Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V11_0/V11_068.ZIP/V11_068

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.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/sZsXHeu00VcJ85Kk4u>;
          Wed, 21 Feb 90 01:27:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 01:27:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #68

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 11 : Issue 68

Today's Topics:
       Re: Fun Space Fact #1: Launcher Development Costs (long)
     Re:UCAR to study possible uses of external tanks (Forwarded)
             Fun Fact #1 Comments
               Re: Spacecraft on Venus
        Re: measurement standards (aerospace)
         NASA Headline News for 02/20/90 (Forwarded)
       Re: Fun Space Fact #1: Launcher Development Costs (long)
               Giotto Update - 02/20/90
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 90 17:34:40 GMT
From: mcgill-vision!clyde.concordia.ca!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Fun Space Fact #1: Launcher Development Costs (long)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>> If NASA had been given every cent it wanted, the shuttle
>>> would still not be able to meet the schedule or cost promises --
>
>This would seem to depend on just exactly when one chooses to take
>one's benchmark, vis a vis costs, plans, and promises.  I believe
>that the original system proposed at NASA involved a smaller, less
>complex vehicle than the current Shuttle (which would have
>consequently had lesser demands for processing) and a liquid-fueled
>flyback booster.

Actually, the original system proposed by NASA had both stages manned,
liquid-fueled, and recoverable.  Both would have been at least as
complex as the current orbiter, if not more so.  The USAF's demands
for a bigger orbiter with more cross range increased the size of the
bird considerably but didn't affect complexity much.

>In the face of budgetary pressures and the necessity of accepting funds
>from (and meeting requirements for on-orbit delta-vee of) DoD, the
>larger more complex Shuttle with solid boosters and its (relatively)
>delicate main engine evolved.

NASA planned to push the technology hard on the main engines from the
beginning; a smaller shuttle might have had smaller engines, but I see
no reason to believe they would have been any less troublesome.  And
again, I don't see how the smaller size would have reduced complexity
significantly.

>>> ... there aren't enough pads or VAB bays for that mass
>>> processing.
>
>... If we can postulate the
>addition of orbiters to the fleet and crews to fly and process them,
>why is it such a great step to further postulate the addition of
>pads to fly them from and VAB facilities to process them in?

The skyrocketing price tag, basically.  One has to distinguish between
funds that NASA realistically might have received if Congressional
support had been somewhat stronger, and pipe dreams that would never
have been funded under any plausible circumstances.  Remember, also,
that NASA didn't expect the processing to be so bad, and hence would
not have budgeted or planned for such a massive increase in facilities.
It's one thing to say "this is a prerequisite" at the beginning; it's
quite another to say "oops, we goofed, we need three more VABs and six
more pads" ten years into the program.

>But all that is still irrelevent to my point; that being that if
>NASA had gotten what it asked for in the first place we would have a
>very DIFFERENT Shuttle than that which we currently possess.

True.  It would at least have had liquid-fuel boosters.  I'm not really
convinced that the turnaround situation would have been much better,
though.  My original statement still stands -- NASA could not have met
schedule or cost promises even with ample funding -- because those
promises have been scaled back again and again to "match" the available
funding, and NASA hasn't been able to meet them, ever.  The problem is
fundamental, not an accident of a funding shortage at a particular time.
The space station is repeating the same pattern.

>>> Sure about that?  The laser-launcher people say that the largest
>>> payload which absolutely has to go up in one piece is a human with
>>> life support.  That can be done with a couple of thousand pounds,
>>> possibly rather less.
>
>Well, until such time as you'd care to postulate many hundreds of
>launches of these light boosters per day, I think I can probably
>safely stand by my statement.

"Many hundreds"?  Where do you get "many hundreds"?  It doesn't take
that many 2000-pound launches to equal the entire capacity of the
current shuttle fleet (which is, optimistically, ten 40000-pound
launches per year).  That's about a launch a day, which is not that
far from what the Soviets can do now if pushed.

I dimly recall a design sketch from Jordin Kare's group for a laser
launcher costing about half a billion dollars that could launch more
than the entire shuttle fleet, for that matter.

>Over the long term, putting things together is undoubtedly cheaper
>than building them in one piece down here and then having to loft
>them in one piece.  But it assumes having someone at the other end to
>do the assembling.  And in order for costs to remain cheap when
>including *that* cost, it's necessary to postulate some way for
>those folks (or machines) doing that assembling to remain on
>station.  And so on.

Um, why is that such a fundamental difficulty?  Or are you pricing that
based on the Incredible Gold-Plated Space Station?  It takes *one* of
those 2000-pound launches to add a human to the collection of payloads
comprising a mission.  Be generous and add one more for a little tug to
bring the pieces together (there are tug designs a lot smaller than
2000 pounds).  For a payload the size of a shuttle load -- 40000 pounds,
20 launches -- that's a 10% overhead.  That seems bearable.

Yes, it would be better to have an orbital base for such things.  That
can be on the level of Mir, however, and need not cost even as much as
Mir, never mind Expensivedom er excuse me I meant Freedom.

>>> better materials and somewhat better electronics, and that's about it.
>
>And you don't consider that better materials and electronics, coupled
>with improvements in manufacturing (which have gone on regardless of
>what NASA did), are enough to warrant some comment?

Actually, not much.  It is verifiably easy to launch modest payloads
with 1950s technology.  (The Soviets are still doing it!)  Ten years'
progress in materials and electronics is certainly useful, but building
a shuttle lookalike wouldn't be that much easier or cheaper now.  If
Amroc had been working twenty years ago, the only real problem I can
see them having that they don't have today is somewhat heavier engine
casings.  The other materials and electronics issues are second-order
effects.  The technologies that really matter, notably propulsion, have
been just about completely stagnant.  And Amroc (and the other small
launch companies) by and large are not using leading-edge technology,
because that's a good way to spend billions.

>No, they're not doing anything that couldn't have been done, but
>they're able to do it more easily and more cheaply...

Not that much more easily and more cheaply.  They'd have needed more
money to do it ten years ago, but not whole bunches more.
--
"The N in NFS stands for Not, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
or Need, or perhaps Nightmare"| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Feb 90 00:00:30 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Re:UCAR to study possible uses of external tanks (Forwarded)


   Does anyone have information on the empty mass of the external tanks which
are currently being used with the shuttle.  I believe that the design has been
changed at least once to lighten it, as a result of experience gained during
the early flights.  Has the design of the tank stabilized, or are further
designed changes in the works?
     - Bruce

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

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 15:25 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Fun Fact #1 Comments

Was there any restriction placed on the possibility of a collaboration
of some of these small scale efforts?  Seems to me that some clever folk
would pool their resources and thier piece of the 30 billion and come up
with some not-so-light launchers

George K. Ott  just a BSEE, not allowed to have opinions yet :)
UW-Madison High Energy Physics

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

Date: 20 Feb 90 20:25:28 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Re: Spacecraft on Venus

1) The US has never sent a lander to Venus.  Only flybys, orbiters, and
   semi-hard impacts (which did survive a while).
2) We don't know precisely why the Soviet probes have failed.
3) You are making the problem metallic, the real problem is heat build up.
   Sustained presence will require heavy active cooling, and the
   development of high temperature electronics, the likes of which have never
   been seen before.
4) It's important to have a well defined goal when sending a craft.  It
   makes it easier to ask for the bucks.

P.S. Your mail path was really munged.  You should include a return
  signature.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene
  Do you expect anything BUT generalizations on the net?
  [If it ain't source, it ain't software -- D. Tweten]

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

Date: 20 Feb 90 20:52:52 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer (OFV))
Subject: Re: measurement standards (aerospace)

Maybe men can use base 21 while women use base 20?

Surely you've all heard of the guy who was too dumb to count to
21 with his clothes on.
--

Mary Shafer  [e-mail] or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
         NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                   Of course I don't speak for NASA

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

Date: 20 Feb 90 19:03:39 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 02/20/90 (Forwarded)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, February 20, 1990                    Audio: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, February 20......

The Galileo spacecraft completed its last photo image of
Venus last Friday night -- exactly one week after its closest
approach.  Today, a new computer sequence is in effect through
March 26th in preparation for the next tour of duty.  The
spacecraft is now 40 million Miles from Earth and 3.15 million
miles from Venus.


The Washington Post today reported scientists are unable to find
the debris from the supernova 1987A that should have collapsed
into a neutron star -- meaning the pulsar that was seen in the
smoking ruins of 1987A didn't really exist.  The finding was
revealed at the annual meeting at the American Association for
the Advancement of Science in New Orleans.


Two Mir cosmonauts have landed after 166 days in space.  They
appeared in good shape during a parachute landing in the Russian
steppe after testing the space "motorcycle" and an American
experiment exposing protein crystals to weightlessness for a
Commerce Department-approved company, Payload Systems, inc.


Meanwhile, Soviet lawmakers toured the Kennedy Space Center
Sunday as the shuttle Atlantis were readied for launch of a DoD
classified mission.  In addition to the Soviet delegation,
Britain's Prince Charles was given a tour of the KSC facility by
Director Forrest McCartney.


The commander and pilot for the STS-36 mission for Space Shuttle
Atlantis took off in a shuttle training aircraft at 3:30AM today
-- simulating emergency and darkness training.  The flight ended
at sunrise.


The Atlantis flight crew were awakened last night at 7 PM on their
new sleep schedule in preparation for the night flight.  They
ate dinner at 9:30 AM and go back to sleep noon today.  All lab
work is complete and they had a fit check for their space suits.
A standard launch minus 2-day readiness review test is scheduled
at KSC for 1 PM today.  The forecast for the four hour launch
window calls for a 60 percent chance of acceptable weather.


                           ####



----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA
Select TV.  All times are Eastern:



Wednesday, February 21......

           11:00 PM   video feed begins of STS-36 mission launch
                      only coverage.  Launch is scheduled between
                      midnight and 4:00 AM on February 22nd.


Thursday, February 22.......

           11:30 AM   NASA Update will be transmitted


All events and times are subject to change without notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon,
Eastern time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 20 Feb 90 14:52:59 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Fun Space Fact #1: Launcher Development Costs (long)

In the vast article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
 ...
>And the Shuttle, despite all its flaws, has overall been about as
>reliable a system as any other experimental vehicle.

This is damning with faint praise, since while the Shuttle may possess
the soul of an experimental vehicle (and the problems of one), it is
being used (and, indeed, billed) as an *operational* vehicle.

>                                                      We can play
>the political games of Mr. Bowery and simply declare that a system
>which hasn't flown will be "likely to work very well", or we can
>play the emotionalist games of Mr. Neff and talk about the Shuttle
>that catastrophically failed

Name calling is an embarrassment to the readership.  The best and most
experienced posters know to address the issue, not the poster.  Enough
said.

>                                 (which failure doesn't seem to me to be
>related to "not working very well" so much as it was to some very
>bad bureaucratic decisionmaking - is a failure which occurs because
>a system is demanded to perform under conditions for which it wasn't
>designed "not working very well"?) without regard for the failure
>rate of other experimental vehicles or of other launchers.  But if
>that's the game, why bother to play?

Although the above has its contexts severely scrambled (my remark about
the Challenger mishap was in ironic assent to the objection that the
Shuttle does things a $30 million organization could never do; it had
nothing to do with the question of what "works well"), one could hardly
point to Challenger as evidence that the Shuttle DOES work well.  Keep
in mind that STS is supposed to be a SYSTEM, i.e. a working program,
not just a vehicle.  The failure of that SYSTEM to work properly is
what brought on Challenger.

Of what use is a vehicle that won't launch in the cold when it's been
tasked to launch all the time, anytime, as a reliable space 'truck'?
And are the ring-burning SRB's supposed to be considered as having
'worked well' even though the few engineers who knew the whole
disquieting truth beforehand cringed inwardly at every launch?

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

Date: 20 Feb 90 23:33:48 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Giotto Update - 02/20/90


                            Giotto Update
                          February 20, 1990

        The reactivation of the Giotto spacecraft was a success on the first
attempt. The project was able to access the spacecraft via the spacecraft's
omni antenna and turn on the S-band downlink. The tracking station in
Madrid, Spain, locked up 2 way and was able to turn on the spacecraft's
telemetry. JPL navigation was then able to generate and transmit an ODF
to the European Space Operation Facility (ESOC). Currently ESOC is planning
to realign the High Gain Antenna to Earth point and turn on the telemetry.
ESOC expressed thanks to NASA's Deep Space Network for their excellent
support.

 Ron Baalke                       |    [e-mail]
 Jet Propulsion Lab  M/S 301-355  |    [e-mail]
 4800 Oak Grove Dr.               |
 Pasadena, CA 91109               |

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #68
*******************