with that small a cross-section.

>>     The thread title says "Beanstalk reprise".
>
>Beanstalks are a class of tether.  Weren't you here for the lecture?

>>     Beanstalks aren't possible given today's technology. I
>>agree with you... again !!
>
>Agreed.  However, they are possible given MATERIALS known
>today.  This is a crucial distinction; we know what to shoot
>for, and even many of the physical processes required.

A couple of years ago there was a science fact article in Analog Science
Fiction/Science Fact that concluded that if we properly understand the
mechanisms of chemical bonds, there is no material theoretically capable of the
strength needed for a beanstalk on Earth (on the Moon or Mars, yes; on the
Earth, no).  However, the article concluded that pinwheels would be feasible.
Anybody out there got that issue of Analog (or about as good, the issues with
the indices in them) and willing to let us know which article I'm talking
about?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 18 Jun 91 21:38:04 GMT
From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Subject: What should we spend on astronauts
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wayne Lee) writes:

>I think I and a lot of others out there would be especially
>interested in EXACTLY what aspects (if any) of manned space
>flight including the shuttle does he support as "useful".

I support continuation of the Shuttle flights, with a goal of
reducing the costs from $4 billion a year to $2 billion per year
over 5 years.   Cost savings would come from:

* No longer launching cargo.  Instead, every flight would
  be a Spacelab flight.  Payload integration for every flight
  would be similar and become routine.
* Reducing EVAs (only do those most essential, eg Hubble repair)
* Reducing the number planned flights from 10 to 5 per year.
* Returning to pre-Challenger levels of operational funding.
  Operational costs per flight were nearly half today's costs, and
  the safety risk was not demonstrably different.

The Shuttle should be primarily used to fly Spacelab.  Flight
durations should be lengthened to three weeks.  The planned
flight frequency would be 5 per year (the actual historical frequency
is 4.5/year, but plans usually call for 8-10 per year).  The overall
man*hours in space would double.  For life sciences we should launch
physicians (NASA did this on the latest Spacelab, which is a good
sign).  For microgravity research microgravity scientists.  All
other astronaut categories would be reduced (eg pilots) or eliminated.
We can quibble over the actual numbers; that is the general direction
we need to go.

At this point in space development it is not worthwhile spending
more than 20% of the NASA budget to fly astronauts.  Space exploration
and aerospace research should obtain the bulk of the funding.  When
self-sustaining industrial infrastructure has been set up to take
advantage of extraterrestrial resources, the cost of supporting
astronauts in space will drop by several orders of magnitude, and
the era of self-sufficient human inhabitation of space will begin.



--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
Embrace Change...  Keep the Values...  Hold Dear the Laughter...
These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.

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

Date: 19 Jun 91 03:46:59 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex![e-mail]  (Rick Phung)
Subject: Re: Launch failure today

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Christopher Neufeld) writes:


>   Well, I just saw a throwaway bite on the evening news relating to the
>destruction by range safety of an unmanned rocket. The footage had a
>round decal with Orbital Sciences Corporation on it, and the same
>written across the bottom of the screen, and the voice in the original
>broadcast, though obscured by the local newsguy, did include the word
>"prospector".
>   What was this launch? I wasn't aware of any prospectors due up in the
>next little while. While we're at it, what was the launch vehicle? It
>sure didn't look like a Pegasus.
             ^^^^^^^

    I don't think it was a Pegasus either, since it was ground-launched
(as opposed to from wing of B-52).  The only other details I heard was that
it happened ~25 sec. into the flight, and that a "million-dollar scientific
package" was ejected which parachuted into the ocean.  The "package" still
hasn't been recovered.

>--
> Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | If ignorance is bliss
> [e-mail]    Ad astra  | why aren't there more
> cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com               | happy people?
> "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |

--
Rick Phung
[e-mail]
Tulane University
New Orleans, LA

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

Date: 17 Jun 91 17:32:19 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!hsvaic![e-mail]  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Excavating (mining) in space

Let us look at the relative markets for gold and steel (figures are
approximate)

    Gold    30 million oz/yr @ $400/oz    = $12 billion/year
    Steel    600 million tons @ $300/ton    = $180 billion/year

In addition, the production of steel on Earth is a major consumer
of energy, and directly uses coal in the reduction of iron ore.

So, if you can find a way to deliver megatons of iron-nickel asteroid
for anything reasonable in cost, there is plenty of market around
to soak up the product and pay you for your efforts.

Dani Eder

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 17 Jun 91 18:19:05 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!hsvaic![e-mail]  (Dani Eder)
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL
Subject: Re: Freedom Cost
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>
>>Operations Cost: Everything that happens after Development and
>>Production, i.e. launch, assembly in orbit, and use.  Most of
>>the life cycle is incurred here.
>
>But if the the shuttle launches are a separate ($54.4B) item here, and
>so are personnel costs ($25B), what does the $50B under Operations
>Cost pay for?
>
>Does this figure include additional modules?  (It seems that expanding
>the station would probably fall under either Development or
>Production.)  Or do they just expect it to cost 1.25B/year for
>maintenance, supplies, and repairs?

Operations cost is by definition money that goes to contractors,
since internal NASA costs (personnel, building maintenance,etc.)
are funded out of the "Research and Program Management" item.

Part of the $1.5 billion per year is the internal NASA tax to pay
for continued operation of Neutral Buoyancy tanks, vacuum chambers,
etc. that are used by more than one program.  Each program is assessed
a share of the cost of these facilities, and the actual money ends
up with contractors who do the maintenance and operation of the
equipment.

Another big chunk goes for payload integration.  Teledyne-Brown
Engineering and Lockheed are major subcontractors to Boeing for
US lab equipment and experiment racks.  They have to take a piece
of equipment that an experimenter has built, mount it into a rack,
hook up all the utilities, test it, write software for the space
station computers to run the experiment, or alternatively write
procedures for the crew to run the equipment, train the crew,
put the rack in with all the other racks for that mission set
into the ground simulator (essentially a hangar queen US lab
module made from the prototype #1 unit off the production line,
the #2 unit goes into space), see if the experiments make
trouble for each other (EMI, etc.).  And all of this takes place
in class 100,000 high bays with certain areas at class 10,000
(they are building a clean room about the size of a football field
to build the SSF modules in).

Oh yeah, then there is packing the logistics modules for each flight,
i.e. loading the food and clean clothes, unpacking the waste
(concentrated urine brine, dried fecal matter, dirty laudry and
trash), spare parts maufacturing and warehousing, contractor
personnel at the ground control center, etc.

Enough?
>
>Where does the oft-quoted $30B figure come from?  Is this development
>costs + shuttle launches for the initial configuration?

That is probably the cumulative cost through assembly complete,
which can be found by simply taking $5B spent so far plus $2.5B
per year through the 90's (this is what NASA wanted to spend,
not what they'll get)
>
>Finally, does this mean that NASA is only 25% over their original
>proposed cost ($10B vs. $8B)?  And was Congress aware in 1984 of the
>difference in expense between the proposed cost and the life-cycle
>cost?
>--

Yes, accounting for inflation, the cost is not that much over the
original estimate.  After all, from 1984 to today there has been
35% inflation, and projecting to the mid 90's ( the midpoint of
development), then the total inflation will be about 58%, so the
$16B development cost translates back to $10B in 1984, or about
25% over the original number.

As an institution, I doubt Congress is aware of anything in the sense
of a sentient being.  But seriously, the life cycle number did not
exist in 1984.  It was first calculated by me for Boeing in 1988, and
as far as I was able to determine, a number was not developed at
any higher level (Program office in reston, VA, or NASA HQ) for official
use.  Anyone familiar with the program requirements document and the
annual expenses for the shuttle program could worked out the LCC,
but it was not done on an official basis.

The reason I developed the number for Boeing was I was the lead
engineer for trade studies, and I needed cost tradeoff numbers
for other people to use.  Our objective was to make choices that
lowered the overall life cycle cost of the program.  This is what
led us to closed water and air loops in life support.  Subsequently,
closure of the air loop was deferred a few years to lower the annual
expenses in the early years (i.e. now), even though the total LCC
went up because now you have to develop an oxygen supply system
working off of tanks for a few years in addition to developing
the closed system that recycles CO2.

This is one way messing with the annual budget drives up the total
cost of the program.

Dani Eder

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #768
*******************