Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO660.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 28KB

Date: Thu,  3 Jun 93 05:00:32
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #660
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  3 Jun 93       Volume 16 : Issue 660

Today's Topics:
                  Big Rock Can Hit Earth in Yr 2000
                          DSN Usage (2 msgs)
             Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO (9 msgs)
                    Limits Seen On Human Existence
                      Magellan Update - 05/29/93
                              Moon Base
             Redstone Trivia  (Was Re: Von Braun and Hg)
                 Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
              The Musgrave Maneuver(was: Story Musgrave)
              What's up with Motorola's Iridium project?

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 15:44:48 GMT
From: BEN <[e-mail]>
Subject: Big Rock Can Hit Earth in Yr 2000
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave
Tholen) writes:
> Henry Choy writes:
>
>> What's going to be done about Toutatis?
>
> Nothing, other than some astronomical observations.
>

It has been listed for the second Clementine mission for a launch in late
1995, to flyby asteroids 433 Eros on 15 March 1996 and 4179 Toutatis on
3 October 1996.  That info was from January; I haven't heard anything more
recent.

Ben

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 06:51:06 -0500
From: "Hoffman, Eric J." <[e-mail]>
Subject: DSN Usage
Newsgroups: sci.space

     An anecdotal data point re "how busy is DSN?"

     In 1983 I was at a meeting at JPL to negotiate DSN support for a
libration point mission we were designing at APL.  The DSN planning person
unrolled a huge chart showing the planned loading for each of their dishes
and other facilities.  The chart went up to the year 2014!  (And remember,
this was in 1983.)
                                                      --Eric Hoffman

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 11:29:20 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: DSN Usage
Newsgroups: sci.space

DSN may have planned events out through 2014,  probably to support
Voyager through the estimated lifetime of the RTG's,  but
I suspect most of the other planned activities are on a priority
scheme.   Figure out something really whizzy or show how it's
a one time event and you can blow away someone elses planned time.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 13:50:33 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1uho3i$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>>replacement to a typical satellite could be built and luanched for about
>>$225 M which is less than half the cost of a rescue mission.

>This is another example folks of an unreferenced number which mr. Sherzer
>puts out.

Amazing. This from the person who has yet to post a single reference or
number in any post. Instead of complaining about the mote in my eye,
you should see to the beam in your own.

>Mr. Sherzer, could you please inform the readers where
>and how you make these estimates.

Check out "Space Mission Analysis and Design" edited by Wertz and
Larson. It should give you all the numbers you need.

>Until you do, the post is meaningless
>because the numbers can not be confirmed nor understood.

May I conclude then that your postings are meaningless since you
don't post references or numbers?

>I urge you to follow standard science paper procedures in order to support
>your contentions, that means posting references, page numbers, and methods.

I have done so many times in the past. I urge you to follow your own
advice.

>Allen, do understand what it takes to get three astronauts out on a
>simulataneous EVA?  You must!  How can you call that unworthy?

As a cost effective operation, it fails. As part of an ongoing program
of research on EVA, it could be justified. The problem is that there
was no such program of space based EVA research. Intelsat was PR, not
practice.

>If you claim to support spaceflight by men and women, how do you propose
>to support space operations and space station work if you can't learn
>how to perform EVA's?

I propose we accomplish it by spending a lot less $$.

If you claim to support spaceflight by men and women, why do you
support this wasteful spending which our opponents use to show
that manned space will never work? I have asked you this question
several times. I note you ignore it every time.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------14 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 14:25:56 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1uhp3e$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

   We are not wasting billions for emotional attachment...
   we have a program which is helping Americans maintain
   preemince in spaceflight.

Dream on. Americans have not been pre-eminent in spaceflight since
February 20th 1986.

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 14:27:39 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1uhp3e$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>>Marginal cost of what? Divide the Shuttle hardware line item in the budget
>>by the flight rate and you will see that they consume $100 to $200 million
>>per flight.

>Just for my own edification, it is not clear to me which line items you are
>looking at.

Glad to. There is a line item in the Shuttle budget called "Flight Hardware".
The 1994 budget request is for $1,398.2 million. Divide this by a flight
rate of six to eight and you get a cost of $233M to $175M per flight.

It therefore seems unlikely that an incrimental cost of $37M per
mission can be justified.

>please post how you are calculating your figures so the world
>can understand you figures.

I would ask you to do the same.

>>I wold use the normal accounting methods. I am willing to hold DC to those
>>numbers and I point out that is far stricter than I do for Shuttle.

>Please post your view of what normal accounting methods are.

Talk to the SEC and take an accounting class. Generally, development
costs should be charged to the users. If a technology or part is
amortized, charge fair production costs.

In a nutshell, everything in the Shuttle development budget (or DC
development budget, or any development budget) should be charged to
the users. This creative allocation of costs Shuttle supporters use
to make some missions look a bit cheaper doesn't work.

Governments can do it to us, but they tend to throw you in jail
if you do it to them.

>>So why should Shuttle get special treatment? As to it being a necessary
>>step, maybe or maybe not. But if we are going to make progress, we must
>>not waste billions just to serve our emotional attachment.

>We are not wasting billions for emotional attachment...

Well then let's see your cost analysis. Show me that the $$ is being
well spent. Apply to yourself the same standards you apply to others
and post the numbers with references.

>we have a program which is helping Americans maintain
>preemince in spaceflight.

We have a set of programs which are costing more and more and producing
less and less. far from maintaining 'preemince' in space, we are spiraling
in.

>I don't ask for special treatment for the shuttle
>program.  I, however, object to your overly critical stance of the program.

Then justify it with the references and numbers you seem to want so much.
So far, all I see from you is: 'Gee, it's cool! Let's shovel the money
in!'.

>Your posts are decidedly slanted against the program.

No, they are a reasonable assessment of the costs of the program. It's
not my fault if you can't find applications worth the cost.

>As for my postings, I'm wasting so much time trying to address your flames,

Perhaps you should work smarter and not harder. Post your numbers, the
same numbers you flame others for not posting yet never post yourself.

    Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------14 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 11:09:52 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
|In article <1ughu2$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
|>>[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
|>>>and a jet engine assist on landing.
|>>Buran does not have jet engines.
|>Really?
|
|Really.  The original plan was to have them on there, and they did in fact
|strap a couple on for landing tests, instead of doing drop-tests like we
|did with the Enterprise, but the flight configuration has no engines.  It
|glides in just like the U.S. shuttle.
|--


I seem to recall reading somewhere during the Drop tests of Buran that
they were even thinking of doing a Once around touch and go.

Did they do that?  could you imagine the climb rate for a shuttle class
vehicle.  Sponge comes to mind.

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 11:19:32 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:
|In article <1uhp3e$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
|
|   We are not wasting billions for emotional attachment...
|   we have a program which is helping Americans maintain
|   preemince in spaceflight.
|
|Dream on. Americans have not been pre-eminent in spaceflight since
|February 20th 1986.


I would posit,  that the STS is putting us into third place.

pat

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 11:23:59 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1uho3i$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
|
|>Allen, do understand what it takes to get three astronauts out on a
|>simulataneous EVA?  You must!  How can you call that unworthy?
|
|As a cost effective operation, it fails. As part of an ongoing program
|of research on EVA, it could be justified. The problem is that there
|was no such program of space based EVA research. Intelsat was PR, not
|practice.
|


Don't the russians already hold the record for max number of people
in space at the same time?
Dennis newkirk probably knows...

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 15:34:00 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:
>In article <1uhp3e$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>
>   We are not wasting billions for emotional attachment...
>   we have a program which is helping Americans maintain
>   preemince in spaceflight.
>
>Dream on. Americans have not been pre-eminent in spaceflight since
>February 20th 1986.
>
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^





What has happened on this day ? Did I miss something ?
Pawel Moskalik

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 14:42:51 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

Note that despite my name both starting and ending the following
extract, I said none of the material in between (it was all quotes
from yet other people).  The inclusion marks show that, but electing
to respond to the quotations in my note rather than to the originals
(and thus including my name at the top) is potentially somewhat
misleading.  Let's try and be a bit more careful out there, ok,
Dennis?

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes...
>>In <1ttm8j$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>

>>>Ken,
>>
>>>pat.
>>
>>>Don't include contingency satellitte return missions.  It would have
>>>been cheaper to build new ones  and pop them off.
>>--
>>[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

>It is real funny for me to read the "experts" talking about the cost of
>satellite construction from those who have never laid their hands on one, or
>been responsible for the construction and operation of one.

>If you want to make statements like this back them up with numbers both the
>cost of reconstruction and the cost in lost revenues during the construction
>period.

Note that people have already provided these numbers long ago, Dennis.
And if you want to include 'cost in lost revenues during the
construction period', be sure to also include cost in lost revenues
while awaiting repair and relaunch.  I don't think that even NASA
argues that it is *cheaper* to retrieve the typical satellite and
relaunch it than it is to simply replace it and launch the replacement
(the driver on this is launch costs, of course, but has to include all
the special training and hardware necessary for bringing the satellite
back down (you can't just chuck it into the cargo bay).  Oh, also
don't forget to add in the cost of *not* launching something, since
you have to take up an extra launch slot for the recovery (lost
payload due to whatever landing cradle is necessary for the satellite
you're bringing back, plus required supplies, tools, etc.).

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 15:17:47 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1uhp3e$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>Wingo says:
>>>Marginal Cost of Shuttle Mission
>>>$37 million (From Space News a few months ago)

>sherzer writes:
>>Marginal cost of what? Divide the Shuttle hardware line item in the budget
>>by the flight rate and you will see that they consume $100 to $200 million
>>per flight.

>Just for my own edification, it is not clear to me which line items you are
>looking at.  please post how you are calculating your figures so the world
>can understand you figures.

Well, start with the one labeled 'Shuttle Operations' and work from
there.  The difference between the two numbers is that Dennis removes
the cost of the 'standing army' and facilities maintenance to arrive
at 'marginal cost', since you have to have those things to launch only
one.  Note that while this gives you 'marginal cost' for an additional
flight (provided you have not reached your maximum flight rate yet),
this is *not* the way one would allocate costs using standard
accounting.

>>>Also I just had to get this in. Are you going to charge DCX for the thermal
>>>protection system developments for the Shuttle that is being applied to
>>>the DC series?

>>I wold use the normal accounting methods. I am willing to hold DC to those
>>numbers and I point out that is far stricter than I do for Shuttle.

>Please post your view of what normal accounting methods are.  I cannot
>ascertain your statement and my analysis of Saturn launch vehicle costs
>without you posting your view of "normal accounting methods."

Take an accounting course.  Listen for the phrase GAAP.

>Wingo said:
>>>Lighten up Allen. Shuttle ain't perfect but it is a necessary step in the
>>>process.

>Allen said:
>>So why should Shuttle get special treatment? As to it being a necessary
>>step, maybe or maybe not. But if we are going to make progress, we must
>>not waste billions just to serve our emotional attachment.

>We are not wasting billions for emotional attachment...
>we have a program which is helping Americans maintain
>preemince in spaceflight.  I don't ask for special treatment for the shuttle
>program.  I, however, object to your overly critical stance of the program.

In other words, you don't want it to receive 'special treatment', but
you don't want anyone to criticize all the bad parts of the system.
Interesting, that.  Sorry, but the Shuttle *deserves* to be
criticized on all sorts of grounds.

>Your posts are decidedly slanted against the program.  Every post
>you make has at least one attempt to discredit the program.

While you are apparently blind to any flaws.

>As for my postings, I'm wasting so much time trying to address your flames,
>that I haven't been able to finish my paper on Saturn V launch history,
>STS launch history.

So stop wasting time and finish your paper.  Why do you think you have
to "address ... flames"?  Given your stated criteria, your paper is
useless anyway, since you want to count vehicle mass as 'mass to
orbit' and 'return mass'.  Rather like deciding what you want to prove
and then selecting definitions for the numbers to arrive at the
desired conclusions, if you ask me.  Try just counting *payload* and
see what numbers you get.

>I reiterate:  please post your accounting methods, your references for DC-1
>costs, your references for the shuttle program costs,  we need to be able
>to confirm these numbers on our own.

So do so.  Use standard accounting methods (pick up a book), published
numbers for DC-1 (Allan gave them all, with sources, in a note some
time ago).  Refer to the NASA budget for those line items having to do
with Shuttle operations.

The conclusions are obvious, but you don't want to see them.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 2 Jun 93 11:06:33 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Limits Seen On Human Existence
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] () writes:
> Has anyone read this article in the Science Times of today's New York Times?
> A certain Dr. J. Richard Gott has developed a method for predicting the
> likely maximum lifetime of a given object.  He maintains that the "longevity
> of things can be estimated remarkably well from their histories," and that
> all one needs to do that is know how old a given thing is now, and  to assume
> that there is nothing special about it to distinguish it from other like things
> or events.
>
>
> I find his theory hard to accept, and am tempted to loudly say "Poppycock!"
> I don't think the universe is that predictable, and that such a theory
> could apply very well to things like human activity (space programs).  It
> seems to carry with it some very heavy assumptions.
>
> Peter Schlumpf
> [e-mail]
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Have a look at last weeks issue of Nature, which has the original paper in.
This explains how he derives the limits given and goes on to explore a lot more
examples and other implications.

I can';t say I agree with him, and think that the method is somewhat akin to
numerology, but he makes interesting arguments that hold up quite well. I
*think* there are holes in it. It'll be interesting to see what the article
produces by way of letters to Nature this week!



>
>
> --
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> Peter Schlumpf
> [e-mail]
--
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax            |  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro        |           Saint Germain...
================================================================================

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 11:00:04 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 05/29/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

>[e-mail] (Ron Baalke)
>>4.  Currently the solar panels increase by 35 degrees C during the
>>drag pass, reaching a peak of 50 degrees C.  The aerobraking limit is
>>about 160 degrees.  The estimated temperature of the HGA is 85 degrees C.


If  Magellan body parts had dramatically overheated,   can the
aero-braking be stopped or slowed down?  is there enough
fuel to start and re-start the procedure several times????

pat

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 15:32:47 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>Zubrin's Lunar hardware is identicle to that required for Mars Direct,
>except for the landing stage: The aeroshell/parachute is replaced
>by an additional propulsive stage.

Actually, my recollection is that he doesn't use any extra propulsion:
the Moon's lower gravity makes up for the lack of atmosphere, and the
fuel requirements turn out to be roughly the same.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 11:05:58 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Redstone Trivia  (Was Re: Von Braun and Hg)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
|Get this. The second stage firing time was ascertained by "listening" for
|the doppler from the rf beacon and from HAND CALCULATIONS of the time
|that the stage would be tilted over to 90 degrees from the ballistics of
|being at the top of the stage's arc!!!! These calculations were carried
|out by Dr. Charles Lundquist (My Boss) and Dr. Ernst Sthulinger (Von Braun
|Team).
|


While this is always impressive,  if one has properly set up
the equations,  it is not so difficult to do these
problems by hand.

One could almost  pre-solve a series of these equations
and have them in tabular form.

Let's not forget Dennis,  that Abacus operators easily
outperformed computers of that time for small calculations.

pat

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 14:28:57 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (bill nelson) writes:
>>: logically cool one at that.  Initially, I think space advertising will
>>: appeal to a lot of people simply due to its novelty.  Maybe it will
>>: proliferate, but I think it will go the way of Burma-Shave signs and
>>: highway billboards.  Who really reads billboards anyways?

>>Unfortunately, the only place highway billboards have gone away is where
>>they have been legislated out of existance...

>Then the only place they have gone away is in Utah: Allowing highway
>billboards is a condition for receving federal highway funds. Utah
>refused to allow tabaccoo ads on non-interstate highways, and doesn't
>get non-interstate highway funds as a result...

Hmmmm.  Thought it was a refusal on the part of Utah to spend the
money to 'prove' that they were enforcing compliance with the 55 MPH
speed limit that caused that.  I didn't think they got funds for
Interstates, either, except for those funds specially appropriated
that weren't part of the standard 'Federal Highway Fund' slush bucket.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 2 Jun 1993 15:07:58 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Musgrave Maneuver(was: Story Musgrave)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Claudio Egalon) wrote:
>
> >>
> >>    Story has the following degrees:
> >>
> >>     1) B.S. Math and Statistics (Syracuse)
> >>     2) M.B.A (UCLA)
> >>     3) B.A. Chemistry (Marietta College)
> >>     4) M.D. (Columbia, surgical internship at UK Medical Center)
> >>     5) M.S. Physiology and Biophysics (University of Kentucky)
> >>     6) M.A. Literature (University of Houston)
> >>
> >> And, as if this wasn't enough, he has flown more than 17,000 hours in
> >> 160 types of aircraft.
>
> >And he has something like 6 kids.  Damn overachiever!
>
>
> I read in the book "The Making of an Ex-Astronaut", by Brian O'Leary,
> that the astronauts used to refer to Musgrave's over-achievement  as
> the "Musgrave Maneuver". Gosh!!! And he still have six kids!!! That is
> really impressive! I have the feelling that he was also in the military,
> is it true?

I met Musgrave once...... about 4 or 5 years ago..... at JSC..... in the
tech manual library....  He was digging through the ops manuals and tech
guides.....  That's atypical...particularly for a vet crewmember.  He's
also been in a couple of my friend's classes....

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 11:30:13 CET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: What's up with Motorola's Iridium project?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Would you be so nice to send the report as well to me?
Thanx
       -Thorsten-

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Thorsten Nedderhut                |  Disclaimer:
mbp Informationstechnologie GmbH  |
c/o ESA/ESOC/FCSD/OAD/STS         |  Neither ESA nor mbp is responsible
Darmstadt, Germany                |  for my postings!
[e-mail]              |

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 660
------------------------------